Smt. S Jyothi

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PILER

PRESENT : Smt S. JYOTHI, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Piler.

Friday, the Nineteenth (19th ) day of May, 2023.

O.S.No. 217 OF 2015

Between :

1. Ravula Suneetha,

2. Ravula Swetha @ Ravula Swetha Reddy (declared as major as in I.A.No.2267/2022, dt.22.12.2022)

.. Plaintiffs

And :

1. Ravula Narayana Reddy (died),

2. Ravula Reddeppa Reddy,

3. Ravula Jaya Chandra Reddy,

4. Ravula Reddemma,

5. Ravula Saraswathamma (added as per I.A.No.78/2018, dt.11.4.2018)

.. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 18.04.2023 in the presence of Sri Y. Singa Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiffs, and of Sri M. Bhavani Sankara, Advocate for defendants 1 to 3 and the defendant No.4 remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

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

This is a suit filed by plaintiffs for grant of preliminary decree for division of plaint schedule mentioned properties into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs after division by metes and bounds and direct the defendants to put the plaintiffs in separate possession and enjoyment of such shares and if they fail to do so, the same may be done through process of law and for costs of the suit.

02. Further during the suit, the defendant No.1 died on 29.12.2017, therefore, his legal heirs i.e, defendant No.2 to 4, 5th defendant who is the wife of the first defendant were added as per I.A.No.78/2018 dated 11.04.2018.

Thus, now the suit is for partition of suit property into 4 equal share and allotting one such share to the plaintiffs and for cost of the suit.

03. The averments of the plaint and amended plaint in brief are as follows:- Originally the suit schedule property succeeded by the first defendant

PJCJ, PILER2O.S.No. 217 OF 2015 from his ancestors who enjoyed the said property without division by metes and bounds. The first defendant through his legally wedded wife begot the sons by name Redeppa, Rama Chandra who is husband and father of plaintiffs,

Jayachandra and daughter by name Redemma. The husband and father of plaintiffs was died intestate leaving them as his legal heirs to succeed his estate.

Further submitted that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and some of them have been acquired by the first defendant in the capacity of kartha and manager of the joint family. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died leaving behind his wife and children as his legal heirs Further submitted that on account of differences of opinion among the family they have been messing separately and enjoying the properties jointly without actual division by metes and bounds.

04. The plaintiffs further submitted that the plaintiffs entitled to ¼th share, the first defendant is entitled to entitled to ¼th share, the second defendant is entitled to entitled to ¼th share, the 3rd defendant is entitled to entitled to ¼th share in the suit schedule properties and they have been enjoying the properties jointly without actual division by metes and bounds. Further submitted that marriage of 4th defendant was performed at about 36 years ago by giving cash,gold and other valuable presents thus she is not entitle to any share in the suit schedule properties.

05. Further submitted that the defendants are attempting to erase the ridges and occupy more extent of land and making attempts to dig trenches and preventing the plaintiffs to enjoy their legitimate extent which they are legally entitled and committing acts of waste and the plaintiffs feel it no longer safe to keep the suit properties jointly with the defendants which is detrimental to their interest. The plaintiffs conducted mediation through elders for amicable division by metes and bounds but defendants trying to create sham and nominal documents for imaginary extents and boundaries and the said documents do not

PJCJ, PILER3O.S.No. 217 OF 2015 bind or take away the legal right of the plaintiffs. Hence plaintiffs constrained to file this suit for partition and separate possession in the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds .

06.The defendant No.1 filed his written statement and the same was adopted by defendant No.2 and 3.

07.The averments of written statement of defendant No.1 in brief are as follows:-

The defendant No.1 denied all the allegations in the plaint and specifically pleaded that the during the life of the deceased Ramchandra reddy or after demise of the Ramachandra Reddy they never lived jointly and never enjoyed the plaint schedule properties jointly and the husband of the 1st plaintiff have no right in the said properties. The 1st defendant further submitted that either the plaintiffs or other defendants have no right in the plaint schedule properties and the said properties are his self acquired properties and he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment. The plaintiffs never conducted the mediation and alleged mediation was created for the purpose of the suit. He further submitted that after the marriage with the son of the 1st defendant by name Ramachandra

Reddy who is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of second plaintiff they never stayed in the house of the 1st defendant and separated from the house by taking cash and gold by relinquishing his right orally and 1st defendant paid the cash and gold to the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff and after separation, the husband of 1st plaintiff went to Gulf countries and earned money and purchased the properties in the name of 1st plaintiff and her father. Further submitted that 1st plaintiff got debts through her husband by name Ramachandra and she filed Insolvency petition at Hon’ble Senior Civil

Judge Court, Madanapalli and she filed this present suit to harass the 1st

defendant and further the suit is bad for non-joinder of wife of 1st defendant as she purchased some extent in item no.2 of the suit schedule properties and she

PJCJ, PILER4O.S.No. 217 OF 2015 is the legal heir of the deceased Ramachandra Reddy being his mother. Thus the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any relief and the shares divided by them are incorrect and suit is not maintainable and the suit is filed with ulterior motive and vexatiously hence the suit is liable to dismiss with costs.

08. Based on pleadings of both parties following issues are framed for trail.

1) Whether suit schedule property is ancestral property of defendant No.1 ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit schedule property into

four equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff as

prayed for ?

3) To what relief ?

09. To prove the case of plaintiffs, the first plaintiff herself examined as

Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 and A2 whereas on behalf of the defendant none were examined and no documents were marked. Heard the arguments of plaintiffs.

10. ISSUE No.1 to 3:-

It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that suit schedule property is ancestral property of second plaintiff and defendants and some of the properties were acquired by the 1st defendant in the capacity of karta and manager of the joint family. They are entitled for the ¼th share in the said property which is out of the share of the Ramachandra who died intestate leaving them as his legal heirs, hence the suit.

11. Per contra, the defendant No.1 in the written statement specifically pleaded that the suit schedule property is his self acquired property and except him, none else have got any interest over the plaint schedule properties.

Therefore, the plaintiffs will not get any right or share over suit schedule property.

PJCJ, PILER5O.S.No. 217 OF 2015

12. In view of rival pleadings of both the parties, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the suit schedule property is ancestral property and he is entitled 1/4 share in the suit property. Therefore, now it is to be seen whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit property as prayed for.

13. To prove the case of plaintiffs, the first plaintiff relied upon evidence of PW1 besides Ex.A1 and A2. she reiterated what all she pleaded in the plaint in her evidence and she filed certified copy of Adangal stands in the name of 1st defendant. According to evidence of PW1, the suit schedule property being ancestral property of second plaintiff and defendants and some of them acquired by the 1st defendant as kartha of joint family, to prove the same she filed Adangal stands in the name of first defendant. Defendants failed to adduce evidence to prove their contention that suit schedule property is not an ancestral property and thus it is an self acquired property of 1st defendants. As the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with his documents remains unchallenged.

Therefore, viewed from any angle the plaintiff proved that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property of 2nd plaintiff and defendants and she further proved that he is entitled 1/4 share in suit schedule property. Accordingly, issues

No.1 to 3 are answered against the plaintiff in favour of defendants.

14. ISSUE No.4:-

In view of issues No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff, the suit is to be decreed with costs.

In the result, this suit is preliminary decreed with costs for division of plaint schedule properties into four equal share by metes and bounds by allotting one such share to the plaintiffs.

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2023.

Sd/- S. JYOTHI

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER.

PJCJ, PILER6O.S.No. 217 OF 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS : DEFENDANTS :

P.W.1 : R. Suneetha None

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFFS :

Ex.A.1 : Certified copy of 1B Namuna/ROR standing in the name of D1. Ex.A.2 : Geneological tree.

DEFENDANTS : Nil

Sd/- SJ

PJCJ, PLR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: PILER

Present: Smt. S. JYOTHI,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piler.

Wednesday, this the Twenty Fourth (24th ) day of April, 2024.

E.P.No. 21 OF 2018

O.S.No. 76 OF 2016

Between : Medikurthy Venkatareddaiah, aged 49 years, S/o Veerappa, residing at Chinnagandlapalli, H/o Doddipalli, Sivaramapuram Post, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District. …Decree Holder/ Plaintiff And : Marripati Prabhakar Reddy, aged 42 years, S/o Reddeppa Reddy, residing at Thummalavaripalli, H/o Doddipalli, Sivaramapuram Post, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District. … Judgment Debtor/Defendant

This petition is coming up before me on 22.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V. Chinna Reddeppa, Advocate for the D.Hr/plaintiff and of Sri B.C. Purushothama Reddy, Advocate for the J.Dr./defendant and this Court delivered the following :

:: O R D E R ::

1.This Execution Petition initially filed by Decree Holder against Judgment

Debtor for arrest and detection of Judgment Debtor in civil prison for recovery of

E.P amount.

2. The averments of the affidavit annexed to the Execution Petition in brief are as follows:-

The father of Judgment Debtor is the paternal grandfather of Judgment

Debtor. The Judgment Debtor got Ac.15.00 cents of dry and wet lands and devolved to his share and the legal heir of his grandfather have been enjoying the property jointly and the Judgment Debtor has got 4 jercy cows, doing business and earning a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- per year and he got means to pay the decree amount, intentionally avoiding to pay the decree amount. Therefore, the

Decree Holder filed this application U/O.21 Rule 37 of C.P.C. for arrest and detention of the Judgment Debtor.

3. The Judgment Debtor filed his counter and specifically pleaded that the

Decree Holder is well aware about the financial position of Judgment Debtor as

PCJ (J.D.), PLR2E.P.No. 21 OF 2018 he had no source of income, movable or immovable properties of his own and filed this petition with a view to defame him in the society to get unlawful gain and therefore, he sought for dismissal of the application with costs.

4. To prove the case of Decree Holder, he himself examined as PW1 and

Ex.A1 got marked. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Decree Holder can be proceeded with arrest and

detection of the Judgment Debtor under Order 21 Rule 37

C.P.C as prayed for” ?

7. POINT:-

As can be seen from the record, it is manifest that the Dhr obtained a decree in O.S.No.76/2016 against the Jdr for recovery of sum of Rs.51,540/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.30,000/- and for cost of the suit. This E.P. is filed for recovery of sum of Rs.57,868/- due under above decree. It is relevant to mention here that on receiving Rule 37 notice the Jdr engaged an Advocate and filed counter stating that he has no source of income to pay EP amount. Thus, in view of the above it makes clear that there is no dispute regarding the decree passed against the Jdr in the above suit and payment of sum of Rs.57,868/- towards part payment during pendency of this E.P which was recorded on respective dates.

8.It is the specific case of the Dhr that the Jdr having sufficient means, is neglecting and refusing to pay money due under above decree and he is capable of paying entire E.P amount in lump sum as he is doing seasonal business besides owning immovable properties. Therefore, the Dhr sought for arrest and detention of Jdr in Civil Prison for recovery of E.P amount.

9.The Jdr in his counter specifically pleaded that he has no means to pay E.P amount and he is suffering and D.Hr filed this petition to defame him and to get unlawful gain. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of this E.P.

PCJ (J.D.), PLR3E.P.No. 21 OF 2018

10.It is relevant to mention here that in E.P filed for arrest and detention of

Jdr for recovery of money, the Dhr has to establish that the Jdr with an object of obstructing or delaying execution of decree is likely to abscond or to leave the local limits of this Court or the Jdr after institution of this suit dishonestly transferred or removed any part of his property or committed any act of bad faith or the Jdr has or has had since the date of decree means to pay decree amount or sum substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects to pay the decree amount.

Therefore, from the above, it makes clear that the Dhr has to prove that the Jdr having sufficient means to pay E.P amount, refused or neglected to pay the same for arrest and detention of Jdr in civil prision.

11.Coming to the case on hand, to prove the means possessed by the Jdr, the

Dhr himself examined as PW1 and he specifically deposed that the Jdr is doing business besides owning 15 acres of dry and wer lands movable and earning Rs 10,00,00 per annum He further deposed that the Jdr is capable of paying entire

E.P amount in lump sum. J.Dr. did not turn up to cross-examine PW1 hence cross-examination treated as nil. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged and his evidence makes it clear that the Jdr is doing seasonal business and having immovable land as such it is proved that the Jdr has means to pay E.P amount. In view of aforesaid discussion it makes clear that the Jdr has sufficient means to pay the E.P amount. Further, the evidence of PW1 makes it clear that the Jdr is having sufficient means, is neglecting to pay E.P amount as such he is liable for arrest and detention in Civil prison for recovery of E.P amount. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Dhr against the Jdr.

12.In the result, the E.P is allowed. Issue arrest warrant against Judgment debtor on process. Call on 21.06.2024

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- S. JYOTHI

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PILER.

PCJ (J.D.), PLR4E.P.No. 21 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR DECREE HOLDER: FOR JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

P.W.1: M. Venkatareddaiah None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/- SJ

PCJ (J.Div.), PILER.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PILER

PRESENT : Smt S. JYOTHI,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Piler.

Friday, the Nineteenth (19th ) day of May, 2023.

O.S.No. 35 OF 2021

Between : Y. Gangi Reddy .. Plaintif And :

1. The District Collector,

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

3. The Tahsildar,

4. The Superintending Engineer.

.. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for hearing on 17.05.2023 in the presence of Sri K. Ramaswami Reddy, Advocate for Plaintif and the defendants are called absent and set exparte, upon hearing the counsel for plaintif, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

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

1.This suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintifs over plaint schedule properties and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are as follows :

a)The plaint schedule property and other properties are ancestral joint family properties of Y. Venkata Reddy and Y. Krishna Reddy and they got divided their joint family properties by means of a registered partition deed dt.24.1.1976 vide document No.187 of 1976 in which ‘A’ schedule property allotted to

Y. Venkata Reddy and ‘B’ schedule property is allotted to Y. Krishna Reddy and both were put into possession of their respective properties.

b)It is further contended that after the death of plaintif’s father Y. Venkata

Reddy, the plaintif being sole legal heir succeeded to his estate as his mother was pre-deceased to his father, the plaintif alone became the absolute owner and in possession of the same with absolute rights. It is further contended that

PJCJ, PILER2O.S.No.35 of 2021 in recognition of possession and enjoyment of plaintif, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 granted pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour and mutated his name in revenue records. It is further contended that the father of plaintif voluntarily gifted an extent of Ac.0.40 cents out of Ac.1.05 cents to the Government by means of gift settlement deed vide document No.37 of 1985 in Sy.No.729/5 and the plaintif is in possession of remaining extent of Ac.0.65 cents in S.No.729/5 and other properties with absolute rights.

c)It is further contended that after retirement, the plaintif along with family members are present in Tirupati, taking advantage of the absence temporarily at his native place, some of the enemies of plaintif instigated the defendants with their instigation, they have been making hectic eforts to construct building for Grama Sachivalayam in plaint schedule properties without having any manner of right. It is further contended that on 20.09.2020, the defendants with their men, machinery and building material tried to dig pits for foundation with an intention to construct building, by that time, the plaintif with the help of villagers thwarted the high handed and illegal acts of defendants and sent away. Hence, the plaintif constrained to file the present suit.

3.Perused the record, summons were served to the defendants. Inspite of giving opportunity to file the written statement, the defendants did not file the same and they are called absent, no representation and set exparte. Thereafter, the case was posted for plaintif side evidence.

4.The plaintif filed chief examination affidavit as P.W.1 by reiterating the contents of plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. In support of his contention, the 3rd party was examined as P.W.2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintif, perused the record.

PJCJ, PILER3O.S.No.35 of 2021

6.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property?”

7.POINT :

To prove suit claim, the plaintif himself is examined as P.W.1 and 3rd party as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. Ex.A.1 is the partition deed between

Y. Venkata Reddy and Y. Krishna Reddy vide document No.187/1976, dt.24.1.1976, Ex.A.2 is the Death Certificate of plaintif’s mother T. Thayaramma,

Ex.A.3 is the Pattadar passbook, Ex.A.4 is the 1-B Form, Ex.A.5 is the E.C. for plaint schedule property, and Ex.A.6 is the crop loan Certificate issued by Branch

Manager, Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Piler which shows the possession and title of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property. After filing of the suit also, defendants have not shown any interest to contest the suit filed by plaintif and they remained exparte. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 remained unchallenged. All these prima facie proved the stand of plaintif. The documents supporting the contention of the plaintif that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment as on the date of filing of the suit and he is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants. The point is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendants.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees or anybody claiming under them interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2023.

Sd/- S. JYOTHI

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER.

PJCJ, PILER4O.S.No.35 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF : DEFENDANTS :

P.W.1 : Y. Gangi Reddy None (Exparte). P.W.2 : K. Kamaraju Pillai

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A.1: Partition Deed between Y. Venkata Reddy, S/o Sidda Reddy and Y. Krishna Reddy, S/o Y. Kodanda Reddy vide document No.187/1976, dt.2401.1976. Ex.A.2: Death Certificate of plaintif’s mother by name T. Thayaramma issued by the Tahsildar, Piler Mandal. Ex.A.3: Pattadar passbook in the name of plaintif issued by the Tahsildar, Piler Mandal. Ex.A.4: 1-B Form issued by the Tahsildar, Piler Mandal. Ex.A.5: E.C. for the plaint schedule property. Ex.A.6: Crop loan Certificate issued by the Branch Manager, Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Piler.

DEFENDANTS :

Nil (Exparte).

Sd/- SJ

PJCJ, PLR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PILER

PRESENT: Smt S. JYOTHI,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER.

Friday, this the Nineteenth (19th) day of May, 2023.

O.S.No. 87 of 2023

Between:

N. Obul Reddy … Plaintif And:

N. Madan Mohan Reddy … Defendant

This suit is coming on 18.5.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Bhavani Sankara, Advocate for the Plaintif, and the defendant is called absent, no representation and set-exparte, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,91,945/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety one thousand nine hundred and forty five only) being the principal and interest due on ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ marked promissory notes dated 12.03.2020 borrowed and executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), and

Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at24%p.a. for subsequent interest and for costs.

2.The case of the plaintif as set out in the plaint as follows:

On 12.03.2020, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in cash from the plaintif and executed suit ‘A’ marked promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintif or to his order on demand. Again on 12.03.2020, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in cash from the plaintif and executed suit ‘B’ marked promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintif or to his order on demand. On 12.03.2020, again the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) in cash from the plaintif and executed suit ‘C’

PJCJ, PILER2 O.S.No. 87 of 2023 marked promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintif or to his order on demand. Inspite of several oral demands made by the plaintif, the defendant did not pay the due amount. Thus the plaintif got issued a legal notice dt.25.02.2023 to discharge the due under suit promissory notes, the defendant received the same and kept quiet without discharging the debt due to the plaintif under ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ marked promissory notes. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons served to the defendant. The defendant called absent, no representation. Hence, the defendant is set exparte and posted for plaintif side evidence.

4. To substantiate his claim, the plaintif himself appeared as P.W1 through him, Exs.A.1 to A.5 are marked.

5.Heard the arguments of the counsel for plaintif. Perused the record.

6.The point for determination is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for ?”

To discharge the burden of the plaintif, he himself examined as PW.1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. Since, the defendant remained exparte, the evidence of

P.W-1 remained unchallenged.

7. On careful perusal of the unchallenged evidence of P.W-1 coupled with

Exs.A.1 to A.5, this court is of the view that the plaintif has established that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 12.3.2020 from the plaintif under Ex.A.1, the defendant again borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 12.3.2020 from the plaintif under Ex.A.2 and the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/- on 12.3.2020 from the plaintif under Ex.A.3. Ex.A.1 is the suit ‘A’ marked promissory note dated 12.03.2020 for Rs.50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif, Ex.A.2 is the suit ‘B’ marked promissory note

dated 12.03.2020 for Rs.50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the

PJCJ, PILER3 O.S.No. 87 of 2023 plaintif, Ex.A.3 is the suit ‘C’ marked promissory note dated 12.03.2020 for

Rs.70,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif, Ex.A.4 is the legal notice issued to the defendant along with postal receipt dt.25.2.2023, and Ex.A.5 is the served postal acknowledgment. In view of the above documents, this Court is of the view that the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

8.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,91,945-00/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety one thousand nine hundred and forty five only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,70,000-00 (Rupees one lakh seventy thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th day of May, 2023.

Sd/- S. JYOTHI

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For PLAINTIFF: For DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: N. Obul Reddy None (Exparte)

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original ‘A’ marked promissory note dt.12.03.2020 for Rs.50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif. Ex.A2: Original ‘B’ marked promissory note dt.12.03.2020 for Rs.50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif. Ex.A3: Original ‘C’ marked promissory note dt.12.03.2020 for Rs.50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif. Ex.A4: Legal notice dt.25.2.2023 issued to the defendant along with postal receipt. Ex.A5: Served postal acknowledgement.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:

NIL

Sd/- SJ

PJCJ, PILER.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

PILER

PRESENT : Smt S. JYOTHI, rincipal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piler.

Wednesday, this the Twenty Fourth (24th)day of April, 2024.

O.S.No. 25 of 2023

Between:

Gokana Nagaraja … Plaintiff And:

Kuncha Yerraiah … Defendant

This suit is coming on 23.04.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Rajendra Babu, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the defendant is called absent, no representation and set-exparte, upon hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.51,552/- (Rupees fifty one thousand five hundred and fifty two only) being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 23.01.2020 borrowed and executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.30,000/ (Rupees thirty thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at24% p.a. for subsequent interest and for costs.

2.The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint as follows:

On 23.01.2020, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed a suit promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Inspite of repeated demands by the plaintiff and issuance of legal notice dt.03.01.2023, the defendant neither issued reply notice nor paid any amount. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons were refused by the defendant. The defendant called absent, no representation. Hence, the defendant is set exparte and posted for plaintiff side evidence.

4. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and

Exs.A.1 and A.2 are marked.

PCJ (J.Div.), PILER 2 O.S.No. 25/ 2023

5.Heard the arguments of the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.The point for determination is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit

amount as prayed for ?”

To discharge the burden of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW.1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit and marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. Since, the defendant remained exparte, the evidence of

P.W-1 remained unchallenged.

7. On careful perusal of the unchallenged evidence of P.W-1 coupled with

Exs.A.1 and A.2, this court is of the view that the plaintiff has established that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 promissory note dated 23.01.2020 which was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and he issued Ex.A.2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.03.01.2023 demanding the defendant to repay the debt. Thus, the evidence of

P.W.1 and the contents of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are unchallenged and they manifestly proved that the defendant borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 and he did not pay any amount due under Ex.A1. Therefore, the plaintiff entitled to the suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.51,552-00/- (Rupees fifty one thousand five hundred and fifty two only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.30,000-00 (Rupees thirty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- S. JYOTHI

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PILER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For PLAINTIFF: For DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: G. Nagaraja None (Exparte)

PCJ (J.Div.), PILER 3 O.S.No. 25/ 2023

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Promissory note dt.23.01.2020 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt.03.01.2023 issued to the plaintiff to defendant.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:

NIL

Sd/- SJ

PCJ (J. Div.), PLR.