Sri S.Kamalakar Reddy, PSCJ

1 THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Sri S.Kamalakara Reddy,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, the 19th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 649/2015

Between:

G.Savithramma ..Plaintiff

And

1. K.Narasimhulu

2. B.Prakash

3. B.Meenakumari

4. K.Naganjaneya Babu .. Defendants

This suit coming on 19.04.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants are set exparte and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Smt.G.Savitramma filed the present suit with a prayer to cancel the registered sale deeds vide document No.3410/2011 dated 23.03.2011 and document No.5371/2011 dated 27.05.2011 and also grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

The plaint schedule property located in Sy.No.18/1Py.No.27, Ac.3.00 out of it Ac.0.03 cents Plot No.27 with specific boundaries.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff Smt. G.Savitramma purchased the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed dated 25.10.1991 from her vendor

K.Narasimhulu/ 1st defendant. The said Narasimhulu had purchased the entire extent of property in Sy.No.18/1 to an extent of Ac.3.390 cents under registered sale deed 14.12.1987. He laid plots and sold away one such plot to the plaintiff with specific boundaries under registered sale deed vide document No.7573 dated 25.10.1991 and put her in possession. Since the date of purchase the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Recently when she obtained E.C, she came to know 2 some dubious entries in-connection with the plaint schedule property. She obtained registration extract of the sale deeds dated 23.03.2011 and 27.05.2011. After obtaining the documents she learnt that her vendor

K.Narasimhulu/ 1st defendant had again executed sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property and other property in favour of the 2nd defendant under the alleged sale deed dated 23.03.2011. The 2nd defendant in turn executed another registered sale deed in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 vide document No.5371/ Dated 27.05.2011. The 1st defendant had alienated the property under registered sale deed dated 25.10.1991 in respect of the plaint schedule property in her favour thereby lost his right, title and possession. Thus he has no right to execute any kind of document in favour of any person in respect of the same property. The alleged sale deeds in favour of 3rd and 4th defendants are not valid. The D.1 to D.4 collectively by playing fraud against the plaintiff created the dubious documents. The 2nd defendant will not get rights under sale deed from the 1st defendant. The registered sale deeds vide document No. 3410/11 dated 23.03.2011 and

Doc.No.5371/11 Dated 27.05.2011 are not valid to the extent of plaint schedule property. After coming to know about the same, she demanded the defendants to cancel the document but the defendants lend deaf ear. Due to the entries in the E.C, it is causing lot of hindrance to her to avail bank loan and to develop the property. Therefore, the present suit is filed for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by D.1 in favour of D.2 and D.2 in favour of D.3 and D.4.

The plaintiff ultimately prayed the court to cancel the both the sale deeds to the extent of the plaint schedule property.

3. This Court has made efforts to serve summons on the defendants but for a long time summons could not be served. The counsel for the plaintiff took steps by publishing summons in the leading Telugu news paper. Still the defendants failed to appear, as such they were set exparte.

3

4. The plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 documents.

5. After closure of the plaintiff's side evidence I heard arguments of the plaintiff counsel.

6. Now the point for determination before me is;

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of both the documents in respect of suit schedule property or not?

7. POINT: The vendor of the plaintiff is one K.Narasimhulu. He sold away the plaint schedule property i.e., plot No.27 with specific boundaries in

Sy.No.18/1 to the plaintiff. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 25.10.1991 executed in favour of the plaintiff. I perused this document, it shows that the property is located in Sy.No.18/1 as a plot

No.27. This document clearly indicate that the property was sold away by

K.Narasimhulu. Once K.Narasimhulu sell away the plaint schedule property, he will not hold any rights or title over the same. The right and title after the sale, transfers in favour of the plaintiff. Any action or sale by the vendor

K.Narasimhulu in respect of the plaint schedule property is a nullity for the reason that he has already lost his right and title over the plaint schedule property. If he doesn't have right and title he cannot pass any better title than what he has in respect of the plaint schedule property i.e., plot No.27.

The Ex.A.1 sale deed clearly indicate the sale transaction between the vendor

K.Narasimhulu and plaintiff herein.

8. The execution of sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant is not a valid one in as much as K.Narasimhulu had already parted with his rights over the plot No.27 of the plaint schedule property. If K.Narasimhulu did not have any right and title over the plaint schedule property to sell away in favour of the 2nd defendant, no rights or title pass from K.Narasimhulu to 2nd defendant. Similarly the 2nd defendant cannot pass any better right and title than what he had in favour of the 3rd 4 and 4th defendants. Thus, the sale deeds dated 23.03.2011 in favour of 2nd defendant and the sale deed dated 27.05.2911 in favour of D.3 and D.4 in respect of the suit schedule property are invalid and the D.2 to D.4 will get no rights and title over the plaint schedule property.

9. The period of limitation to question the sale made by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is 3 years. However the limitation starts from the date of knowledge. The plaintiff contends that after obtaining E.C she learnt the sale transactions made by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and and thereafter the 2nd defendant in favour of defendants 3 and

4. The E.C was obtained by the plaintiff on 10.10.2014. Thus, the limitation prescribed under the Article 59 of Limitation Act starts from 10.10.2014.

Considering the date 10.10.2014, on which the E.C was obtained as the starting point of limitation, it can be held that the suit is within the period of limitation. I further perused the sale deeds vide Ex.A.2 which was executed by Narasimhulu in favour of 2nd defendant and Ex.A.3 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of Defendants 3 and 4. The Ex.A.2 sale deed would disclose that K.Narasimhulu had sold away two items in favour of 2nd defendant. The second item is the plaint schedule plot No.27. Similarly

Ex.A.3 would disclose that the 2nd defendant had sold away only one item i.e., suit schedule plot No.27 in favour of D.3 and D.4.

10. As discussed above, the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property executed by the 1st defendant K.Narasimhulu in favour of 2nd defendant to the extent of the plaint schedule property is invalid. So far as other item In Ex.A.2 concerned, it is a valid done. Similarly, the Ex.A.3 sale deed dated 27.05.2011 executed in favour D.3 and D.4 by D.2 is totally invalid as only the plaint schedule property is transacted under this document.

11. I perused the E.C, which discloses that the plaintiff G.Savithramma purchased the plaint schedule property i.e., Plot No.27 from K.Narasimhulu.

The E.C again discloses that K.Narasimhulu executed registered sale deed 5 on 23.03.2011 in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant B.Prakash. It is not known as to how the registration authority without going through the earlier sale deed and their own records permitted

K.Narasimhulu to execute the Ex.A.2 sale deed in favour of B.Prakjash. Any how the sale deed executed by K.Narasimhulu/D.1 in favour of B.Prakash in respect of the plaint schedule property i.e., Plot No.27 is invalid. Similarly the sale deed executed by 2nd defendant B.Prakash in favour of D.3 and D.4 namely B.Meenakumari and K.Naganjaneya Babu is invalid. Thus, these two documents in respect of plaint schedule property shall stand cancelled.The evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.4 documents remain unchallenged and unrebutted. Though summons were issued to the defendants but they could not be served and counsel for the plaintiff got published the summons in news paper. The defendants failed to appear before the court to contest the suit and they were set exparte.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. The sale deed vide

Document No.3410/ dated 23.03.2011 in respect of plaint schedule property executed by the 1st defendant and another sale deed vide document

No.5371/ dated 27.05.2011 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of defendants 3 and 4 in respect of the plaint schedule property stands cancelled. Inform about the cancellation of sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property to the Sub-Registrar, Ananthapuram to make necessary entries.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 19th day of April, 2018.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : G.Savithramma None 6

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1: C.C of registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff Dt. 25.10.1991

Ex.A.2: C.C of registered sale deed in favour of D.2 Dt. 23.03.2011

Ex.A.3: C.C of registered sale deed in favour of D.3 and D.4 Dt. 27.05.2011

Ex.A.4: E.C for 31 years Dt. 10.10.2014

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

P.S.C.J, ATP.

1 THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Sri S.Kamalakar Reddy,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 20th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 99/2017

Between:

G.Rupkmini Devi ..Plaintiff

And

1. D.Peeramma

2. D.Pygambar Vali

3. D.Baba Fakruddin

4. D.Ameena .. Defendants

This suit coming on 20.04.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants set exparte and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed with a prayer to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement dated 27.01.2014 [ named as

Mortgage Confirmation Deed] directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and if they failed to do the same, it may be ordered through the process of law.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendants 1 to 4 borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24 % p.a and executed registered mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff on 27.01.2014. On the same i.e., on 27.01.2014 the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff naming it as confirmation of mortgage deed with some terms and conditions. As per the terms of the said document, it is agreed by the defendants that they have to discharge the entire mortgage debt within three years i.e., by 26.01.2017 with interest at the rate of 24 % p.a. It was further agreed that after discharge of entire due amount within stipulated time the defendants are at liberty to take back the original registered mortgage deed. It was further agreed by the defendants that in case of their 2 default in discharging the amount agreed upon, they have to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendants also handed over all the link documents.

The plaintiff made number of demands to the defendants to repay the mortgage debt. Inspite of requests the defendants failed to come forward to pay the amount. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract under the agreement dated 27.01.2014 but the defendants failed to come forward to perform their part. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants on 18.01.2017 expressing his readiness to hand over the original registered document and to endorse the payments before the Sub-Registrar, Ananthapuram. The notice was served but the defendants did not turn up.

The plaintiff ultimately prayed the court to direct the defendants to execute the registered sale deed.

3.The defendants were served with summons but they were called absent, consequently they were set-exparte.

4. The plaintiff herself examined as Pw.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 documents. The plaintiff further examined the attestor of simple mortgage deed and the agreement of sale.

5. After closure of the plaintiff's side evidence, I heard plaintiff counsel.

6. Now the point for determination before me is;

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for execution of regular sale deed in her favour from the defendants or not?

7. POINT: The defendants borrowed amount and executed simple mortgage deed dated 27.01.2014. The Ex.A.1 is the Simple Mortgage Deed.

The debt is still in subsistence. Ex.A.1 is the registered simple mortgage deed which shows the money transaction, borrowal of the amount. Ex.A.2 is the document which is named as Chupudayakam Kararunama [confirmation of simple mortgage deed ] but this simple mortgage confirmation deed/ 3 Ex.A.2 shows that the defendants borrowed amount of Rs.12,00,000/- that they executed the registered simple mortgage deed on 27.01.2014 that they agreed to repay the amount within 3 years i.e., 26.01.2017. This simple mortgage confirmation letter further discloses that the defendants agreed to execute registered sale deed in the event of failure to pay the debt amount on or before 26.01.2017. On the basis of this condition/ agreement, the plaintiff filed the present suit to enforce the condition / agreement. Under

Ex.A.2 confirmation letter the defendants agreed to execute regular sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property, for the debt covered under

Ex.A.1, in the event of their failure to repay the borrowed amount. The confirmation letter is in the nature of agreement of sale and it is executed on stamp worth of Rs.100/-. Though it is unregistered one, it can be considered as contemplated under Sec.49 of Proviso of the Registration Act, 1908.

8. The plaintiff further examined the attestor namely T.Ibrahim Khaleel/

PW.2. He filed his chief affidavit and contended that in his presence both the documents have been executed that the defendants agreed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in the event of failure to repay the debt amount. The Ex.A.3 is the legal notice and Ex.A.4 are the acknowledgement cards. These two documents would show that a legal notice dated 18.01.2017 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to come to the Registrar Office on 25.01.2017 and execute registered sale deed. The notices have been served on the defendants. The Ex.A.5 N.J

Stamps two in numbers, each worth of Rs.50/- would show that the plaintiff was present at the Sub-Registrar Office on 25.01.2017. All the documents filed by the plaintiff would disclose that the defendants jointly agreed to execute a registered sale deed in the event of their failure to repay the debt covered under Ex.A.1 simple mortgage deed. The defendants failed to pay the amount, so also failed to come to the Sub-Registrar Officer and failed to execute registered sale deed, thereby they failed to comply their part of agreement as agreed in the Ex.A.2 Confirmation letter.

4

9.The evidence of PW.1, PW.2 so also the Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 documents would establish that the defendants failed to perform their part of agreement. They failed to pay the borrowed amount and failed to execute registered sale deed. Evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 documents remain unchallenged and unrebutted. It prima-facie established that the plaintiff is entitled to seek performance of the part of agreement from the defendants.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. The defendants are directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within four months from today i.e., on or before 20.08.2018. If the defendants failed to execute registered sale deed by 20.08.2018, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it executed through the process of law.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 20th day of April, 2018.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : G.Rukmini Devi None PW.2 : T.Ibrahim Khaleel

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1 : Registered mortgage deed executed by the defendants Dt.27.01.2014 Ex.A.2 : Agreement Dated 27.01.2014

Ex.A.3 : Office copy of legal notice

Ex.A.4 : Served acknowledgement card ( 4 numbers)

Ex.A.5 : Two N.J Stamps each worth of Rs.50/- Dt. 25.01.2017.

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

P.S.C.J.

ATP 5 6

1 THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Sri S.Kamalakara Reddy,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Wednesday, the 18th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 533/2017

Between:

Sri Durga Anjaneya Swamy Seva Samithi

Rep. By its President D.Sathyanarayana Rao ..Plaintiff

And

1. Y.Anjaneya Reddy

2. Masula Prakash

3. Chakali Venkatesh

4. B.E.Krishna Murthy

5. B.E.Dhanunjaya

6. B.E.Ramana .. Defendants

This suit coming on 18.04.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Rami Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants are set exparte and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed with a prayer to restraining the defendants from interfering with the management of plaintiff's society in protecting the interest of the temple and its properties from the defendants.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff Sri D.Sathyanarayana Rao is representing Sri Durga

Anjaneya Swamy Seva Samithi. He was elected as President on 17.03.2016 for a period of 3 years i.e., from 2016 to 2019. The plaintiff's institution is a registered society under the Society Registration Act and having Society

Registration No.1000/2001. The said society is active and elections are being conducted for every three years. The plaintiff's society formed for the purpose of serving the Sri Durga Anjaneya Swamy Temple, situated at the

Tank Bund of Singanamala. This temple was established during the

Kingdome of Vijayanagar Emperor. The public in and around Singanamala worship the diety of the temple. Due to negligence of the then rulers and the

Public the principal temple was ruined and the diety was left without any poojas or archanas. Important devotees of the temple formed into an 2 association. In the year 2001 the plaintiff's society was registered and it has made some improvements to the temple. The plaintiff's temple committee constructed Durga Temple.

The defendants are the residents of Singanamala, formed into a group with an intention to grab the administration of the temple to utilize the income of the temple for their own needs. The defendants 4 to 6 were posing themselves as archakas and trying to collect the money from the public. They were interfering with the management of the temple, trying to take control of the plaintiff's institution and its properties. The defendants 4 to 6 are supported by D.1 to D.3 in their illegal activities. All the defendants 1 to 6 are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the temple by the elected body. The suit is filed under the Society Registration

Act, 1860 and not claiming any endowment property. It is a private temple and to restrain the defendants the present suit is filed.

3. The defendants are issued summons to appear before the Court and to answer the claim of the plaintiff's society. They got engaged a counsel, but failed to file written statement within the mandatory period of 90 days.

Therefore, defendants 1 to 6 are set exparte.

4. The plaintiff's society/ samithi examined its President D.Sathyanarayana

Rao as PW.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 documents. No further evidence was reported. Hence, plaintiffs side evidence was closed.

5. I heard the counsel for the plaintiff's society/ samithi.

6. Now the point for determination before me is;

Whether the plaintiff's samithi /society is entitled for injunction as prayed for or not?

7. POINT: The plaintiff's society is registered one under Register of Society

Vide Ex.A.1 certificate. The Ex.A.2 Bylaws shows the intention of the society.

Ex.A.3 shows the resolution passed by the members. Ex.A.4 is the list of office bearers. Ex.A.6 is the proceedings issued by the Thasildar during the 3 year 2002 granting permission to plant trees in the said plaintiff's temple premises. All these documents would show the existence of temple and its activities. The Ex.A.6 would disclose that the President was Sri Y.Lakshmi

Reddy during the year 2002. All these documents prima-facie would establish the registration of the society, the object of society and the elected office bearers of the society. The society has been looking after Sri Durga

Anjaneya Swamy Temple located at the Tank Bund of Singanamala. The defendants allegedly wish to take control of the temple. Ex.A.7 complaint reveal that the plaintiff's society gave complaint to the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram to take action against the erring persons who interfered in the administration of the plaintiff's society/ samithi. All the documents filed by the plaintiff wound establish the existence of society and the interference of the defendants.

8. The defendants though got engaged a counsel, failed to file any written statement and failed to contest the suit. The evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.7 documents remain unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiffs samithi/ society is entitled for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the activities of the society.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. The defendants 1 to 7 are restrained from interfering with the society in protecting the interest of the temple and managing the temple affairs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 18th day of April, 2018.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram. Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : D.Sathyanarayana Rao None

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1: Society Registration Certificate ( Original)

Ex.A.2: Bylaws of the Society ( Original) 4 Ex.A.3: Resolution passed by the Society to conduct elections ( Original)

Ex.A.4: List of Office bearers (Original)

Ex.A.5: Press note issued by the President (Original)

Ex.A.6: Proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, Singanamala vide R.Dis.No. 101/2002 (V) Dt. 03.04.2002 (Original)

Ex.A.7: Complaint given to the D.S.P, Ananthapuram Dt. 31.07.2017

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

P.S.C.J, ATP.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Sri S.Kamalakar Reddy,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday the 19th day of April,2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.391/2017

Between:

State Bank of India, Rep. By its Chief Manager,

ADB Branch, Kalyandurgam Road, Ananthapuramu. ......... Plaintiff.

And

1. P.Neelamma w/o Obi Reddy

2. P.Sivakesava Reddy s/o Obi Reddy

3. P.Suryaprakash Reddy S/o Obi Reddy

......... Defendant.

This suit coming on 19-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt V.Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants being called absent and set exparte and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,91,326/- (Rupees Four lakhs ninety one thousands three hundred and twenty six only) basing on the registered mortgage deed dt.27-09-2006 of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only).

2. In brief, the averments of the plaint are as follows:

The Defendant No.1 P.Neelamma borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum in 9 yearly instalments with interest and executed an agreement of hypothecation dt.11-11-2006. The defendant

No.1 has executed registered mortgage deed No.13729/2006 dated 27-09- 2006 in favour of plaintiff bank. The 2nd and 3rd defendants have executed deed of Guarantee infavour of plaintiff bank. The plaintiff demanded for the repayment of the loan amount, but the defendants failed to repay the loan amount. Hence this suit is filed.

3.The plaintiff ultimately prayed the Court to decree the suit.

4.The defendants were issued summon to appear before the Court and contest the Suit. They received the summons but they did not file written statement before the Court. Therefore, they were set exparte.

5.The plaintiff's Bank Manager, himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.8 documents. Which are as follows:

Ex.A-1 is the agreement of hypothecation executed by defendant Dt.11-11- 2006 Ex.A-2 is the registered mortgage deed dt.27-09-2006 Ex.A-3 is the Account extract Ex.A-4 is the deed of Guaranteee dt.17-11-2006 Ex.A-5 is the Revival letter executed by the defendants dt.15-07-2009 Ex.A-6 is the Revival letter executed by the defendants dt.28-03-2011 Ex.A-7 is the Revival letter executed by the defendants dt.24-03-2014 Ex.A-8 is the Revival letter executed by the defendants dt.24-01-2017

6. Since the defendants No.1 to 3 remained exparte, the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 documents remained un-challenged and un- rebutted.

7. The defendant executed revival letters at periodical intervals. The revival letters are nothing but acknowledgments of the debts. The acknowledgments extend period of limitation from the date of acknowledgments as contemplated U/Sec.18 and 19 of Limitation Act 1963.

In the present case the bank produced the acknowledgment though the debt was old one. The defendant acknowledged the debt. Thus it can be said that the debt is within the limitation.

8. I perused the documents. The evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 consistently established that the defendant No.1 borrowed amount from plaintiff bank and defendants No.2 and 3 have executed Deed of Guarantee, failed to repay it. Therefore, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount.

9. In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs infavour of plaintiff bank against the defendants No.1 to 3 jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.4,91,326/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety one thousands three hundred and twenty six only) with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of this suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization over principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only). Time for redemption four months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court this the 19th day of April,2018.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff : Defendant: PW1: N.Ramesh Nil

Exhibits marked for the plaintiff

Ex.A-1 is the agreement of hypothecation executed by defendant Dt.11-11- 2006 Ex.A-2 is the registered mortgage deed dt.27-09-2006 Ex.A-3 is the Account extract Ex.A-4 is the deed of Guarantee dt.17-11-2006 Ex.A-5 is the Revival letter executed by the defendants dt.15-07-2009 Ex.A-6 is the Revival letter executed by the defendants dt.28-03-2011 Ex.A-7 is the Revival letter executed by the defendants dt.24-03-2014 Ex.A-8 is the Revival letter executed by the defendants dt.24-01-2017

Exhibits marked for the defendant

Nil.

PSCJ

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Sri S.Kamalakar Reddy,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday the 19th day of April,2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.45/2017

Between:

State Bank of India, Rep. By it's Manager, Narpala Branch, Narpala

......... Plaintiff.

And

1.Vaddi Gangi Reddy S/o Pedda Narayana Reddy

2. K.Venkata Thimma Reddy S/o K.Chinna Venkata Reddy

......... Defendants.

This suit coming on 19-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt Vijayalakshmi, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants being called absent and set exparte and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants

No.1 and 2 for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,57,400/- (Rupees nine lakhs fifty seven thousands four hundred only) as per the account extract being the

principal and interest due on registered mortgage deed dt.08-12-2006 for

Rs.3,80,000/-.

2. In brief, the averments of the plaint are as follows:

The Defendant No.1 Vaddi Gangi Reddy borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,80,000/- from the plaintiff bank on 26-12-2006, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum in 6 yearly installments with interest and executed an agreement of hypothecation on 26-12-2006.

The 1st defendant has also executed a deed of mortgage under document

No.1522/2006 dt.8-12-2006 and the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor and executed a deed of guarantee in favour of plaintiff bank dated 26-12-2006.

The plaintiff bank demanded for the repayment of the loan amount, but the defendants failed to repay the loan amount. Hence this suit is filed.

3.The plaintiff ultimately prayed the Court to decree the suit.

4.The defendants were issued summon to appear before the Court and contest the Suit. They received the summons but they did not file written statement before the Court. Therefore, they were set exparte.

5.The plaintiff's Bank Manager, himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.4 documents. Which are as follows:

Ex.A-1 is the agreement of hypothecation executed by defendants dt.26-12- 2006 Ex.A-2 is the account extract. Ex.A-3 is the deed of guarantee Ex.A-4 is the registered mortgage deed dt.08-12-2006

6. Since the defendant No.1 and 2 remained exparte, the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 documents remained un-challenged and un- rebutted.

7. I perused the documents. The evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 consistently established that the defendant No.1 and 2 obtained loan from plaintiff bank, failed to repay it. Therefore, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount.

8. In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs infavour of plaintiff bank against the defendants No.1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.9,57,400/- (Rupees nine lakhs fifty seven thousands four hundred only) with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of this suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization over principal amount of Rs.3,80,000/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty thousands only). Time for redemption four months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court this the 19th day of April,2018

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff : Defendant: PW1: N.Ramesh Nil

Exhibits marked for the plaintiff

Ex.A-1 is the agreement of hypothecation executed by defendants dt.26-12- 2006 Ex.A-2 is the account extract. Ex.A-3 is the deed of guarantee Ex.A-4 is the registered mortgage deed dt.08-12-2006

Exhibits marked for the defendant Nil.

PSCJ