Smt S.Kavitha

- 1 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :S.Kavitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 23rd day of October, 2024

Tax Appeal No.1 of 2023

Between : Paila Venkata Rao, S/o late P.Ramayya, Hindu, aged 56 years, r/at D.No.6-175/23, Flat No.201, First Floor, Ayyappa Nilayam, Ayyappa Nagar, Sheela Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530 012, Aadhaar No.7339 7582 7278, Mobile No.92982 53453.

... Appellant

A n d : Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Tenneti Bhavanam, Asilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam-530 002 rep. by its Commissioner.

... Respondent

On appeal from the special notice No.SN/1086621989, dt.27-01-2022

of the Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

served on the appellant.

Between : Paila Venkata Rao, S/o late P.Ramayya, Hindu, aged 56 years, r/at D.No.6-175/23, Flat No.201, First Floor, Ayyappa Nilayam, Ayyappa Nagar, Sheela Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530 012, Aadhaar No.7339 7582 7278, Mobile No.92982 53453. … Assessee

A n d : Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Tenneti Bhavanam, Asilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam-530 002 rep. by its Commissioner. … Assessor - 2 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

This appeal having been heard on 04-10-2024 in the presence of Sri.B.V.R.Murthy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Respondent remained exparte on 15-03-2023, and having stood over to this day, for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This tax appeal is filed under Section 282 of the Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation Act (hereinafter will be referred to as “H.M.C.Act” for the sake of convenience and brevity)

(a) to order stay of operation of special property tax notice served by the respondent issued under section 220 (2) of Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 bearing notice No.SN/J086621989, dt.27-01-2022 against the appellant towards enhancement of half yearly property tax from Rs.12,275/- per half year to Rs.13,503/- per half year w.e.f. April 2021 against the residential flat

No.201 owned by him.

(b) to direct the respondent to remove the unauthorized construction penalty charges against the flat to the tune of Rs.23,690/- charged without any authority in the tax demand notices.

(c) to direct the respondent to remove the late fee penalty on unauthorized charges, total amounting to the tune of Rs.35,619/- from the tax assessment demand from the assessment years 2016-17 to 2021-22.

(d) to direct the respondent to remove the unauthorized construction penalty charged against the ibid flat from financial year 2018-19 as the entire apartment consisting ten flats has been constructed and occupied with proper approval of the respondent.

(e) to direct the respondent to pay the adequate compensation for the mental and physical harassment caused to the honest property tax payer like appellant as deemed fit and proper.

- 3 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

(f) to direct the respondent to issue a fresh tax assessment demand notice to the appellant duly rectified all the anomalies and observations raised by appellant to enable to pay the dues in a reasonable time.

2. The contention of the appellant as seen from the memorandum of appeal are summarized as follows :-

(a)The appellant is the absolute owner of the flat bearing door No.6- 175/23 (flat No.201) with tax assessment bearing No.1086388863, situated at first floor of Ayyappa Nilayam Apartment under revenue ward 65, Ayyappa

Nagar, Sheela Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530012 being purchased under sale deed in the year 2015 for residential purpose. The authorities of respondent had estimated and fixed the initial property tax at Rs.1,522/- for half year vide tax assessment No.108818095 and appellant paid the house property tax regularly without any delay or default till August, 2018. On 28-09-2018, one of the bill collector unilaterally enhanced the house tax slab rates for the said residential flat of the appellant from residential slab to commercial slab vide tax assessment No.1086388863 from Rs.1,522/- for half year to Rs.18,773/- for half year without giving any prior notice with a steep hike of 1082%, aggrieved by the acts of respondent, appellant personally represented and made requests and the respondent instead of revision imposed hefty penalty of

Rs.18,773/- with a false allegation that the said flat owned by the appellant has constructed without a house plan. Despite representation made by the appellant vide letter No.HT/PVR/2020, dt.30-10-2020 neither reassessed nor repealed and continued to charge penal interest. On 06-02-2019 the appellant paid half yearly property tax of Rs.19,530/- i.e. Rs.18,773/- together with interest/penalty and approached the officials on 13-02-2019 with supporting documents and the officials reassessed and reduced from Rs.18,773/- half - 4 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP yearly to Rs.12,275/- w.e.f. first half year of 2019-2020 but they have not deducted the excess amount charged in the assessment years 2018-19 i.e

Rs.18,773/- + Rs.18,773/- (Total Rs.37,546/-).

(b)The appellant further submitted that a demand notice for property tax for the flat No.201 for assessment year 2020-21 was received in the month of April, 2020 in which total house tax of Rs. 81,219/- for the half-year period ending October, 2020 but in the ibid tax demand notice, the refundable or removable arrears has intentionally been included viz. Rs.18,773/- property tax for first half year of 2018-19 and similar amount for second half year of 2018- 19 whereas as per revised rates, the property tax is reduced to Rs.12,775/- per half year for assessment year 2018-19 as charged for assessment year 2019-20 and when contacted the respondent officials, they informed that they have charged the excess rate as no house plan exists to the flat, despite a copy of house plan for the entire apartment provided to them personally and

Rs.12,840/- of interest/late penalty has been charged and Rs.2,889/- has charged for two consecutive assessment years i.e. 2019-20 and 2020-21 towards car parking area provided for flat No.201 in the cellar of the apartment as unauthorized construction.

(c)The tax demand notice issued for assessment year 2020-21 for property tax of Rs.87,276/- with similar errors and the respondent officials assured that the errors will be rectified once the tax assessment amount is paid and the appellant paid Rs.45,000/- on 25-03-2021 but the respondent officials have not rectified the same while issuing a fresh property tax notice for

Rs.81,186/- for the assessment year 2021-22 which including outstanding house tax of Rs.63,831/- and late penalty of Rs.17,355/- and in the tax assessment notice bearing No.SN/1086621989, dt.27-01-2022, the half yearly tax slab has further enhanced from Rs.12,275/- per half year to Rs.13,503/- - 5 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP per half year. The respondent has been charging an excess amount to the tune of Rs.23,690/- on account of penalty for unauthorized construction of the flat without giving any details of such unauthorized construction involved in the ibid residential house after deduction this unauthorized charges a sum of

Rs.12,466/- is only due from the appellant towards property tax for the assessment financial year 2021-22. The appellant has issued a legal notice to the respondent on 22-03-2021 and also approached the respondent for rectification of anomalies raised against tax demand notice on 11-04-2022 but the respondent has not responded to the legal notice till date nor rectified the anomalies raised by the appellant on the property tax of his flat. Hence, this appeal.

(d) The appellant preferred the present appeal on the following grounds :- i.The special property tax notice bearing No.SN/1086621989, dt.27-01-2022 is contrary to the law and more particularly provisions of the Municipal Act as Rs.3,178/- per half year on account of "unauthorized construction penalty" is included.

ii. No reasons what so ever are assigned for enhancement of tax and also not revealed the circumstances under which such hefty and unreasonable taxes levied against the residential property.

Levying penalties without any reason and demanding the same in the special notice is totally unwarranted and illegal.

iii. The respondent charging unauthorized construction penalty for car parking area of the flat is against the law and equality as no tenant of the apartment is being charged such penalty.

- 6 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP iv. The respondent has converted the flat from residential tax slab to commercial tax slab without serving any prior notice to the appellant.

3. No oral and documentary evidence is adduced by either of the parties to the appeal.

4.Heard.

5.Now, the point for determination is :-

Whether the appellant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for ?

POINT :

6.At the outset, this is an appeal preferred by the appellant, under Section 282 of H.M.C.Act for grant of the reliefs as prayed for. Since the appellant preferred the present appeal before this Court, the initial burden is on the appellant to prove and establish that the appellant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.

7.Before proceeding further into the facts under the appeal, it is pertinent to go through the provision under Section 282 of H.M.C.Act which reads as follows :-

Appeals when and to whom to lie :- (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Judge. (2) But no such appeal shall be heard by the said Judge, unless:-

(a) it is brought within fifteen days after the accrual of the cause of complaint;

(b) a complaint has previously been made to the Commissioner - 7 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP under Section 221 and such complaint has been disposed of;

(c) a complaint has been made, by the person aggrieved within fifteen days after the first received notice of any amendment made in the assessment book under Section 225 and his complaint has been disposed of;

(d) in the case of an appeal against tax, the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him with the Commissioner.

8.Now, in the light of above provision and the scope of appeal under

Section 282 of H.M.C.Act, the grounds on which an appeal can be heard by the Judge with respect to the complaint previously been made to the

Commissioner under Section 221 of H.M.C.Act and such complaint has been disposed of by the respondent.

9.As can be seen from the grounds of appeal and also after perusal of entire material placed on record, the appellant addressed letters, dt.13-02- 2019 and 30-10-2020 to the respondent to reduce the property tax and interest charged for delay payment and the respondent issued a special notice to the appellant bearing notice No.SN/1086621989, dt.27-01-2022 which clearly reveals that the existing tax is Rs.12,275/- and Rs.13,503/- after revision and further reveals that “in case dissatisfied with the assessment fixed can present complaint to the commissioner or any officer authorized by commissioner within fifteen days from the date of service of notice and if no complaint is presented the assessment will be final” and the said special notice was received by the appellant and the appellant issued legal notice, dt.11-04-2022 but did not present complaint within fifteen days, as such when a complaint has not been made, by the appellant aggrieved withinfifteen days after the first received notice of any amendment made in the assessment book under

Section 225 and the complaint of the appellant has been disposed of, no such - 8 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP appeal can be heard by this Court. So, it shows that the appellant has violated

Section 282 (2) (c) of H.M.C.Act which is mandatory, as it envisages that the

Court shall not hear the appeal unless a complaint has been made, by the person aggrieved withinfifteen days after the first received notice of any amendment made in the assessment book under Section 225 and his complaint has been disposed of. So, when the appellant failed to complaint as per the mandatory provision under the Act, the appeal filed by the appellant cannot be heard by this Court and it is liable to be dismissed.

10.The appellant filed photo copy of tax passbook bearing old assessment

No.1088180905 and new assessment No.1086388863 which shows that the half yearly tax is Rs.1,522/- and the payment particulars reveals that

Rs.4,868/- paid on 13-11-2015 for 2014-15; Rs.1,612/- paid on 30-09-2016 for 2016; Rs.19,530/- paid on 06-02-2019 for 2018-19; Rs.45,000/- paid on 25-03- 2021 for 2018-20. The appellant filed photo copy of property tax receipt, dt.06- 02-2019 which reveals that property tax paid from 01-04-2018 to 31-03-2019 (partially) and also reveals that there is balance of Rs.16,669/-. The photo copy of integrated demand bill for 2020-21 issued by the respondent, dt.04-04- 2020 reveals that Rs.87,522/- is total due and Rs.75,033/- is net amount payable. The appellant filed photo copy of property tax receipt, dt.25-03-2021 which reveals that property tax paid from 01-10-2018 to 31-03-2020 (partially) and also reveals that there is balance of Rs.42,276/-. Further on perusal of material available on record, it discloses that the respondent issued seizure notice to the appellant directing to pay due amount of Rs.87,276/- by 25-03- 2021 inspite of the same the appellant did not make payment of property tax without any dues and the receipts filed by the appellant goes to show that still - 9 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP there are dues payable by the appellant and the respondent is charging interest on the dues payable by the appellant.

11.Though, it is not mandatory to deposit the total amount of tax claimed by the respondent at the time of filing of an appeal, but it is mandatory to deposit the entire amount claimed by the respondent before hearing of the appeal.

Though the appellant not got marked the documents filed along with the appeal but on perusal of the photo copy of receipt dt.06-02-2019, photo copy of integrated demand bill dt.04-04-2020 and photo copy of receipt dt.25-03- 2021 clearly shows that the appellant is due of property tax as demanded by the respondent. So, it shows that the appellant has violated Section 282 (2)

(d) of H.M.C.Act which is mandatory, as it envisages that the Court shall not hear the appeal unless the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by the appellant with the respondent. So, when the appellant failed to deposit the amount as per the mandatory provision under the Act, the appeal filed by the appellant cannot be heard by this Court and it is liable to be dismissed.

12.Coming to the grounds of the appeal pleaded by the appellant in the appeal are that Rs.3,178/- per half year on account of "unauthorized construction penalty" is included in the special property tax notice bearing

No.SN/1086621989, dt.27-01-2022 and no reasons assigned for enhancement of tax and the respondent charging unauthorized construction penalty for car parking area of the flat and the respondent has converted the flat from residential tax slab to commercial tax slab. But the appellant failed to exhibit any documentary proof to prove its contention that the respondent converted the flat from residential tax slab to commercial tax slab and charging unauthorized construction penalty for car parking area. The special notice of - 10 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP property tax assessment bearing No.SN/1086621989, dt.27-01-2022 reveals only unauthorized construction penalty as contended by the appellant i.e.

existing tax Rs.2,889/- and after revision/new assessment under capital value system Rs.3,178/- and the reasons for increase if any : due to conversion of property tax from annual rental value system into capital value system w.e.f.

01-04-2021 as per Act No.44/2020, dt.31-12-2020 or due to change in plinth area or additional construction or usage or type of construction or age of the building, when the reason is clearly mentioned thereunder and the respondent also afforded an opportunity to the appellant to complaint if dissatisfied then what prevented the appellant to complaint before the respondent is not explained.

13.Hence, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the appeal preferred by the appellant is not maintainable under law as the appellant has violated Section 282 (2) (c) and (d) of H.M.C.Act which are mandatory.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

14. IN THE RESULT, the appeal is dismissed without costs.

(Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on the 23rd day of October, 2024).

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No oral and documentary evidence is adduced by either of the parties to

the appeal.

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

- 11 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

Date of Presentation : 09-11-2022/26-12-2022 Date of filing : 20-01-2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :S.Kavitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 23rd day of October, 2024

Tax Appeal No.1 of 2023

Between : Paila Venkata Rao, S/o late P.Ramayya, Hindu, aged 56 years, r/at D.No.6-175/23, Flat No.201, First Floor, Ayyappa Nilayam, Ayyappa Nagar, Sheela Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530 012, Aadhaar No.7339 7582 7278, Mobile No.92982 53453.

... Appellant

A n d : Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Tenneti Bhavanam, Asilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam-530 002 rep. by its Commissioner.

... Respondent

On appeal from the special notice No.SN/1086621989, dt.27-01-2022

of the Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

served on the appellant.

Between : Paila Venkata Rao, S/o late P.Ramayya, Hindu, aged 56 years, r/at D.No.6-175/23, Flat No.201, First Floor, Ayyappa Nilayam, Ayyappa Nagar, Sheela Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530 012, Aadhaar No.7339 7582 7278, Mobile No.92982 53453. … Assessee

A n d : Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Tenneti Bhavanam, Asilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam-530 002 rep. by its Commissioner. … Assessor - 12 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

This tax appeal is filed under Section 282 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter will be referred to as “H.M.C.Act” for the sake of convenience and brevity) - (a) to order stay of operation of special property tax notice served by the respondent issued under section 220 (2) of Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 bearing notice No.SN/J086621989, dt.27-01-2022 against the appellant towards enhancement of half yearly property tax from Rs.12,275/- per half year to Rs.13,503/- per half year w.e.f. April 2021 against the residential flat No.201 owned by him.(b) to direct the respondent to remove the unauthorized construction penalty charges against the flat to the tune of Rs.23,690/- charged without any authority in the tax demand notices. (c) to direct the respondent to remove the late fee penalty on unauthorized charges, total amounting to the tune of Rs.35,619/- from the tax assessment demand from the assessment years 2016-17 to 2021-22. (d) to direct the respondent to remove the unauthorized construction penalty charged against the ibid flat from financial year 2018-19 as the entire apartment consisting ten flats has been constructed and occupied with proper approval of the respondent. (e) to direct the respondent to pay the adequate compensation for the mental and physical harassment caused to the honest property tax payer like appellant as deemed fit and proper. (f) to direct the respondent to issue a fresh tax assessment demand notice to the appellant duly rectified all the anomalies and observations raised by appellant to enable to pay the dues in a reasonable time.

A fixed Court fee of Rs.3/- is paid under Art.III (i) of Sch.II of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act.

This appeal having been heard on 04-10-2024 in the presence of Sri.B.V.R.Murthy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Respondent remained exparte on 15-03-2023, and having stood over to this day, for consideration, this Court doth order and passed the following :

D E C R E E

i.that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed. ii.that there be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 23rd day of October, 2024.

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

- 13 - TA 1/2023, Dt : 23-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Appellant : For Respondent :

No costs memo filed by either of the parties to the appeal.

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

- 1 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :S.Kavitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Friday, the 25th day of October, 2024

S.O.P.No.21 of 2024

Between :

1. Marni Padmavathi, W/o late Marni Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, age 71 years, household duties, r/at MIG 2-38, Dayal Nagar, Visalakshi Nagar, Radha Bagh, Visakhapatnam-530 043, aadhaar No.4579 0408 6278, Cell No.97040 29133.

2. Puttagunta Pratima, W/o Puttagunta Surendra, Hindu, age 54 years, Software Engineer, presently r/at 142, Nashua Rd. Gorton, M.A. 01450 permanent r/at 76-11-11A, Kolla Farm road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada (Urban), Krishna Kamakotinagar-520 012, Aadhaar No.8957 4473 9819, Cell No.1978 732 337.

3. M.Satya Swarupa Rani, W/o Dandamudi Kranthi Swarup, Hindu, age 49 years, Software Engineer, presently r/at 312, Birchwood Way, Irving, Texas-75063, USA, permanent r/at 7-2-1770, Creche Colony, Sector-4, Near Hindu Public School, Hyderabad-500 018, Aadhaar No.9375 0835 5789, Cell No.1214 707 3100 rep. by her mother and general power of attorney holder petitioner No.1. … Petitioners

A n d : NIL … Respondent

This petition is coming for final hearing on 24-10-2024 before me in the presence of Sri.S.Narayana & Sri.I.V.Madhusudhana Rao, Advocates for the Petitioners and of Respondent -NIL- and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 372 of Indian

Succession Act, to grant succession certificate in names of the petitioners as

- 2 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP the legal heirs of the deceased Marni Venkateswara Rao for the shares held by him in respect of the companies as detailed in the petition schedule.

2. The brief averments of the petition are :-

The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the wife and daughters of Marni

Venkateswara Rao who died on 01-01-2012. During the lifetime of

Venkateswara Rao, he acquired petition schedule shares in various companies. After demise of Venkateswara Rao, the petitioners approached the officials of stock exchange for transmission of shares and the officials informed that no nomination was given by the deceased Venkateswara Rao to transfer the shares and advised to submit succession certificate and also advised that since the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are residents of USA and the petitioner No.1 being their mother get the shares transferred in her name and appoint the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as her nominees Hence, this petition.

3.At the time of registering the petition, a general notice was issued by way of paper publication calling upon for objections, but none turned up before the Court with any objections.

4.To prove their contention, on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 on their behalf.

5.Heard arguments.

6.Now, the point for determination is :-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief to issue

succession certificate in their favour as prayed for ?

P O I N T :

- 3 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

7.On behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. P.W.1 is the petitioner No.1. Ex.P1 is the online copy of particulars of shares standing in the name of late Marni Venkateswara Rao issued by HDFC Bank, Visakhapatnam. Ex.P2 is the death certificate of

M.Venkateswara Rao issued by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, dt.04-11-2019. Ex.P3 is the family member certificate issued by the Tahsildar,

Visakhapatnam, dt.15-11-2019. Ex.P4 is the general power of attorney executed by P.Prathima, dt.08-06-2024. Ex.P5 is the general power of attorney executed by Satya Swarupa Rani, dt.13-06-2024.

8.Now, since the petitioners filed the present petition, seeking the relief to grant succession certificate in their favour with respect to the petition schedule shares, the initial burden is on the petitioners to prove and establish that they are the legal heirs of deceased Marni Venkateswara Rao and that they are entitled for issuance of succession certificate in their favour as prayed for.

9.To prove their contention, the petitioner No.1 who is also the general power of attorney holder of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 examined herself as P.W.1 and she filed her chief-examination affidavit and reiterated the petition pleadings and the same are not reiterated to avoid repetition. Ex.P2 death certificate of M.Venkateswara Rao reveals that he died on 01-01-2012 and father name is M.Satyanarayana. Ex.P3 family member certificate, dt.15-11- 2019 reveals that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the wife and daughters of Marni

Venkateswara Rao, S/o late Marni Satyanarayana who died on 01-01-2012.

Exs.P4 and P5 general power of attorney, dt.08-06-2024 and 13-06-2024 testifies that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 executed a general power of attorney in favour of P.W.1 to prosecute the present petition. Ex.P1 online copy of particulars of shares issued by HDFC Bank, Visakhapatnam testifies that the

- 4 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP petition schedule shares stands in the name of deceased Marni Venkateswara

Rao vide DP account No.42865936.

10.The petitioners in support of their oral contention by exhibiting Exs.P1 to

P5 are able to prove that Marni Venkateswara Rao died on 01-01-2012 and during his lifetime he acquired petition schedule shares in various companies.

So, when the petitioners proved that they are the wife and daughters of deceased Venkateswara Rao and the only class-I legal heirs, it is held that they are entitled for issuance of succession certificate in their favour as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioners.

11. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed without costs, granting

succession certificate in favour of the petitioners for the shares held by

deceased Marni Venkateswara Rao in respect of the companies as

detailed in the petition schedule. The petitioners are directed to deposit

the succession fee amount into the Court within two months from the

date of this order to receive succession certificate from this Court.

(Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on the 25th day of October, 2024).

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

For Petitioners : For Respondent :

P.W.1 : M.Padmavathi NIL

No. of documents marked for

For Petitioners :

Ex.P1 : Online copy of particulars of shares standing in the name of late Marni Venkateswara Rao issued by HDFC Bank, Visakhapatnam.

- 5 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

Ex.P2 : Death certificate of M.Venkateswara Rao issued by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, dt.04-11-2019. Ex.P3 : Family member certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam, dt.15-11-2019. Ex.P4 : General power of attorney executed by P.Prathima, dt.08-06-2024. Ex.P5 : General power of attorney executed by Satya Swarupa Rani, dt.13-06-2024.

For Respondent :- N I L -

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

- 6 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

ENGROSSED THE SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE ON PAYMENT OF COURT

FEE OF Rs.2,65,800-00 PAID BY WAY OF CFMS TRANSACTION

ID:80166401192024, BANK REFERENCE NO.CPAENYQDB0 OF STATE

BANK OF INDIA, DISTRICT COURT BRANCH, VISAKHAPATNAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :S.Kavitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Friday, the 25th day of October, 2024

S.O.P.No.21 of 2024

Between :

1. Marni Padmavathi, W/o late Marni Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, age 71 years, household duties, r/at MIG 2-38, Dayal Nagar, Visalakshi Nagar, Radha Bagh, Visakhapatnam-530 043, aadhaar No.4579 0408 6278, Cell No.97040 29133.

2. Puttagunta Pratima, W/o Puttagunta Surendra, Hindu, age 54 years, Software Engineer, presently r/at 142, Nashua Rd. Gorton, M.A. 01450 permanent r/at 76-11-11A, Kolla Farm road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada (Urban), Krishna Kamakotinagar-520 012, Aadhaar No.8957 4473 9819, Cell No.1978 732 337.

3. M.Satya Swarupa Rani, W/o Dandamudi Kranthi Swarup, Hindu, age 49 years, Software Engineer, presently r/at 312, Birchwood Way, Irving, Texas-75063, USA, permanent r/at 7-2-1770, Creche Colony, Sector-4, Near Hindu Public School, Hyderabad-500 018, Aadhaar No.9375 0835 5789, Cell No.1214 707 3100 rep. by her mother and general power of attorney holder petitioner No.1. … Petitioners A n d : NIL … Respondent

This petition is coming for final hearing on 24-10-2024 before me in the presence of Sri.S.Narayana & Sri.I.V.Madhusudhana Rao, Advocates for the Petitioners and of Respondent -NIL- and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court engrossed the succession certificate as follows :

SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE

This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 372 of Indian

- 7 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

Succession Act, to grant succession certificate in names of the petitioners as the legal heirs of the deceased Marni Venkateswara Rao for the shares held by him in respect of the companies as detailed in the petition schedule.

Whereas upon considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by petitioners which lent support to the case of petitioners, this Court hereby passes order granting succession certificate in favour of the petitioners for the shares held by deceased Marni Venkateswara Rao in respect of the companies as detailed in the petition schedule. The petitioners are directed to deposit the succession fee amount into the Court within two months from the date of this order to receive succession certificate from this Court.

This certificate is accordingly granted to above petitioners.

S C H E D U L E

Copy of the schedule is enclosed to the succession certificate.

The original challan is enclosed to the Succession Certificate.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, on this the 25th day of October, 2024.

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Sd/- M.VENKATESWARA RAO

for (M.VENKATESWARA RAO)

Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Div.),

Visakhapatnam.

To : The Petitioners 1 to 3

1. Marni Padmavathi, W/o late Marni Venkateswara Rao

2. Puttagunta Pratima, W/o Puttagunta Surendra.

3. M.Satya Swarupa Rani, W/o Dandamudi Kranthi Swarup rep. by her mother and general power of attorney holder petitioner No.1. through their Advocates Sri.S.Narayana & Sri.I.V.Madhusudhana Rao.

Note : As per Order-XX Rule-8 of C.P.C., the successor of the Court has signed.

NOTE: This copy is to be retained in the case record.

- 1 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :S.Kavitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Friday, the 25th day of October, 2024

S.O.P.No.21 of 2024

Between :

1. Marni Padmavathi, W/o late Marni Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, age 71 years, household duties, r/at MIG 2-38, Dayal Nagar, Visalakshi Nagar, Radha Bagh, Visakhapatnam-530 043, aadhaar No.4579 0408 6278, Cell No.97040 29133.

2. Puttagunta Pratima, W/o Puttagunta Surendra, Hindu, age 54 years, Software Engineer, presently r/at 142, Nashua Rd. Gorton, M.A. 01450 permanent r/at 76-11-11A, Kolla Farm road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada (Urban), Krishna Kamakotinagar-520 012, Aadhaar No.8957 4473 9819, Cell No.1978 732 337.

3. M.Satya Swarupa Rani, W/o Dandamudi Kranthi Swarup, Hindu, age 49 years, Software Engineer, presently r/at 312, Birchwood Way, Irving, Texas-75063, USA, permanent r/at 7-2-1770, Creche Colony, Sector-4, Near Hindu Public School, Hyderabad-500 018, Aadhaar No.9375 0835 5789, Cell No.1214 707 3100 rep. by her mother and general power of attorney holder petitioner No.1. … Petitioners

A n d : NIL … Respondent

This petition is coming for final hearing on 24-10-2024 before me in the presence of Sri.S.Narayana & Sri.I.V.Madhusudhana Rao, Advocates for the Petitioners and of Respondent -NIL- and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 372 of Indian

Succession Act, to grant succession certificate in names of the petitioners as

- 2 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP the legal heirs of the deceased Marni Venkateswara Rao for the shares held by him in respect of the companies as detailed in the petition schedule.

2. The brief averments of the petition are :-

The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the wife and daughters of Marni

Venkateswara Rao who died on 01-01-2012. During the lifetime of

Venkateswara Rao, he acquired petition schedule shares in various companies. After demise of Venkateswara Rao, the petitioners approached the officials of stock exchange for transmission of shares and the officials informed that no nomination was given by the deceased Venkateswara Rao to transfer the shares and advised to submit succession certificate and also advised that since the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are residents of USA and the petitioner No.1 being their mother get the shares transferred in her name and appoint the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as her nominees Hence, this petition.

3.At the time of registering the petition, a general notice was issued by way of paper publication calling upon for objections, but none turned up before the Court with any objections.

4.To prove their contention, on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 on their behalf.

5.Heard arguments.

6.Now, the point for determination is :-

Whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief to issue

succession certificate in their favour as prayed for ?

P O I N T :

- 3 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

7.On behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. P.W.1 is the petitioner No.1. Ex.P1 is the online copy of particulars of shares standing in the name of late Marni Venkateswara Rao issued by HDFC Bank, Visakhapatnam. Ex.P2 is the death certificate of

M.Venkateswara Rao issued by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, dt.04-11-2019. Ex.P3 is the family member certificate issued by the Tahsildar,

Visakhapatnam, dt.15-11-2019. Ex.P4 is the general power of attorney executed by P.Prathima, dt.08-06-2024. Ex.P5 is the general power of attorney executed by Satya Swarupa Rani, dt.13-06-2024.

8.Now, since the petitioners filed the present petition, seeking the relief to grant succession certificate in their favour with respect to the petition schedule shares, the initial burden is on the petitioners to prove and establish that they are the legal heirs of deceased Marni Venkateswara Rao and that they are entitled for issuance of succession certificate in their favour as prayed for.

9.To prove their contention, the petitioner No.1 who is also the general power of attorney holder of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 examined herself as P.W.1 and she filed her chief-examination affidavit and reiterated the petition pleadings and the same are not reiterated to avoid repetition. Ex.P2 death certificate of M.Venkateswara Rao reveals that he died on 01-01-2012 and father name is M.Satyanarayana. Ex.P3 family member certificate, dt.15-11- 2019 reveals that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the wife and daughters of Marni

Venkateswara Rao, S/o late Marni Satyanarayana who died on 01-01-2012.

Exs.P4 and P5 general power of attorney, dt.08-06-2024 and 13-06-2024 testifies that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 executed a general power of attorney in favour of P.W.1 to prosecute the present petition. Ex.P1 online copy of particulars of shares issued by HDFC Bank, Visakhapatnam testifies that the

- 4 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP petition schedule shares stands in the name of deceased Marni Venkateswara

Rao vide DP account No.42865936.

10.The petitioners in support of their oral contention by exhibiting Exs.P1 to

P5 are able to prove that Marni Venkateswara Rao died on 01-01-2012 and during his lifetime he acquired petition schedule shares in various companies.

So, when the petitioners proved that they are the wife and daughters of deceased Venkateswara Rao and the only class-I legal heirs, it is held that they are entitled for issuance of succession certificate in their favour as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioners.

11. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed without costs, granting

succession certificate in favour of the petitioners for the shares held by

deceased Marni Venkateswara Rao in respect of the companies as

detailed in the petition schedule. The petitioners are directed to deposit

the succession fee amount into the Court within two months from the

date of this order to receive succession certificate from this Court.

(Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on the 25th day of October, 2024).

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

For Petitioners : For Respondent :

P.W.1 : M.Padmavathi NIL

No. of documents marked for

For Petitioners :

Ex.P1 : Online copy of particulars of shares standing in the name of late Marni Venkateswara Rao issued by HDFC Bank, Visakhapatnam.

- 5 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

Ex.P2 : Death certificate of M.Venkateswara Rao issued by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, dt.04-11-2019. Ex.P3 : Family member certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam, dt.15-11-2019. Ex.P4 : General power of attorney executed by P.Prathima, dt.08-06-2024. Ex.P5 : General power of attorney executed by Satya Swarupa Rani, dt.13-06-2024.

For Respondent :- N I L -

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

- 6 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

ENGROSSED THE SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE ON PAYMENT OF COURT

FEE OF Rs.2,65,800-00 PAID BY WAY OF CFMS TRANSACTION

ID:80166401192024, BANK REFERENCE NO.CPAENYQDB0 OF STATE

BANK OF INDIA, DISTRICT COURT BRANCH, VISAKHAPATNAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :S.Kavitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Friday, the 25th day of October, 2024

S.O.P.No.21 of 2024

Between :

1. Marni Padmavathi, W/o late Marni Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, age 71 years, household duties, r/at MIG 2-38, Dayal Nagar, Visalakshi Nagar, Radha Bagh, Visakhapatnam-530 043, aadhaar No.4579 0408 6278, Cell No.97040 29133.

2. Puttagunta Pratima, W/o Puttagunta Surendra, Hindu, age 54 years, Software Engineer, presently r/at 142, Nashua Rd. Gorton, M.A. 01450 permanent r/at 76-11-11A, Kolla Farm road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada (Urban), Krishna Kamakotinagar-520 012, Aadhaar No.8957 4473 9819, Cell No.1978 732 337.

3. M.Satya Swarupa Rani, W/o Dandamudi Kranthi Swarup, Hindu, age 49 years, Software Engineer, presently r/at 312, Birchwood Way, Irving, Texas-75063, USA, permanent r/at 7-2-1770, Creche Colony, Sector-4, Near Hindu Public School, Hyderabad-500 018, Aadhaar No.9375 0835 5789, Cell No.1214 707 3100 rep. by her mother and general power of attorney holder petitioner No.1. … Petitioners A n d : NIL … Respondent

This petition is coming for final hearing on 24-10-2024 before me in the presence of Sri.S.Narayana & Sri.I.V.Madhusudhana Rao, Advocates for the Petitioners and of Respondent -NIL- and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court engrossed the succession certificate as follows :

SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE

This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 372 of Indian

- 7 -

S.O.P.21/2024, Dt:25-10-2024 PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

Succession Act, to grant succession certificate in names of the petitioners as the legal heirs of the deceased Marni Venkateswara Rao for the shares held by him in respect of the companies as detailed in the petition schedule.

Whereas upon considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by petitioners which lent support to the case of petitioners, this Court hereby passes order granting succession certificate in favour of the petitioners for the shares held by deceased Marni Venkateswara Rao in respect of the companies as detailed in the petition schedule. The petitioners are directed to deposit the succession fee amount into the Court within two months from the date of this order to receive succession certificate from this Court.

This certificate is accordingly granted to above petitioners.

S C H E D U L E

Copy of the schedule is enclosed to the succession certificate.

The original challan is enclosed to the Succession Certificate.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, on this the 25th day of October, 2024.

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Sd/- M.VENKATESWARA RAO

for (M.VENKATESWARA RAO)

Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Div.),

Visakhapatnam.

To : The Petitioners 1 to 3

1. Marni Padmavathi, W/o late Marni Venkateswara Rao

2. Puttagunta Pratima, W/o Puttagunta Surendra.

3. M.Satya Swarupa Rani, W/o Dandamudi Kranthi Swarup rep. by her mother and general power of attorney holder petitioner No.1. through their Advocates Sri.S.Narayana & Sri.I.V.Madhusudhana Rao.

Note : As per Order-XX Rule-8 of C.P.C., the successor of the Court has signed.

NOTE: This copy is to be retained in the case record.

- 1 -

O.S.287/2024, Dt : 23-10-2024

PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :S.Kavitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 23rd day of October, 2024

Original Suit No.287 of 2024

Between : Gubbala Naga Malleswara Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, age 36 years, r/at D.No.50-17-34/1, Behind Ramatalkies, Visakhapatnam-530 016, Aadhaar No.4919 3173 8721. … Plaintiff

A n d : Badampudi Ravi Kumar, S/o Badampudi Radhakrishna Murthy, age 44 years, Junior Assistant in MPDO Office, Panchayathraj Department, Thallapudi, r/at Sushila Nivas, Beside Sri Sai Balaji School, P.N.T.Colony, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, Aadhaar no.6112 4037 5062, Cell No.94911 27389. … Defendant

This suit is coming for final hearing before me on 22-10-2024 in the presence of Sri.G.Eswara Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Defendant remained exparte on 04-10-2024, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, for recovery of suit amount of Rs.24,01,000/- together with subsequent interest and costs of the suit, basing on a promissory note, dt.23-01-2022 for Rs.15,00,000/-.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are : -

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 23-01-2022 for his family expenses and to clear sundry debts and after

- 2 -

O.S.287/2024, Dt : 23-10-2024

PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP receiving the consideration, the defendant executed a demand promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff at his home agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.Thereafter, on repeated demands and requests made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to pay either principal or interest and postponed the same on one pretext or the other, as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant remained exparte.

4. Now the points for consideration are :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim ?

2. To what relief ?

5.To prove his contention, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 was marked.

6.Heard, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff.

Point No.1 :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim ?

7.At the outset, this is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, for recovery of suit amount, basing on Ex.A1 promissory note. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On the other hand, the defendant remained exparte.

(a)P.W.1 is the plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note, dt.23- 01-2022 for Rs.15,00,000/-.

- 3 -

O.S.287/2024, Dt : 23-10-2024

PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

8.Now, since the plaintiff filed the present suit for the relief to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove and establish the due execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and also the passing of consideration from the plaintiff to the defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note.

9.To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and filed his chief examination affidavit and reiterated his plaint pleadings.

10.In support of his contention, the plaintiff exhibited Ex.A1 document.

Ex.A1 is the promissory note, dt.23-01-2022 for Rs.15,00,000/- and it shows that the defendant borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 agreeing to repay the borrowed amount with interest at 24% per annum. The oral evidence of P.W.1 is in accordance with the contents of Ex.A1. So, the oral evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 establish the fact that the defendant borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour and failed to repay the same inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff. Hence, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Point No.2 :

To what relief ?

11.In view of the discussion made supra and also the findings arrived at while answering the point No.1, wherein it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for, it is held that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is entitled to be decreed in his favour

- 4 -

O.S.287/2024, Dt : 23-10-2024

PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP as prayed for. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs, in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay to the

plaintiff, the suit amount of Rs.24,01,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakh

One Thousand Only) together with subsequent interest at 6% per annum

from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only).

(Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on the 23rd day of October, 2024).

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

P.W.1 : G.N.Malleswara RaoExparte

No. of documents marked for

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note, dt.23-01-2022 for Rs.15,00,000/-.

For Defendant : Exparte.

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

- 5 -

O.S.287/2024, Dt : 23-10-2024

PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

Date of Presentation : 25-07-2024/27-08-2024 Date of Filing : 04-09-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :S.Kavitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 23rd day of October, 2024

Original Suit No.287 of 2024

Between : Gubbala Naga Malleswara Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, age 36 years, r/at D.No.50-17-34/1, Behind Ramatalkies, Visakhapatnam-530 016, Aadhaar No.4919 3173 8721. … Plaintiff

A n d : Badampudi Ravi Kumar, S/o Badampudi Radhakrishna Murthy, age 44 years, Junior Assistant in MPDO Office, Panchayathraj Department, Thallapudi, r/at Sushila Nivas, Beside Sri Sai Balaji School, P.N.T.Colony, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, Aadhaar no.6112 4037 5062, Cell No.94911 27389. … Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, for recovery of suit amount of Rs.24,01,000/- together with subsequent interest and costs of the suit, basing on a promissory note, dt.23-01-2022 for Rs.15,00,000/-.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.24,01,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.26,526/- is paid U/Sec.20 r/w Sch.I Art.I

(b) & (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming for final hearing before me on 22-10-2024 in the presence of Sri.G.Eswara Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Defendant remained exparte on 04-10-2024, and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court doth order and passed the following :

- 6 -

O.S.287/2024, Dt : 23-10-2024

PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;

2. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff, the suit amount of Rs.24,01,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakh One Thousand Only) together with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only); and

3. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.26,528/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty-Eight Only) towards institutional costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 23rd day of October, 2024.

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

No costs memo filed.Exparte

Stamps on VakalatRs.2-00

Stamps on PlaintRs. 26,526-00

Costs Instituted Rs. 26,528-00

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

- 1 - I.A.440/23 in S.O.P.18/20

Dt:25-10-2024

PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :S.Kavitha,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Friday, the 25th day of October, 2024

Interlocutory Application No.440 of 2023

in

S.O.P.No.18 of 2020

Between :

1. Puthi Venkateswara Reddy (died)

2. Puthi Srinivasa Rao (died)

3. Puthi Varalakshmi, W/o late Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 53 years, D.No.51-7-6/1, P & T Colony, Nakkavanipalem, Opp.M.R.O.Office, Visakhapatnam.

4. Puthi Anil Kumar Reddy, S/o late Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 33 years, rest -do-.

5. Puthi Renuka Devi, D/o late Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 28 years, rest - do-.

6. Puthi Satyanarayanamma, W/o late Venkateswara Reddy, Hindu, age 68 years, D.No.33-14-151, Ammavari Veedhi, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam.

7. Challa Geeta, D/o late Venkateswara Reddy, W/o Prabhakara Rao, Hindu, age 42 years, D.No.1-42, Tatituru Village, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

8. Chikkala Bhagya Lakshmi, D/o late Venkateswara Reddy, W/o Arun Kumar, Hindu, age 40 years, Nethaji Nagar, Chinnagadili, Arilova, Visakhapatnam.

9. Puthi Suseela, D/o late Venkateswara Reddy, Hindu, age 39 years, Flat No.402, Plot No.16, Varalakshmi Residency, road No.2, Vijaya colony, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad.

10.Puthi Preethi Gayathri, D/o Venkateswara Reddy, Hindu, age 36 years, D.No.33-14-151, Ammavari Street, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam. (Petitioner Nos.6 to 10 are proposed parties and legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.1) … Petitioners A n d :

1. The Commissioner, G.V.M.C., Asilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam.

- 2 - I.A.440/23 in S.O.P.18/20

Dt:25-10-2024

PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

2. Executive Engineer, T.S.R. Water Supply and Motors, Opp.A.P.S.R.T.C. Complex, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. … Respondents

This petition is coming for final hearing on 16-10-2024 in the presence of Sri.P.Srinivasa Rao,Advocate for the Petitionera/Plaintiff and of Sri.P.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for the Respondents and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1.The petitioners/proposed parties filed this petition under Order XXII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. to add the proposed party Nos.6 to 10 in

S.O.P.No.18/2020 who are legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.1 as petitioner Nos.6 to 10 and to carry out consequential amendments.

2. The brief averments of the petition affidavit are as follows :-

The petitioner/proposed party No.6 submitted that Puthi Krishna Reddy died on 19-11-2019 leaving behind his elder brothers i.e. petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as his legal heirs. During the life time of Puthi Krishna Reddy he worked in

G.V.M.C. and submitted written submission to the respondent No.1 to incorporate petitioner Nos.1 and 2 names as nominees in his service records as mother and father died long back and he was unmarried. The petitioner

Nos.1 and 2 filed above S.O.P. for grant of succession certificate and during pendency of the same petitioner No.2 died on 16-04-2020 and petitioner Nos.3 to 5 being wife and children of petitioner No.2 were added. The petitioner further submitted that the petitioner No.1 is her deceased husband and proposed party Nos.7 to 10 are their children. The petitioner No.1 died on 28- 03-2023, as such proposed party Nos.6 to 10 are to be added as legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.1 in the above S.O.P. Hence, this petition.

- 3 - I.A.440/23 in S.O.P.18/20

Dt:25-10-2024

PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

3. The respondents filed counter and the brief averments of the counter are as follows :-

The respondents denied the allegations of petition affidavit and contended that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same by producing the relevant documents and the averments made in the counter filed on behalf of the respondent in the main S.O.P. may be treated as part of this counter and prayed to pass appropriate orders which this Court deems fit and proper.

4. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the petitioners/proposed party Nos.6 to 10 are entitled for

the relief to add them as petitioner Nos.6 to 10 in the S.O.P. as legal

representative of deceased petitioner No.1 as prayed for ?

5.No oral and documentary evidence is adduced by either of the parties to the petition.

6.Heard.

POINT :

7.The main contention of the petitioners/proposed party Nos.6 to 10 is that during the pendency of the above S.O.P. which was filed by the petitioner

Nos.1 and 2, petitioner No.2 died on 16-04-2020 and petitioner Nos.3 to 5 being wife and children of deceased petitioner No.2 were added and later petitioner No.1 died on 28-03-2023, as such the proposed party Nos.6 to 10 are to be added as legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.1 in the above S.O.P. The respondents mainly contended that the petitioners are put to strict proof of their contention by producing the relevant documents and prayed to pass appropriate orders.

- 4 - I.A.440/23 in S.O.P.18/20

Dt:25-10-2024

PCJ(Sr.Div.)/VSP

8.On perusal of the record, it is observed that the petitioners/proposed party Nos.6 to 10 filed death certificate of petitioner No.1 which shows that petitioner No.1 died on 28-03-2023 and also reveals the name of proposed party No.6 as wife. The petitioners/proposed party Nos.6 to 10 also filed family member certificate, dt.22-05-2023 along with a memo on 09-07-2024, the family member certificate of petitioner No.1 reveals the names of proposed party Nos.6 to 10 as wife and daughters. When the respondents opposed the petition only on the ground of production of relevant documents in support of the averments of the proposed party Nos.6 to 10 and when the same are placed on record in support of their contention, this Court holds that the proposed party Nos.6 to 10 being the legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.1 be permitted to add as petitioner Nos.6 to 10 in the above

S.O.P. as legal representative of deceased petitioner No.1. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the petitioners.

9. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in favour of the petitioners,

permitting the petitioners to add the proposed party Nos.6 to 10 as

petitioner Nos.6 to 10 in the S.O.P.No.18/2020 as legal representative of

the deceased petitioner No.1.

(Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on the 25th day of October, 2024).

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No oral and documentary evidence is adduced by either of the parties to

the petition.

Sd/- S.KAVITHA

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.