1 //Fair//
IN THE COURT OF THE RCC IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-
IV ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT VISAKHAPATNAM.
PRESENT: SMT S.Mani, RCC IV Addl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL,2022.
IA.4/2022 in IA 118/20 in OS 262/2016
Between: Pyla Sri Ramamurthy S/o. Seetham Naidu, Hindu, aged 62 years resident of D.no. 39-21-16/3, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam.
Petitioner/1st defendant And:
1. Smt. Pedada Janakamma W/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged about 69 years, resident of D.No./ 38-16-15/2, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam
2. Smt. Sanapala Maheswari W/o. Late Appalakonda Hindu, aged about 56 years, resident of D.No./ 38-16-15/2, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam
3. Smt.Nambala pushpavathi W/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged about 54 years, resident of D.No./ 38-16-15/2, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam
4. Smt. Nambala Satyavathi W/o Venkata ramana , Hindu, aged about 49 years, resident of D.No./ 38-16-15/2, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam
5. Sri.Pedada Govinda S/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged about 47 years, resident of D.No./ 38-16-15/2, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam
6. Smt. Pedada Ramu W/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged about 51 years, resident of D.No./ 38-16-15/2, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam
Respondent/plaintiffs
7. The Greater Viskhapatnam Municipal corporation Represented by its Commissioner Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam respondent/2nd defendant
This interlocutory application is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Jagadeswara rao,Advocate for petitioner/1st defendant and of Sri. V.S.Pavan , Advocate for respondent/plaintiff , and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court made the following:
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioner./1st defendant under section 63 and 66 of Indian evidence Act by praying the court to permit him to get the copy of the order of the Special officer, ULC Visakhapatnam in CC 8(4) 6(1) 2264 / 1976 dt 6-1-1993 marked as secondary evidence through Dw1 and submits that 2 //Fair// in pursuance of the orders in W.P.10545/1984 Dw1 received summons and attended before the Hon’ble court from the officer of the Special officer UlC VSP and deposed that the said original order was produced before the Hon’ble High court in W.P. 19677/2011 and he has only a copy of the said order. Dt 16-12-2021 the Dw1 attended before the Hon’ble court and on enquiry with the Government pleader in High court came to know that the record in W.P. 19677/2011 is not yet received from Hyderabad. He submits that the office staff of the Hon’ble High
Court also informed that they have not yet received several records including the record in W.P. 19677/2011 from Hyderabad and it is very difficult for securing the original or certified copy of the said order from the record of the W.P.
19677/2011 and now it is clear that the original order in CC 8(4) 6(1) 2264/1976 dt.6-1-1993 it is out of reach or not subject to the process of the court and it is the best evidence for the decision of the Hon’ble court.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter and denied the averments of the petition and submits that the copy of non receipt of the record in W.P.
19677/2011 from Hyderabad and the government pleader , counsel of the petitioners stated the above said fact to the Dw1 and the petitioner is myth and friction created by the petitioner in order to mark the copy of the document in one way of the other. Even as per the averments of petition made by the petitioner the certified copy of the said document can be obtained and it is not advisable to mark the copy of the document by way of secondary evidence as no foundation laid to mark the said document as secondary evidence. It is submitted that the present case does not fall under the purview of exceptions as envisaged under section 65 and 66 of Indian Evidence Act, as such no permission can be given to the petitioner to mark the copy of the document of secondary evidence.
Moreover the petitioner did not file a single paper showing that the record in
W.P.19677/2011 was not received from Hyderabad. Mere verbal statements of 3 //Fair// individuals cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the record of the writ petition was sent from Hyderabad or not. The website of the Hon’ble High court of AP showing the details of disposal of W.P. 19677/2011 and as such it is highly suspect-able to believe the statements of the petitioner. the petitioner failed to make out any grounds to seek permission from the court to mark the copy of the order as secondary evidence and as such no permission can be granted to him. the present petition is only an afterthought filed with an intent to protract the matter as long as possible and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. Now the point for consideration:-
Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for ?
5. Heard both the counsels and perused the record .
6. Point:-
In view of the averments of the petition . This court relied upon the case law In Krishnapatnam port company ltd. Vs Cargill India Pvt Ltd dt 13-7-2018 in
CRP 2399/2018 where in the Honble high court of Telagana held that b y quoting
the judgment in Rakesh Mohandra Vs Anita Beri, where in the Honble Apex
Court held that for the purpose of seeking permission to prove the letter of disclaimer by way of secondary evidence the defendant summoned the record of
GLR form the office of DEO, Ambala who is stated to the custodian of the record .
According to the appellant at the time of sanction mutation with respect to the suit property, the appellant have filed the original affidavits of the co- shearers along with letter of disclaimer with one photostat set which was lying in the office of DEO Ambala. For the purpose of deciding the application under section 65 of the Act the Appellant examined the officer concern , to produce the record available in the said office on the basis of evidence given by the witness , who produce the record and the evidence of the defendant , the trial court 4 //Fair// allowed the application and admitted the letter of disclaimer to be used the secondary evidence. According to the section 65 of Indian Evidence Act the pre- conditions for leading secondary evidence are that such original document could not be produced by the party relied upon such documents inspite of best efforts , unable to produce the same which is beyond their control. The party seeking to produce secondary evidence must establish for the non production of primary evidence and unless it is established that the original document is lost or destroyed or is being deliberately withheld by the party in respect of that document sought to be used , secondary evidence in respect of that document cannot be accepted. The respondent filed an affidavit and affirms that the documents were lost while the office was being shifted and case file were being transferred from one team to another and the above approach was accepted and considered the sworn affidavit as sufficient to prove the fact of loss of original . The xerox copy of the document can be marked subject to examination of probative value and having held that the affidavit of the respondent would suffice to prove the loss of original. According to section 66 of
Indian Evidence Act notice is necessary and original is shown in the possession of the person against to whom document is sought to be proved or in possession of the person out of reach or not subject to the process of the court or of any person who is legally bound to be produced to it.
7.In the view of the provision of section 65 of Indian Evidence Act secondary evidence relating to documents may be given of the existence , condition, or contents of the document in the following cases :-a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or in power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved or any person out of reach or not subject , the process of the court or of any person legally bound to produce it.
8.in view of the above case law, Here in the present petition the 1st 5 //Fair// defendant filed this petition by stating that he lost the certified copies of the said UlC order dt 6-1-1993 and he could not trace out the same and in order to prove his case he filed IA 118/2020 to summon the Special officer, ULC
Visakhapatnam to produce order in CC 8(4) 6(1) 2264 /1976 dt 6-1-1993 as per provision of the Urban land ceiling Act in pursuance of the orders in W.P.
10545/1984. Dw1 attended and deposed that the said original order was produced before the Honble High Court in W.P. 19677/2011 and he has only a copy of the said order. And on enquiry with the Government pleader in High court and came to know that the record in W.P. 19677/2011 is not yet received from Hyderabad. He submits that the office staff of the Honble High Court stated that they have not yet received several records including the record in
W.P. 19677/2011 from Hyderabad and it is very difficult for securing the original or certified copy of the said order from the record of the W.P. 19677/2011 and now it is clear that the original order in CC 8(4) 6(1) 2264/1976 dt 6-1-1993 it is out of reach or not subject to the process of the court and it is the best evidence for the decision of the Honble Court.
9.Where as the respondent submits that certified copy of the said document can be obtained and it is not advisable to mark the said document by way of secondary evidence as there is no foundation laid by the petitioner to mark the said document as the secondary evidence, and the present case does not fall under exceptions of section 65 and 66 Indian Evidence Act as such no permission can be given to the petitioner to mark the copy of document as secondary evidence. No document was filed by the petitioner to show that record in W.P.
19677/2011 was not received by the Hyderabad.
6 //Fair//
10. The petitioner/1st defendant counsel submits that Dw1 deposed that the original record in CC 8(4) 6(1) 2264 /1976 dt 6-1-1993 was summited by their department to the Honble High Court of AP in WP 19677/2011 by retaining the copy of the said order and also addressed a letter for return of the said document on 3-2-2021 and the said letter dt 8-2-2021 from Joint collector , ULC,
Viskahapatnam to the Government Pleader for Revenue is marked as Ex.X2 which shows that they have submitted that the original of order in CC 8(4) 6(1) 2264 /1976 dt 6-1-1993 in WP 19677/2011 . By the petition and affidavit of 1st defendant in IA 118/20 it shows that he lost the certified copy of the said order
dt 6-1-1993 and he could not trace out the said order and also examined Dw1
who also deposed that they retained only the copy of order and in view of the deposition of Dw1 and affidavit of the petitioner/1st defendant have established that the certified copy of the said order dt 6-1-1993 is lost and out of reach or not subject to process of the court for the section under 65 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
11.By the evidence of Dw1 and in view of Ex.X2 which to shows that they have produced the original of the said order before the Honble High Court and it was not yet returned to their office and on enquiry bundles are not returned from the Hyderabad as such in view of the above, there is no possibility to obtain the certified copy of the said ULC order dt 6-1-1993. therefore this petition is allowed by permitting the 1st defendant to mark the said xerox copy of the ULC order as the secondary evidence.
7 //Fair//
12.In the result this petition is allowed by permitting the petitioner/D1 to get the copy of the order of the Special officer, ULC Visakhapatnam in CC 8(4) 6(1) 2264 /1976 dt 6-1-1993 to be marked as secondary evidence through Dw1.
Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant of this court, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7 th day of April, 2022
.
RCC-IV ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
VISAKHAPATNAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No witnesses examined on either side and no documents were marked.
RCC-IV AJCJ.
IV AMM, Vsp.
8 //Fair//
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-V ADDL.
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAHAPATNAM.
Present: Smt. J.Sri Seeta, , II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum II Metropolitan Magistrate FAC. IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- IV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, VSP
Dated this the day of , 2021.
C.C.No.126/2018
Between:
State: rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police,
II Town Police Station .. Complainant.
And
Singana Gangarao @ Baburao, S/o. (L) Kannayya, 48 yrs., Kapu by caste, D.No.37-14-56, Pattabireddy Gardens,
Visakhapatnam .. Accused.
This case came up on before me for hearing in the presence of APP
for complainant and of Sri , Advocate for the accused and upon hearing
the arguments and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court, delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This case is filed by the SHO, II Town Police Station U/s. 304-A IPC against the accused in Cr.No.614/2014 alleging as follows:
2. The accused has been working as Manager of Sri Venkateswaraswamy temple situated at Venkateswarametta, Alliuram, Visakhapatnam city for the past 7 years and during his tenure the accused pledged gold crown in respect of
Sri Venatesaraswamy Temple for Rs.7,50,000/- on 24.7.2014 in IIFL bank,
Seethampeta branch, Visahapatnam city vide gold loan No.4399697 and the accused took the pledge crown back on 16.12.2014 after paying loan amount in the bank. The accused also mortgaged (1) Gold Kasulaperu wg. 23.560 grams, (2) gold items received fro Hundi collection on 27.4.2005 wg. 2.800 grams and (3) two gold pieces wg. 28.571 grams at other local persons dishonestly for wrongful 9 //Fair// gain. On 29.1.2015 the accused brought all the mortgaged gold items i.e., (1)
Gold Kasulaperu wg. 23.848 grams (2) gold ring wg. 3.472 grams and (3) Two gold pieces wg. 20.040 grams and 8.575 grams were brought to police station and produced the same before Lw.5. The accused also pledged gold had already handed over gold crown to Lw.1 at the time of handing over his charge to Lw.1 .
Basing on the report of Lw.1, Lw.5 the Sub Inspector of Police, II Town police station registered the same as a case in Cr.No.614/2014 for the offence under
Sec.381 of IPC and investigated into.During thecourseof investigation, Lw.5 inspected the scene, recordedthe statements of witnesses,andlater altered the section of law into 409 and 403 of IPC and later he arrested the accused on 29.1.2015 in the presence of mediators when the accused surrendered himself on 29.1.2015 with gold ornaments i.e., (1) Gold Kasulaperu wg. 23.848 grams (2)
Gold ring wg.3,472 grams and (3) Two gold pieces wgg. 0.040grams belongs to
Venkateswaraswamy temple and seized under cove of mediators report dt.29.1.2015 and sent the accused to Judicial custody and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment U/s.409 and 403 of IPC.
3. Upon filing of the charge sheet the case was taken on file for the offence
U/Sec. U/s.409 and 403 of IPC and copies of the case record were furnished to the accused as required U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.
4. The accused was examined U/sec. 239 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation U/s.409 and 403 of IPC is read over and explained to the accused in
Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.In support of its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PW.4 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.6.
6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence the accused was examined
U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence on record. However 10 //Fair// he did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.
7. Heard both sides.
8.Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.?”
POINT:
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1. She deposed that the accused who used to work as Manager of Sri Venkateswaraswamy temple and he is the custodian of the property of said temple. He is holding duties of the Endowment officer for about four years prior to her. On 15.12.2014 at the time of taking charge by her as executive officer, the accused have not handed over 3 gold items i.e., (a) Kasulaperu approximate weight 23 grams, (2) Hundi item of about 2.80 gams and (3) two gold pieces wg. 28 grams approximately. Through her higher officials she came to know that the accused pledged the gold crown in IIFL bank at Seethamapeta, visakhapatnam. On 16.12.2014 in the presence of SS.Chandra
Sekhar Ajad, Regional joint commissioner of Endowments department, one NVSN
Murthy, deputy commissioner of Endowments department, EV Puspavardhan,
Assistant commissioner endowments department they broke the seals of the said lockers as the accused absconded with keys and accused came with keys and opened the said lockers and they found that the gold crown was not present in the said lockers. On 16.12.2014 the accused directly bring the gold crown and gave the same to archaka to decorate the same on the idol but not produced
before them. On the instructions of his superior officers she gave report and
Ex.P1 is the said report.
During her cross examination, she deposed that their Assistant commissioner is EV Pushpavardhan by the time she took charge as Executive 11 //Fair//
Officer and he was transferred from the cadre of Assistant Commissioner from
Vizag on the allegation that he was harassing his subordinates. By that time she took charge, 5 almyrahs containing records and ornaments of said temple were seized. She received her posting orders from Hyderabad and in the evening hours of 15.2.2014 she assumed the charge of EO of said temple. She further deposed that the gold crown was donated by donors to the temple and if any donation has been received from donors the same has to be registered in
Sec.43(10) property register and she has not handed over the said register and also not handed over any document to the police showing when the said crown has been donated and when it was received by the temple at the time of her examination. The keys of iron safe guard of said temple were in joint possession i.e., Archaka and Endowment officer and the temple will be opened till 8.00 P.M.
After verifying the gold and silver register and appraisal register she came to know that the said three ornaments mentioned in her chief affidavit. Either herself or their deputy commissioner has not reduced into writing the shortage of the three items from the locker.
During his further cross examination, she deposed that she does not know whether the accused is on leave from 1.12.2014 to 5.12.2014 and that the accused was not resumed to duties on 5.12.2014 and as such one Tulasi Rao was appointed as Assistant commissioner but said Tulasi rao refused to take charge.
She deposed that as per 6 B of Endowments Act the temple is under control of
Deputy Commissioner. She denied the suggestion that on 16.12.2014 the donor handed over the said gold crown to temple and till that time the crown was not handed over. After 5.00 p.m., of 16.12.2014 she verified the said three gold items for taking charge and by that time of taking charge of ornaments the temple was opened and she also verified that the ornaments decorated to the God. Without verifying the records she cannot say the exact date and time ie.., on16.12.2014 or 12 //Fair// 18.12.2014 whether she has taken over the list containing the gold ornaments from the accused. She denied the suggestion that on 19.12.2014 she received orders from the Deputy commissioner to receive gold ornaments. The donor of said gold crown is one N.Srinivasa Reddy.
10. As seen from the above evidence given by P.W.1 it was elicited that she took charge on 15.12.2014 evening and through her higher officials she came to know that the accused pledged the gold crown in IIFL bank, Seethamapeta,
Visakhapatnam and the crown was donated by donor. But the same was no registered in the property register and no such property or any other document showing when the gold crown was donated and when it was received by their temple was not handed over to police. Further, either Pw.1 or the deputy commissioner have not reduced into writing about the shortage of three items and also no endorsement has been received about the shortage. There is no explanation from Pw.1 as to why the donation of gold crown was not entered in the property register and why they have not handed over any document to the police. Further, after 5.00 p.m., she verified the three gold items for taking charge and at that time the temple is opened and she verified that the gold ornaments were decorated to god.
11.The then branch manager of IIFL bank by name K.Srinivasarao was examined as Pw.2. He deposed that in the month of September, 2015 police came to their bank and enquired about the gold loan obtained by accused in their branch and on that he verified he records and informed that the accused has obtained Rs.7,50,000/- by pledging gold crown and also the release date of gold crown. Before his joining the transaction took place and also repaid the loan and took the said gold crown. At that time the accused has submitted the ID proof and he handed over the same to police i.e., copy of Aadhar card, copy of affidavit and copy of loan sanction letter by their branch and the said letter addressed by 13 //Fair// police to their branch dt.2.9.2015was marked Ex.P2. Police informed him that the accused pledged the gold crown of idol of temple situated at Venkateswara swamy temple. During his cross examination he deposed that he has not seen the gold crown and he admitted that the gold crown was not specified in the loan against the gold repayment receipt and he sanction letter. Through the police he came to know that the item pledged by accused is gold crown.
12.Pw.2 has no personal knowledge whether the accused pledged gold crown or not and through police only he came to know that the item pledged by accused is gold crown.
13. Pw3 is one of the mediators for the seizure of three gold items and he turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
14.Pw.4 is the investigation officer who deposed that on 29.12.2014 Pw.1 came to the police station and gave a written report and basing on the said report he registered a case in Cr.No.614/2014 under Sec.381 of IPC and the FIR was marked as Ex.P4 and he further deposed about the visiting the scene of offence, recording the statement of Pw.1 and taking of photographs, alteration of section of law from 381 IPC to 409 and 403 of IPC on 21.1.2015 under Ex.P5 alteration memo, arrest of accused on 29.1.2015 when surrendered before him and recording of his confessional report under Ex.P6 and the accused produced 4 gold items i.e., one gold Kasulaperu wg. 23.560 grams , one gold ring wg. Of 2.800 grams and two gold pieces wg.28.571 i.e., Mos. 1 to 3 and he seized the property in the presence of witnesses and he examined Pw.1 at his branch on 30.7.2015 and recorded his statement and after completion he filed charge sheet.
During his cross examination, he admitted that Pw.1 gave report on 29.12.2014 and that the offence was detected on 16.12.2014 after Pw.1 taking 14 //Fair// charge and Pw.1 not stated the delay for giving report under Ex.P1 ie.., from 16.12.2014 to 29.12.2014 and by the said date the section of law against the accused is Sec.409 and 403 of IPC. He admitted that Pw.1 not stated the description of gold property in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. He has not collected any documentary evidence when the gold crown was handed over to AO of temple and who handed over the same to said temple. He has not conducted identification parade for Mos. 1 to 3. He further admitted that he has not seized any of records like appraisal register, inventory etc., of said Devasthanam. He further admitted that his investigation reveals that by the date of taking over charge by Pw.1 the assistant commissioner of endowment of said Devastanam seized the records and the safety locker of of said temple and he has not examined the assistant commissioner of endowment department and the said department has not taken interim custody of said Mos. 1 to 3.
14. The above evidence adduced by the prosecution discloses that except
P.W.1, no other person of Endowment department or the Venkateswaraswamy temple was examined by prosecution. Pw.3 turned hostile in this case.
15. Pw.1 was recalled for further cross examination and during her further cross examination she admitted that the signature shown to her on the receipt pertaining to Sri Venkateswaraswamy Devasthanam dt.16.12.2014 is her signature and the receipt pertains to handing over of golden crown. She voluntarily stated that she took charge on 15.12.2014 and prior to that date the ex-manager S.Ganga Rao received the said crown from the donor and on 16.12.2014 she issued the receipt and the said receipt was marked as Ex.D1.
In this case, there is no document to show that the property was entrusted to accused and according to Pw.1 on 16.12.2014 the accused himself brought the crown and asked Archaka to decorate the deity with the crown but
before that prosecution has to prove that the crown was donated by donor to
15 //Fair// the temple and as stated earlier no property register or any other document in this regard was filed by the prosecution. Moreover, no items list was mentioned in the 161 Cr.P.C.statement of Pw.1. Further there is a delay of 13 days in presenting report by Pw.1 in this case and there is no explanation by prosecution with regard to said delay. With regard to pawning of gold crown by the accused except Pw.2 no other evidence is there on record and according to him also he came to know about the pledging of crown through police only. The investigation of PW4 reveals that by the date of taking over charge by Pw.1 the assistant commissioner of endowment of said Devastanam seized the records and safety locker of said temple. So, by the date of taking over the charge by
Pw.1, the records and safety locker of temple are under the control of assistant commissioner of endowment. The endowment department not taken interim custody of M.Os. 1 to 3. Therefore, with regard to M.Os. 1 to 3 also there is no documentary evidence that the said items belongs to the temple and Pw.1 also not mentioned about the items in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. According to her, she noticed some shortcoming while taking charge and in such event she should have made an entry to that effect before taking charge and also make an entry in the concerned records. But no such documentary evidence is not produced
before the court. Moreover, as per Pw.1 five almyrahs were already seized prior
to her taking charge and when the almirahs were opened in the presence of the persons whom she deposed in her evidence, there should be an endorsement or acknowledgment about the shortcoming of the articles but in this case, no such endorsement or acknowledgment was filed. The temple also not filed any petition seeking interim custody of Mos. 1 to 3 . As per the admission of Pw.1 one Pushpavardhan the deputy commissioner of endowments used to harass his subordinate staff and as such he was transferred and Pw1 was posted from
Hyderabad. In view of the above said lacunas, I am of the opinion that the 16 //Fair// prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused.
15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.409 and 403 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. M.Os. 1 to 3 shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the day of , 2021.
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
VUYYURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1 : . P.W.2 : P.W.3 : . P.W.4 :
Witnesses examined for defence: None
Documents marked for prosecution:
Ex.P.1/--: Ex.P.2/--: Ex.P.3/--:
Documents marked for defence:
Ex.D1 :
Material objects marked for prosecution:
M.O.1 M.O.2 M.O.3
IV JCJ, VSP.
17 //Fair//
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum- IV
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
VISAKHAPATNAM.
PRESENT: Smt. J. Sri Seeta,
II Additional Junior Civil Judge FAC. IV Addl. Jr. Civil Judge Visakhapatnam.
, the 22nd day of June, 2021
O.S. No.473/2020
Between:
...Plaintiff
And:
...Defendant
This suit is coming on before me for hearing in the presence of Sri , Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is set ex parte, and upon hearing having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents whoever acts on their behalf from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the schedule property and for costs of the suit.
2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:
The plaintiff and his sister Smt. Baru (Chitturi) Sudeera are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. Originally, their father and the paternal grand mother late Smt. Baru Jogulamba jointly purchased an extent of 167 sq.
yards together with existing RCC house therein, bearing assessment No.35684 plot NO.134 MIG-II covered by survey No.26 in the approved lay out of
Muvvalavanipalem, Visakhapatnam from the rightful owner Sri Pappu apparao for a valid consideration on 1.10.1986 under registered document
No.No.4697/1987 whereas said Appa Rao purchased vacant site an extent of 167 sq. yards from Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority under regd. Sale 18 //Fair// deed dt.17.8.1991 vide document No.6370/1981. After purchase of the same said Apparao constructed RCC house by availing mortgage loan from PORT Trust under regd. Mortgage deed dt.16.11.1981 vide document No.2825/1985 and subsequently discharged the entire loan and thereafter Visakhapatnam port trust executed relinquishment deed dt.4.7.1985 bearing document
No.7685/1985. On 20.6.2002 Smt. Jogulamba died intestate leaving behind her onl son i.e., Raghavendrarao i.e., the father of plaintiff as sole legal heir for the estate left by her i.e., her share in the joint sale deed dt.1.10.1986 and as such, he father of plaintiff became the absolute owner of the entire property purchased under registered sale deed 4697/1987.
The father of plaintiff executed two registered Gift Deeds in favour of his children i.e., Baru Pavan and Smt. Baru (Chitturi) Sudheera for an extent of 111.33 sq. yards or 93.089 sq. meters in the total extent of 167 sq. yards r 139.62 sq.
meters which is 2/3rd undivided and unspecified in the total extent and executed another registered gift deed in favour of his daughter for the remaining extent of 55.66 sq. yards or 46.544 sq. meters in the total extent of 167 sq. yards or 139.62 sq. meters which is 1/3rd undivided and unspecified in the total extent.
As such, the plaintiff and his sister Smt. Baru (Chitturi) Sudheera become absolute owners of the entire extent and the property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his sister and managed by the plaintiff alone as his sister is residing in USA by virtue of her employment. They removed the dilapidated building and obtained plan approval from the GVMC vide proceedings BA1086/0276/B/Z2/M-6/2019 dt.16.2.2019 for construction of ground+first+Second floors and they jointly borrowed loan of Rs.48,82,281 from
PNB housing finance limited, Visakhapatnam, vide loan account
No.HOU/VSKP/0419/676940 by mortgaging the plaint schedule property and as such all the original documents pertaining to suit schedule property are in the 19 //Fair// custody of bank. They completed the work. During construction some of local people approached the plaintiff and demanded for some amounts by stating that if the plaintiff failed to fulfill their demands they will file false complaints against him before the municipal corporation authorities, but the plaintiff refused. As a result, GVMC authorities got issued notice on 7.3.2020 under Sec.452(1) of HMC
Act and the plaintiff submitted his explanation to them on 12.3.2020. The defendant also assessed the property taxes for each floor and got issued separate property tax pass books for each floor. After completion of construction he went to Hyderabad by leaving his old parents in the suit schedule property and taking advantage of the same, the defendant came to schedule property as per the complaint filed by locals. On 17.7.2020 at about 10.30 AM some persons claiming themselves belongs to defendants authorities, came to suit schedule property and made attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property illegally and highhandedly without having any right to interfere into the suit schedule property With the interference of neighbours , his parents resisted the said acts and while leaving the said place, they proclaimed that they will come again and trespass into the schedule property. The plaintiff is having prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and if injunction is not granted, he will suffer irreparable loss. Hence, the suit.
3. Even after service of summons the defendant failed to appear before the
Court to file the written statement and as such they were set ex parte on 3.3.2021.
4. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7.
5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.
6.Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?” 20 //Fair//
POINT:
7.In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff himself was examined as
PW.1. He filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating the same facts which were stated in his plaint. PW.1 deposed that their father and the paternal grand mother late Smt. Baru Jogulamba jointly purchased an extent of 167 sq. yards together with existing RCC house therein, bearing assessment No.35684 plot
NO.134 MIG-II covered by survey No.26 in the approved lay out of
Muvvalavanipalem, Visakhapatnam from the rightful owner Sri Pappu apparao for a valid consideration on 1.10.1986 under registered document
No.No.4697/1987 whereas said Appa Rao purchased vacant site an extent of 167 sq. yards from Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority under regd. Sale deed dt.17.8.1991 vide document No.6370/1981. After purchase of the same said Apparao constructed RCC house by availing mortgage loan from PORT Trust under regd. Mortgage deed dt.16.11.1981 vide document No.2825/1985 and subsequently discharged the entire loan and thereafter Visakhapatnam porttrust executed relinquishment deed dt.4.7.1985 bearing document
No.7685/1985. On 20.6.2002 Smt. Jogulamba died intestate leaving behind her onl son i.e., Raghavendrarao i.e., the father of plaintiff as sole legal heir for the estate left by her i.e., her share in the joint sale deed dt.1.10.1986 and as such, he father of plaintiff became the absolute owner of the entire property purchased under registered sale deed 4697/1987.
Pw.1 further deposed that his father executed two registered Gift Deeds in favour of his children i.e., the plaintiff herein and his sister Smt. Baru (Chitturi)
Sudheera i.e.,for an extent of 111.33 sq. yards or 93.089 sq. meters in the total extent of 167 sq. yards r 139.62 sq. meters which is 2/3rd undivided and unspecified in the total extent and executed another registered gift deed in favour of his daughter for the remaining extent of 55.66 sq. yards or 46.544 sq.
21 //Fair// meters in the total extent of 167 sq. yards or 139.62 sq. meters which is 1/3rd undivided and unspecified in the total extent. The registered Gift deeds bearing document No.7346/2018 dt.12.10.2018 and 7345/2018 dt.12.10.2018 were marked as Exs.A1 and A2. By virtue of said Gift Deeds the plaintiff and his sister
Smt. Baru (Chitturi) Sudheera became absolute owners of the entire extent and the property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his sister and managed by the plaintiff alone as his sister is residing in USA by virtue of her employment. They removed the dilapidated building and obtained plan approval from the GVMC vide proceedings BA1086/0276/B/Z2/M-6/2019 dt.16.2.2019 for construction of ground+first+Second floors and they jointly borrowed loan of
Rs.48,82,281 from PNB housing finance limited, Visakhapatnam, vide loan account No.HOU/VSKP/0419/676940 by mortgaging the plaint schedule property and as such all the original documents pertaining to suit schedule property are in the custody of bank. The acknowledgment letter issued by bank about the custody of original documents dt.21.7.2020 was marked as Ex.A.6. They completed the work. During construction some of local people approached the plaintiff and demanded for some amounts by stating that if the plaintiff failed to fulfill their demands they will file false complaints against him before the municipal corporation authorities, but the plaintiff refused. As a result, GVMC authorities got issued notice on 7.3.2020 under Sec.452(1) of HMC Act and the plaintiff submitted his explanation to them on 12.3.2020. The defendant also assessed the property taxes for each floor and got issued separate property tax pass books for each floor. Exs.A3 to A5 are the tax assessment letters issued by
GVMC for D.Nos. 2-25-4, 2-25-4/1/FF and 2-25-4/2/SF dt.17.4.2020. After completion of construction he went to Hyderabad by leaving his old parents in the suit schedule property and taking advantage of the same, the defendant came to schedule property as per the complaint filed by locals. On 17.7.2020 at 22 //Fair// about 10.30 AM some persons claiming themselves belongs to defendants authorities, came to suit schedule property and made attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property illegally and highhandedly without having any right to interfere into the suit schedule property With the interference of neighbours , his parents resisted the said acts and while leaving the said place, they proclaimed that they will come again and trespass into the schedule property.
The plaintiff is having prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and if injunction is not granted, he will suffer irreparable loss. The plaintiff i.e.,
Pw.1 also filed the original power of attorney dt.15.2.2020 and the same was marked as Ex.A.7.
8. The above evidence given by PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A7 established the case of the plaintiff that he and his sister are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff has been managing he property. The above evidence adduced by Pw 1 remained unchallenged, as the defendant was set exparte. Therefore, basing on the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A7 this court is of the opinion that the suit claim is proved and the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant and its men, agents whosoever acts on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 22 nd day of June, 2021
II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
FAC. IV Addl. Jr. Civil Judge,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
23 //Fair//
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF
P.W.1:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS
Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT
Nil.
II Addl Junior Civil Judge, FAC. IV AJCJ Visakhapatnam.
24 //Fair//
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum- IV
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
VISAKHAPATNAM.
PRESENT: Smt. J. Sri Seeta,
II Additional Junior Civil Judge FAC. IV Addl. Jr. Civil Judge Visakhapatnam.
, the 23rd day of June, 2021
O.S. No.861/2019
Between:
...Plaintiff
And:
...Defendant
This suit is coming on before me for hearing in the presence of Sri , Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is set ex parte, and upon hearing having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,60,132/- being the principal and interest due under the foot of a promissory note dt.9.1.2016 for
Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 245 p.a., and for costs of the suit.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
3.The defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further contended that 25 //Fair//
4.Basing on the rival contentions of both parties, the following issues have been framed by my lerned predecessor.
1.
2.
3.
5.On behalf of the plaintiff
6.Heard the plaintiff side arguments. The defendants side arguments treated as heard since there is no representation on behalf of the defendant when the matter is posted for arguments of the defendants.
ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:
7.Both these issues are interlinked and therefore, they are discussed together.
The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant having borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 9.1.2016 executed the suit promissory note in his favour and later she made part payment of Rs.10,000/- in cash in spite of his repeated demands on 1.7.2017 and made endorsement on the reverse side of the promissory note on the even date. Subsequently she also paid Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.683669 dt.29.12.2017 drawn on State Bank of India,
Gopalapatnam Branch Visakhapatnam, and thereafter she did not repay the balance amount and postponing on one pretext or the other. Therefore, the 26 //Fair// plaintiff got issued registered lawyer’s notice dt.13.8.2018 and it was acknowledged by defendant on 20.8.2018 but she failed to pay the balance amount.
8.On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that she borrowed only
Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff and she discharged the same along with accrued interest therein but, the plaintiff did not return the original empty signed promissory notes and cheques obtained from the defendant herein and he got filled the said documents and filed the present suit falsely in order to gain wrongfully and extract money from this defendant. There is no need or necessity for her and the suit promissory note is a false and fabricated document.
9.In support of the case of plaintiff, he himself was examined as Pw.1. His chief examination affidavit is nothing but replica of his plaint. He got marked the original suit promissory note for Rs.1 lakh dt.9.1.2016 along with endorsement on the back side for Rs.10,000/- dt.1.7.2017 as Ex.A1, the office copy of legal notice dt.13.8.2018 as Ex.A2 and the postal acknowledgment as Ex.A3. During the cross examination, he deposed that he lent the amount to defendant on 9.1.2016 at Rs.1 lakh at his residence and the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note and at that attestors and scribe were not present. Ex.A1 was scribed by one person but he does not now his name. The defendant is working as dafthar in PF office. He also deposed that the defendant paid Rs.10,000/- towards part payment by way of cash on 1.7.2017 and she also paid Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque.
10.Except Pw.1 no other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
According to Pw.1 no attestors and scribe were present at the time of Ex.A1 and he lent the amount to the defendant at his residence. He is doing money lending business since 25 to 30 years . Nothing contrary was elicited from the evidence of
Pw.1 except some bare denials.
27 //Fair//
11.The defendant herself was examined as Dw.1. During the cross examination of Dw.1, she admitted that she received the legal notice from the plaintiff and on confrontation of Ex.A2 legal notice she admitted her signature on the legal notice and she also admitted her signature on Ex.A3 acknowledgment. She deposed that after receipt of Ex.A3, she consulted the counsel for plaintiff orally over phone. She admitted that she has not issued any reply notice to Ex.A2. She admitted that she paid Rs.10,000/- on 1.7.2017 to plaintiff and it was endorsed on the back side of Ex.A1. She also admitted that on 29.12.2017 she paid another amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque. She admitted that at the time of borrowing the amount under Ex.A1 she received the consideration on it and she has subscribed her signature and thumb impression on it and she further admitted that she had issued a chque bearing No.683663 for
Rs.12,000/- on 10.7.2018 towards part payment of Ex.A1 promissory note. The same was marked as Ex.A4. She further admitted that she borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff for her needs. She again added that she only borrowed
Rs.18,000/- from the plaintiff by deducting the amount of Rs.2000/- and will be added by plaintiff at the time of repayment of total amount. She has not given any police report that the plaintiff obtained blank promissory notes and cheques from the defendant.
12.From the above evidence of Dw.1, it is clear that she admitted receiving of consideration under Ex.A1 and after receiving the consideration on it she subscriber her signature and thumb impression on Ex.A1. But she again deposed that she borrowed only Rs.20,000/- from Pw.1 and again added that only borrowed Rs.18,000/- only. So, from the evidence of Dw.1 it is clear that after receiving the consideration only she put her signature on Ex.A1 promissory note.
Further she also admitted her signatures on Ex.A2 and A3 i.e., the legal notice and acknowledgment. If at all she borrowed only Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff 28 //Fair// as contended by her in her written statement, she ought to have given reply notice to the plaintiff denying the contents of Ex.A2 legal notice. But as per her own admission she did not issue any reply notice to Ex.A2 legal notice. Further, she also did not give any police complaint against the plaintiff, if at all her contention that the plaintiff obtained empty signed promissory notes and cheques from her at the time of borrowing amount from him, is true. Therefore, from the admissions made by Dw.1 and her failure to give any reply notice and complaint against the plaintiff, it can be safely concluded that the defendant has borrowed the amount under Ex.A1 and after receiving the consideration she put her signature and thumb impression on it and subsequently, made part payments of Rs.10,000/- each by way of cash under Ex.A2 and by way of cheque i.e., Ex.A4.
Therefore, she is liable to pay the balance amount to the plaintiff.
13.In view of the above discussion, it can be said that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE no.3:
14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff, for
Rs.1,60,132/- with subsequent interest @6% pa., from the date of suit till the date of realization on the balance of principal of Rs.80,000/-.
Directly typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of June, 2021.
29 //Fair// 30 //Fair// 31 //Fair// 32 //Fair// 33 //Fair// 34 //Fair// 35 //Fair// 36 //Fair//
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum- IV
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
VISAKHAPATNAM.
PRESENT: Smt. J. Sri Seeta,
II Additional Junior Civil Judge FAC. IV Addl. Jr. Civil Judge Visakhapatnam.
, the 22nd day of June, 2021
O.S. No.274/2020
Between:
...Plaintiff
And:
...Defendant
This suit is coming on before me for hearing in the presence of Sri , Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is set ex parte, and upon hearing having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff is having right, title and he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property under adverse possession of plaintiff, for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and whoever acts on their behalf from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever and for costs of the suit.
2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:
3. Even after service of summons the defendants failed to appear before the 37 //Fair//
Court to file the written statement and as such they were set ex parte on 1.4.2021.
4. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.
5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.
6.Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and for consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?”
POINT:
7.In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff himself was examined as
PW.1. He filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating the same facts which were stated in his plaint. PW.1 deposed that the defendants approached the plaintiff and expressed their readiness to alienate the plaint schedule property after several oral discussions and the defendants fixed a price of Rs.1200/- for which the plaintiff agreed for the same and paid total consideration to defendants on 6.8.1978 and they executed Possessory sale agreement dt.6.8.1978 in favour of plaintiff and the schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff with metes and bounds with absolute rights and as per their convenience, the defendants will execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff and he believed their version and waited for all these years but the defendants did not come forward to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff and postponing the same on some pretest or the other and with their permission the plaintiff constructed RCC slabbed house and mutated his name in all revenue records like property tax pass book and enjoying the property with absolute rights. Now the defendants taking advantage of hike of the land values with an eye sore, trying to encroach into the schedule property and the property is still in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff without any interruptiion. The defendants are trying to grab the plaint schedule property in order to gain 38 //Fair// wrongfully. Since the defendants are disputing the title of plaintiff over plaint schedule property, and as he is enjoying the property since 1978, he got filed the present suit. In support of his case, the plaintiff got marked ExA1 original agreement for sale dt.6.8.1978, Ex.A2 property tax pass book (Compared with original) , Ex.A3 electricity bill and Ex.A4 market value certificate.
8. The above evidence given by PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4 established the case of the plaintiff that the defendants entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff under Ex.A1 on 6.8.1978 and handed over the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and since the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by paying the taxes and electricity charges. The above evidence adduced by Pw1 remained unchallenged, as the defendants were set exparte. Therefore, basing on the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4 this court is of the opinion that the suit claim is proved and the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and for consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
9.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff is having right, title and he is he absolute owner of the plaint schedule property under adverse possession and granting the consequential relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants,their men and agents whosoever acts on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 22 nd day of June, 2021
II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
FAC. IV Addl. Jr. Civil Judge,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
39 //Fair//
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF
P.W.1:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS
Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT
Nil.
II Addl Junior Civil Judge, FAC. IV AJCJ Visakhapatnam.
40 //Fair//
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum- II
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
VISAKHAPATNAM.
PRESENT: Smt. J. Sri Seeta,
II Additional Junior Civil Judge FAC. V Addl. Jr. Civil Judge Visakhapatnam.
, the 27th day of April, 2021
O.S. No.631/2019
Between:
...Plaintiff
And:
...Defendant
This suit is coming on before me for hearing in the presence of Sri , Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is set ex parte, and upon hearing having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.12,46,200/-(Rupees twelve lakhs forty six thousand and two hundred only) being the principal and interest due under mortgage deed dt.21.9.2017 Rs.9,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff repayable with interest @ 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:
3. Even after service of summons by way of publication the defendant failed to appear before the Court to file the written statement and as such he was set ex parte on 13.3.2020.
4. On behalf of the plaintiff, she herself was examined as PW1 and got 41 //Fair// marked Ex.A1.
5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.
6.Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?”
POINT:
7.In order to substantiate her case, the plaintiff herself was examined as
PW.1. She filed her chief examination affidavit by reiterating the same facts which were stated in her plaint. PW.1 deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from her and executed Ex.A1 registered mortgage deed in her favour agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest @ 24% p.a. Ex.A1 is the registered mortgage deed dt.21.9.2017 registered as document
No.6118/2017 of SRO, Visakhapatnam, mortgaging the residential flat bearing
Flat No.403, in fourth floor of building contains D.No.26-8-108/B/4 with car parking in an extent of 80 sq. yards at stilt floor covered by T.S.No.270. She further deposed that the defendant agreed to discharge the amount within 6 months and shall redeem the said mortgage deed. The possession of mortgaged property is with the defendant only. In spite of her demands the defendant failed to repay the amount either principal or interest. Thereafter, she could not contact the defendant as he changed his phone number.
8. The evidence given by PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 shows that the defendant having borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- executed the registered mortgage deed in her favour with respect to the plaint schedule property and later failed to repay the said amount within 6 months as agreed by him. The above evidence adduced by
Pw1 remained unchallenged, as the defendant was set exparte. Therefore, basing on the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 this court is of the opinion that the suit claim is proved and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the 42 //Fair// plaintiff.
9.In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs for a sum of
Rs.12,46,200/-(Rupees twelve lakhs forty six thousand two hundred only) in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant together with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.9,00,000/-(Rupees nine lakhs only) from the date of the suit till the date of redemption and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization. Time for redemption is 6 months.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of April,2021
II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF
P.W.1: Smt. B.Varalakshmi
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS
Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1: registered mortgage deed dt.21.9.2017 vide document No.6118/2017 of SRO Visakhapatnam, executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT
Nil.
II Addl Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
43 //Fair//
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
VISAKHAPATNAM
PRESENT: Smt. J.Sri Seeta II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum II Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
Monday, the 12th day of April, 2021
O.S.No.33/2019
Between:
M/s Sowparnika Avenues (India) Private Ltd., rep. By its Chairman and Managing Director, Sri annamneedi Ramesh Babu, S/o Satyanarayana, aged 54 years, having its office at Flat No.403, D.No.16-1-29/17, Animishai Pearl, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-530002.
......Plaintiff
And:
1.Mr Gudala Kumar Raju, S/o Late Tammi Raju, aged about 55 years, Asst. Manager LIC, R/o D.No.58-27-17/1, Reddy Street, Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-530027.
2.Union Bank of India, Rep by its Branch Manager, Siripuram Branch, D.No.10-50-14/3 (3), 100 feet Road, Waltair Main Road, Visakhapatnam- 530003.
3.Mr Gallidevara Lakshmipathi Rao, S/o Sri Janai Ramayya, aged about 44 years, R/o D.No.2-91/A, Main Road, I.Polavaram, G.Vemavaram, Guttinadeevi, East Godavari-533464. ..
...Defendants
This suit is coming on 15-03-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Duppala Apparao and Sri Runkana Srikanth, Advocates for the Plaintiff, and the defendants are set exparte and upon hearing having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,35,750/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) with subsequent interest @ 6% P.A from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs the suit.
2.The brief averments of the plaint, are as follows :
44 //Fair//
The plaintiff is a private limited company registered under Companies Act in the name and style of Sowparnika Avenues (India) Private Ltd., having its office at Flat No.403, D.No.16-1-29/17, Animishai Pearl, Maharnaipeta, Visakhapatnam.
The plaintiff is filing the above suit with reference to the Agreement to Sell
dated 25.062014 executed by the plaintiff on its own behalf of the capacity of
builder and also on behalf of one Gudala Krishna Murthy who is the site owner in favour of Gudla Kumar Raju, S/o Late Tammi Raju, i.e the 1st defendant in respect of Flat No.504 of the combined built up area of 1315 Sft., in fourth floor of the building of Apartments “G.K.Sowparnika Castel” which the plaintiff undertook to construct the building in terms of the Registered Development Agreement with
General Power of Attorney (DAGPA) dated 27.08.20212 (Doc.No.2781/2012) executed by the said Gudala Krishna Murthy in its favour in respect of site of measuring for an extent of 800 Sq.yds., covered by Plot No.14, Journalist Colony,
S.No.106/3, of Marripalem Village, GVMC Limits, Visakhapatnam and the said
Gudla Krishna Murthy executed a supplementary development agreement bearing Doc.No.6880/20213 dt.14-11-2013. The plaintiff had executed an agreement in respect of construction of flat dt.26.09.20214, in favour of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff had executed an additional agreement for flat dt.25.06.2014 in favour of the 1st defendant with respect to provide additional amenities subject to flat No.504. As per the said registered DAGPA dated 27.08.2012, the flat No.504 and some other flats were fell into the share of the plaintiff with absolute rights of sale. Therefore, under the said agreement to Sell
dated 25.06.2014, the plaintiff agreed to sell the flat No.504 to the 1st defendant
along with a combined undivided share of 43 Sq. yards., in the said right of 800
Sq. yards for a total sum of Rs.32,87,500/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Eighty Seven
Thousand Five Hundred only) towards sale consideration, out of which the 1st defendant had paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand 45 //Fair// only) by way of cheque bearing No.308087 dt.17.08.2014 drawn on Indian Bank,
Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam, towards part payment which was acknowledged. On the strength of the said Agreement to sell dated 25.06.2014, the 2nd defendant sanctioned a housing loan to the 1st defendant for the remaining sum of
Rs.28,37,500/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) payable by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff as per the said Agreement to sell. Subsequently, in view of the said housing loan of Rs.28,37,500/- (Rupees
Twenty Eight Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only), the following documents have been executed in favour of the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant which was paid the following amounts directly to the plaintiff by way of partial disbursements of the said housing loan. The originals of all the aforementioned four documents including the agreement to sell dated 25.06.2014 are in the custody and possession of the 2nd defendant. The certified copy of the Registered DAGPA dated 27.08.20212 is also available with the 2nd defendant together with other usual requisite documents like link documents,
E.C., etc., At this juncture on 23.06.2017, a cash payment of Rs.13,900/- and on 24.06.2017 a cash payment of Rs.7,100/- is purported to have been made to the plaintiff in respect of the flat No.504, but the same was towards certain minor extra works and alterations and therefore the entire liability of the 2nd defendant to make good and the said entire balance loan amount of Rs.9,62,000/- still subsists along with interest payable for the delay in paying the same to the plaintiff as no part of the same has so far been paid to the plaintiff till now, even though the plaintiff had completed the construction two years ago as per the said construction agreement dated 26.09.2014 and the Additional Agreement
dated 25.06.2014. While so, without furnishing any information or intimation to
the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever till now, the 2nd defendant behind the plaintiff’s back is purported to have classified the said housing loan account of 46 //Fair// the 1st defendant (Flat Purchaser) as NPA and invoked the provisions of SARFAESI
Act and is also purported to have sold both the said flats bearing Nos.503 and 504 through the combined “E-Auction” dated 24.09.2018 conducted by the 2nd defendant in pursuance of the notification of E-Auction published in Newspapers and purported to have sold the same to the 3rd defendant. In the said notification, the outstanding liability of the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant was mentioned as Rs.15,55,473.83/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand and Four Hundred and Seventy Three and Eighty Three Paisa only) for flat No.503 and Rs.20,31,143.80/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty One Thousand One Hundred and Forty Three and Eighty Paisa only) for flat No.504 in total Rs.35,86,617.63/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Seventeen and
Sixty Three Paisa Only) proportionately but the reserve price was mentioned as
Rs.24,36,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand only) for flat
No.503 and Rs.31,56,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand only) for flat No.504 i.e in total Rs.55,92,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Ninety Two
Thousand only) and the auction was knocked down in favour of the 3rd defendant at Rs.56,32,000/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand only). It is obvious that it is only because the plaintiff constructed the said flat as per the specifications mentioned in the said construction agreement dated 26.09.2014 and the said additional agreement dated 25.06.2014 referred to above, the minimum value of the said property was evaluated at the said sum of
Rs.56,32,000/- The 2nd defendant published sale notice dt.17.08.2018 under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act inviting the general public for conducting E-
Auction of the Flat No.504 directing the public to submit bids on or before 24.09.2018. The 3rd defendant participated in the E-auction and being a successful bidder with a bid amount of Rs.31,78,575/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs
Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only). The 3rd defendant 47 //Fair// deposited 1/4th of the total bid amount i.e Rs.7,95,321/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs
Ninety Five Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty One only) on 25.09.2018 and the same was acknowledged by the 2nd defendant vide a letter dt.25.09.2018.
Later the 3rd defendant paid the remaining bid amount. On receiving the total bid amount from the 3rd defendant, the 2nd defendant issued a sale certificate reference SIR:Sale Certificate 102:2018-19, dt.27.12.2018 confirming and acknowledging the receipt of the total bid amount from the 3rd defendant. By the date of E-auction notice, the defendant No.1 has an outstanding balance of
Rs.20,31,143/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty One Thousand One Hundred and
Forty Three only) is lying in the hands of the 2nd defendant. Out of the same, the plaintiff is entitled an amount of Rs.9,62,500/- + Rs.1,73,250/- (interest) totaling to Rs.11,35,750/- together with subsequent interest, costs and ancillary expenses. The plaintiff had issued a legal notice to all the defendants on 24.12.2018 and the same was received by the defendants 2 and 3 and on 24.12.2018 the plaintiff had personally served a notice to the 2nd defendant bank officials and the same was acknowledged on the copy of the said notice, but they did not gave any reply nor made any payment to the plaintiff. Thus, the said flat and the respective car parking spaces relating to the same, measuring 80 Sft., is still remaining in the physical possession, custody and control of the plaintiff, even though the construction was completed long time ago. On account of which, the plaintiff is suffering loss under various heads including interest on amount due, maintenance and upkeep of the flats watch and ward charges, electricity charges etc., Therefore the plaintiff is entitled the outstanding balance amount of Rs.9,62,500/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Five
Hundred only) in respect of the flat No.504 together with interest at the reasonable rate of 18% p.a. The 2nd and 3rd defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit 48 //Fair//
3.The defendants were called absent and there was no representation for the defendants. Defendants though appeared in person have not engaged counsel and not filed written statement. The right of defendants to file written statement was forfeited since the defendants failed to file written statement within 90 days and the defendants were set exparte.
4.On behalf of the plaintiff, its Chairman-Managing Director of M/s
Sowparnika Avenues (India) Pvt. Ltd., was examined as P.W.1 and got marked
Exs.A1 to A18.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
6.Now, the point for consideration is :
“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants as prayed for?
7.POINT :-
In support of the case of plaintiff its Managing Director was examined as
Pw1. He filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating the same facts which were stated in the plaint. He got marked Exs.A1 to A18 on behalf of the plaintiff.
It is the case of plaintiff that it undertook to construct the building in terms of the Registered Development Agreement with General Power of
Attorney (DAGPA) dated 27.08.2021 (Doc.No.2781/2012) i.e., Ex.A4 executed by the said Gudala Krishna Murthy in its favour in respect of site of measuring for an extent of 800 Sq.yds., covered by Plot No.14, Journalist Colony, S.No.106/3, of
Marripalem Village, GVMC Limits, Visakhapatnam and the said Gudla Krishna
Murthy executed a supplementary development agreement bearing
Doc.No.6880/20213 dt.14-11-2013. Ex.A5 is the supplementary development agreement. The plaintiff executed an agreement in respect of construction of flat dt.26.09.2014 and also executed additional agreement dt.25.6.2014 i.e.,
Ex.A6 in favour of the 1st defendant to provide additional amenities subject to flat No.504. As per the said registered DAGPA dated 27.08.2012, the flat No.504 49 //Fair// and some other flats were fell into the share of the plaintiff with absolute rights of sale and as such, the plaintiff agreed to sell flat No.504 to the 1st defendant along with a combined undivided share of 43 Sq. yards., in the said right of 800
Sq. yards for a total sum of Rs.32,87,500/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Eighty Seven
Thousand Five Hundred only) towards sale consideration. The 1st defendant paid
Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) by way of cheque bearing
No.308087 dt.17.08.2014 drawn on Indian Bank, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam, towards part payment which was acknowledged.
Pw.1 further deposed that on the strength of the said Agreement to sell
dated 25.06.2014, the 2nd defendant sanctioned housing loan to 1st defendant
for the remaining amount of Rs.28,37,500/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Thirty
Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) payable by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff as per the said Agreement to sell. The original four documents including the agreement to sell dated 25.06.2014 are in the custody and possession of the 2nd defendant. The certified copy of the Registered DAGPA dated 27.08.20212 is also available with the 2nd defendant together with other usual requisite documents like link documents, E.C., etc., At this juncture on 23.06.2017, a cash payment of
Rs.13,900/- and on 24.06.2017 a cash payment of Rs.7,100/- is purported to have been made to the plaintiff in respect of the flat No.504, but the same was towards certain minor extra works and alterations and therefore the entire liability of the 2nd defendant to make good and the said entire balance loan amount of Rs.9,62,000/- still subsists along with interest payable for the delay in paying the same to the plaintiff as no part of the same has so far been paid to the plaintiff till now, even though the plaintiff had completed the construction two years ago as per the said construction agreement dated 26.09.2014 and the
Additional Agreement dated 25.06.2014. While so, without furnishing any
information or intimation to the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever till now, the 50 //Fair// 2nd defendant behind the plaintiff’s back is purported to have classified the said housing loan account of the 1st defendant (Flat Purchaser) as NPA and invoked the provisions of SARFAESI Act and is also purported to have sold both the said flats bearing Nos.503 and 504 through the combined “E-Auction” dated 24.09.2018 conducted by the 2nd defendant in pursuance of the notification of E-
Auction published in Newspapers and purported to have sold the same to the 3rd defendant. Ex.A11 is the publication. In the said notification, the outstanding liability of the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant was mentioned as
Rs.15,55,473.83/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand and Four Hundred and Seventy Three and Eighty Three Paisa only) for flat No.503 and
Rs.20,31,143.80/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty One Thousand One Hundred and
Forty Three and Eighty Paisa only) for flat No.504 in total Rs.35,86,617.63/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Seventeen and
Sixty Three Paisa Only) proportionately but the reserve price was mentioned as
Rs.24,36,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand only) for flat
No.503 and Rs.31,56,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand only) for flat No.504 i.e in total Rs.55,92,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Ninety Two
Thousand only) and the auction was knocked down in favour of the 3rd defendant at Rs.56,32,000/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand only). It is obvious that it is only because the plaintiff constructed the said flat as per the specifications mentioned in the said construction agreement dated 26.09.2014 and the said additional agreement dated 25.06.2014 referred to above, the minimum value of the said property was evaluated at the said sum of
Rs.56,32,000/- The 2nd defendant published sale notice dt.17.08.2018 under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act inviting the general public for conducting E-
Auction of the Flat No.504 directing the public to submit bids on or before 24.09.2018. The 3rd defendant participated in the E-auction and being a 51 //Fair// successful bidder with a bid amount of Rs.31,78,575/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs
Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only). The 3rd defendant deposited 1/4th of the total bid amount i.e Rs.7,95,321/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs
Ninety Five Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty One only) on 25.09.2018 and the same was acknowledged by the 2nd defendant vide a letter dt.25.09.2018.
Later the 3rd defendant paid the remaining bid amount. On receiving the total bid amount from the 3rd defendant, the 2nd defendant issued a sale certificate reference SIR:Sale Certificate 102:2018-19, dt.27.12.2018 confirming and acknowledging the receipt of the total bid amount from the 3rd defendant. By the date of E-auction notice, the defendant No.1 has an outstanding balance of
Rs.20,31,143/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty One Thousand One Hundred and
Forty Three only) is lying in the hands of the 2nd defendant. Out of the same, the plaintiff is entitled an amount of Rs.9,62,500/- + Rs.1,73,250/- (interest) totaling to Rs.11,35,750/- together with subsequent interest, costs and ancillary expenses. The plaintiff had issued a legal notice to all the defendants on 24.12.2018 under Ex.A13 and the same was received by the defendants 2 and 3 and on 24.12.2018 the plaintiff had personally served a notice to the 2nd defendant bank officials and the same was acknowledged on the copy of the said notice, but they did not gave any reply nor made any payment to the plaintiff.
Thus, the said flat and the respective car parking spaces relating to the same, measuring 80 Sft., is still remaining in the physical possession, custody and control of the plaintiff, even though the construction was completed long time ago. On account of which, the plaintiff is suffering loss under various heads including interest on amount due, maintenance and upkeep of the flats watch and ward charges, electricity charges etc., Therefore the plaintiff is entitled the outstanding balance amount of Rs.9,62,500/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Two
Thousand Five Hundred only) in respect of the flat No.504 together with interest 52 //Fair// at the reasonable rate of 18% p.a. The 2nd and 3rd defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the plaintiff.
8.A perusal of the documents filed by Pw.1 ie., Exs.A4 to A13 established the case of the plaintiff. The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted as the defendants were set ex parte. Therefore, basing on the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A18 this Court is of the opinion that the suit claim is proved and the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount as prayed for together with interest. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against defendants infavour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.11,35,750/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand
Seven Hundred and Fifty only) together with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of the suit till the date of realization.
Typed to my Dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12thday of April, 2021.
II Addl Junior Civil Judge-cum II Addl Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For plaintiff: For Defendants
P.W.1 : Annamneedi Ramesh Babu NIL
Documents marked
For plaintiff:
Ex.A1 is (Original) certificate of Incorporation of the plaintiff company dated 09.12.2011.
Ex.A2 is (Original) Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the plaintiff dated. 08.12.2011.
Ex.A3 is (Certified copy) Board resolution passed by the plaintiff in favour of Sri Annamneedi Ramesh Babu, S/o Satyanarayana, Chairman and Managing Director of the plaintiff to represent the plaintiff dated 20.05.2016.
53 //Fair//
Ex.A4 is (Mee-seva) Regd. Development agreement with general Power of attorney bearing Doc.No.2781/2012 executed by Mr.Gudla Krishna Murty in favour of the plaintiff dated 27.08.2012.
Ex.A5 is (Mee-Seva) Regd. Supplementary development agreement bearing Doc.No.2934/2013 executed by Mr.Gudla Krishna Murthy in favour of the plaintiff
dated 14.11.2013.
Ex.A6 is (Attested true copy) Agreement to sell executed by Mr.Gudla Krishna Murthy rep by his GPA Holder the plaintiff herein in favour of 1st defendant dated. 25.06.2014.
Ex.A7 is (Attested True copy) Addl. Agreement for flat executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant herein dated 25.06.2014.
Ex.A8 is (Attested true copy) Agreement in respect of flat construction execution by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant dated 26.09.2014.
Ex.A9 is (Certified Extract) Regd. Sale bearing Doc.No.3590/2014 executed by Mr.Gudla Krishna Murthy rep by his GPA Holder the plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant.
Ex.A10 is (Office copy) Ledger Account of 1st defendant with respect to Flat No.504 from 01.04.2013 to 24.06.2017 dated 28.09.2014.
Ex.A11 is (Copy) Notice under SARFAESI Act published by the 2nd defendant in Eenadu Visakhapatnam edition dated 17.08.2018.
Ex.A12 is (Copy) Letter addressed by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant with respect to the initial payment and registration of property under bid held on 24.09.2018.
Ex.A13 is (Office Copy) Legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant
dated 24.12.2018.
Ex.A14 is (Originals) Regd. Postal Receipts 3 numbers dated 24.12.2018.
Ex.A15 is (Computer Printout) Indian Post Web Track report for the 1st defendant
dated 26.12.2018.
Ex.A16 is(Computer Printout) Indian Post Web Track report for the 2nd defendant
dated 27.12.2018
Ex.A17 is(Computer Printout) Indian Post Web Track report for the 3rd defendant dated 26.12.2018
Ex.A18 is (Copy) Sale Certificate :102:2018-19 issued by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant dated 27.12.2018.
For Defendants : Nil.
II AJCJ cum II AMM/ FAC V AJCJ/VSP 54 //Fair// 55 //Fair//
Date of Presentation : 20-02-2019 Date of Filing : 20-02-2019
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
VISAKHAPATNAM
PRESENT: Smt. J.Sri Seeta II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum II Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
Wednesday, the 24th day of March, 2021
O.S.No.206/2019
Between:
B.S.N.L (A Govt. of India Enterprises) represented by its General Manager, Telecom District, Visakhapatnam.
......Plaintiff
And:
M/s Easy Arm, rep by its Director Sri B.Vallabha Rao, Easy Arim/PHYTECH Embedded Pvt. Ltd., 9/1, 1st Floor, 3rd Main, 8th Block, Opp To Police Station, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095.
.....Defendant
This suit is filed by the plaintiff/BSNL against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,09,365/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Five only) with subsequent interest @ 18% P.A from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is valued at Rs.1,09,365/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Five only) and Court fee of Rs.3,516/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred and Sixteen only) is paid under section 20 of APCF and SV Act.
This suit is coming on 09-03-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt D.Venkata Lakshmi, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the defendant is set exparte and upon hearing having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court doth order; and
D E C R E E
1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff Bank a sum of Rs.1,09,365/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Five only) together with interest 12 percent p/a from the date of the suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.74,652/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Two only) and
2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.13,884/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Four only) towards 56 //Fair// costs of the suit.
Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 24th day of March, 2021.
II Addl Junior Civil Judge, FAC V Addl Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
* * *
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
Stamp on Vakalat : 2-00 No costs memo is filed
Stamp on Plaint : 3,426-00
Stamps on Process : 65-00
Publication Charges : 6,930-00
Advocate Fee : 2,491-00
Jr. Advocate Fee : 830-00
Typing Charges : 100-00 ------------------- Costs Allowed 13,844-00 ------------------
II AJCJ/VSP FAC V AJCJ/VSP
Signature of CMO: