Sri. S. Praveen Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER-CUM-PRINCIPAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE , GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Sri S.Praveen Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., Rent controller – cum - Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, Guntur

Thursday, this the 19th day of April, 2018

R.C.C.No.5 of 2015

Between:

Shaik Ayesha Begum, Rep.by her Power of Attorney Holder Shaik Mohammad Khaleel, S/o Mastan, Muslim, aged about 80 years, Senior Citizen, R/o Dr.No.5-25-16, 3/1 Bordipet, Guntur. ….Petitioner

and

1. Komara Lingaiah, S/o Pitchaiah, Hindu, aged about 66 years, Business,

2. Simhadri Venkata Ranga Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 64 years, Business,

Both are residents of Dr.No.23-4-143, Near Fish Market, Hazaruvari Street, R.Agraharam, Guntur. ….Respondents

This suit is coming on 17-04-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Krishna Kishore, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri J.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Respondent, and after perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

On 12-02-2015 the petitioner who was aged about 74 years by then filed the present application seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to vacate from the petition schedule property and deliver the vacant possession of the same to the petitioner in good condition.

2.In brief the averments of the petition are that:

One Mohammad Khaleel is the husband of petitioner. The said

Mohammad Khaleel purchased the petition schedule property under a registered sale deed dt.08.12.1982. Thereafter, he has leased out the 2 schedule property to 1st respondent prior to the year 1990 by enhancing the rent from time to time since 2002. The 1st respondent also agreed to pay Rs.3,500/- per month. But, without the knowledge of the said Khaleel, the 1st respondent has given sub lease of schedule property to the 2nd respondent. 1st respondent also became defaulter in payment of rent since October, 2003. As 1st respondent claimed that he purchased the schedule property from the said Khaleel under an agreement of sale the said Khaleel filed a suit in OS.1220/2004 before the court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur for eviction of respondents herein and for recovery of rent. Upon that the 1st respondent also filed

RCC.6/2004 before the court of Rent Controller, Guntur seeking permission to deposit the rents by claiming the rent at Rs.750/- per month. Then the said two matters were tried simultaneously. The suit in OS.1220/2004 was got dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. RCC.6/2004 was allowed permitting the 1st respondent to deposit the rents at Rs.750/- per month. Thereafter, the said

Mohammad Khaleel preferred appeals vide AS.3/2009 and RCA.11/2008 against the above said judgment and order before the Hon’ble Court of

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. But, the said two appeals were got dismissed on 28-09-2012. Thereafter, the said Mohammad Khaleel did not prefer any appeal. Meanwhile, on 17-09-2010 the said Mohammad

Khaleel bequeathed the schedule property along with other property to the petitioner under a registered gift deed dt.17-09-2010. The petitioner is a Muslim Religion Senior Citizen. Since, the husband of the petitioner is well aware of the facts, the petitioner authorized her husband to represent the matter by executing a Special Power of

Attorney in favour of her husband. Now the petitioner and her husband 3 being Senior Citizens are required the petition schedule property to run the business by their son. According to the order, dt.05-10-2007 in

RCC.6/2004, the 1st respondent is liable to deposit the rents from

January 2004. the petitioner obtained certified copy of ledger and noticed that the 1st respondent committed default in depositing the monthly rents for a total period of 18 months to a tune of Rs.13,500/-.

As such, the 1st respondent is liable to be evicted from petition schedule property. As the 2nd respondent has taken the schedule property on sub lease without the knowledge of the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 are, liable to be evicted from schedule property .

Though the petitioner made several requests and demands along with her husband, respondents 1 and 2 failed to vacate from petition schedule property. Hence, the petition.

3.Respondent No.1 filed counter. Respondent No.2 filed memo by adopting the counter of 1st respondent.

The contents of the counter of 1st respondent are that in the year 1993the respondent has taken the schedule property on oral lease for rent of Rs.150/- per month. Later, the rent amount was enhanced to

Rs.750/- per month from December, 2002. 1st respondent is regular in paying the rents on or before 10th day of every succeeding month to the husband of the petitioner. But, the husband of the petitioner did not issue receipts in token of receipt of monthly rents. In the Month of

March, 2003 when the husband of the petitioner expressed his willingness in selling the schedule property, 1st respondent agreed to purchased the same for sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and paid

Rs.15,000/- towards advance. But, on 05-01-2014 the husband of the 4 petitioner demanded the 1strespondent to vacate from schedule property. Then 1st respondent demanded the husband of petitioner to keep up his promise in executing registered sale deed in his favor. On that on 01-02-2004 the husband of petitioner issued notice U/Sec.106 of Transfer of property Act demanding the 1st respondent to vacate from schedule property. On 21-01-2004, 2nd respondent also given reply notice with true facts to the husband of the 1stpetitioner. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner refused to receive monthly rents from 1st respondent and on that the 1st respondent filed RCC.6/2004 . Then the husband of the petitioner filed the said suit in OS.1220/2004. But, the said RCC.6/2004 was allowed and the suit in OS.1220/2004 was got dismissed by the Court. Though the husband of the petitioner preferred appeal vide AS.3/2009 and RCA.11/2008, the same were also got dismissed by the Hon’ble Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. As such, the rent was upheld at Rs.750/-. Thus, the attempts of petitioner and husband of the petitioner were got futile. 1st respondent is regularly depositing the rents into the court. As such, there is no default of rents by the 1st respondent. Petitioner taken false plea that the 1st petitioner committed default of rent for total 18 months to tune of Rs.13,500/-. The 2nd respondent is working as clerk under 1st respondent. Though the petitioner was aged about 56 years she claimed her age as 74 years. 1st respondent is also aged about more than 75 years. 1st respondent is purely depending upon his sweet business which is being conducted in schedule property. 1st respondent is having wife and three sons. One of the son is physically challenged and mentally disorder person. The husband of the petitioner is having more than 6 houses in Guntur City apart from a shopping complex. He 5 also let out 25 shops. The husband of the petitioner is also conducting watch business as a dealer under the name and Style of Shakeel and

Company and getting huge income. The children of petitioner are well settled in business. The petition schedule property which is an extent of 3¾ square yards is no way required to the petitioner since it is a small extent. Petitioner is also having multiplex complex at Brodipet, Guntur.

With these contentions, 1st respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.During the course of enquiry the husband of the petitioner alone was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 on behalf of the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 were examined as RWS.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.9 on behalf of respondents.

5.Heard both sides and perused the entire material.

6.The point for consideration is :

Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to be evicted from petition schedule property and to give the vacant possession of the same to the petitioner?

7.There is no dispute that the petitioner is the wife of one

Mohammad Khaleel who was examined as PW.1 before the court. There is also no dispute that originally the petition schedule property was purchased by the said Mohammad Khaleel. There is also no dispute that the petition schedule property was given on oral lease to the 1st respondent in the year 1983. it is also the admission of both parties that 1st respondent filed RCC.6/2004 seeking to deposit the rents at

Rs.750/- per month and the same was allowed by the Rent Controller,

Guntur. It is also the admission of both parties that the husband fo the 6 petitioner filed a suit in OS.1220/2004 before the court of Prl. Junior

Civil Judge, Guntur seeking to evict the respondents herein from

petition schedule property and the same was got dismissed. It is also the admission of petitioner that the appeals which were preferred by the husband of the petitioner herein were also got dismissed. Thus, it can be said that there is no litigation pending in respect of said

RCC.6/2004 and OS.1220/2004.

8.The main contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent given the schedule property on sub lease to the 2nd respondent by violating the terms and conditions of oral agreement and without the consent of husband of the petitioner and petitioner. It is the contention of the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent is working as clerk in his shop and he has not given the schedule property on sub lease to the 2nd respondent. According to the counter of respondents 1 and 2, it is elicited that the husband of the petitioner has taken the same plea in

RCC.6/2004. It is elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 who is the husband of the petitioner that the court held in RCC.6/2004 and

OS.1220/2004 that the respondent No.2 is working under respondent

No.1 and there was no sub lease between the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent. Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of Judgment in OS.1220/2004.

Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of order in RCC.6/2004. On perusal of the said Judgment and Order of the said proceedings it can be said that the court never noticed that the 1st respondent herein has given the schedule property on sub lease to the 2nd respondent herein. There is also no strong material placed by the petitioner before the court to believe that respondent No.2 is not an employee under respondent 7

No.1. No doubt as per the elicited facts respondent No.1 is a dealer for ration shop. But, there is no evidence on record to show that respondent No.1 has engaged the 2nd respondent towards sub lease tenant. Thus, considering the above said admissions of PW.1 and in view of the observations made in Exs.P.4 and P.5 this court has no hesitation to say that there is no ample evidence on record in order to hold that the respondent No.1 has given the schedule property on sub lease to the 2nd respondent.

9.The next strong contention of the petitioner is that as per Ex.P.2 ledger extract 1st respondent committed default of rents for a total period of 18 months to a tune of Rs.13,500/-. 1st respondent was examined as RW.1 whereas, 2nd respondent was examined as RW.2.

RCC.6/2004 was filed by the 1st respondent against the husband of the petitioner seeking to deposit the rents before the court from January, 2004. It is the strong contention of the respondents herein that the 1st respondent is depositing the rents before the court as per the orders passed in RCC.6/2004. At this juncture it is relevant to look into the evidence of PW.1. In the cross examination of PW.1 it is elicited that so far either petitioner or the husband of petitioner did not draw the rent deposits which were made by the 1st respondent before the court.

When this thing is taken in to consideration it can be said that the petitioner is not in the habit of withdrawing the rents which were deposited by the respondent No.1 before the court. Petitioner strongly relied upon Ex.P.2 and contended that respondent No.1 has not deposited the rents from July, 2012 to December, 2012, January, 2011 to December 2011 and January, 2014 to June 2014. When such plea 8 has taken by the petitioner it is for the respondent No.1 to establish that the respondent No.1 is prompt in depositing the regular rents from the month of January, 2004 as per the order dt.05-10-2007 passed in

RCC.6/2004. On this aspect respondent No.2 relied upon Ex.R.8

Treasury Challan and Ex.R.9 Ledger Extract. Thus, it is relevant to look in to Exs.R.8 and R.9. On perusal of Ex.P.9 Ledger Extract it is noticed that the same was prepared by the court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Guntur in connection with RCC.6/2004. At this juncture it is also relevant to look into the evidence of respondent No.1 was examined as

RW.1. It is the clear admission of RW.1 in his cross examination that he is not regular in payment of monthly rents and he used to pay the rents once in 6 months. It is also the version of RW.1 in his evidence that the date was wrongly mentioned as 16-12-2013 instead of 16-12-2014. in respect of Sl.No.4 of Ex.R.9 ledger extract. It is already stated supra that Ex.R.9 was supplied by the office of court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Guntur. According to the material it was not brought to the notice of the office of the said court that the date was wrongly mentioned in

Sl.No.4 of Ex.P.9 ledger extract as 16-12-2013 instead of 16-12-2014.

Moreover, it can be said that Ex.P.9 was certified and issued by the

Office of the court. Therefore, it can not be accepted that the date was wrongly mentioned as 16-12-2013 instead of 16-12-2014. Further basing on Ex.R.8 Challan it cannot be said that a wrong date was mentioned in Ex.P.9 ledger extract. Moreover, respondent No.1 is not permitted to deposit the rents before the court once in six months as per the Order dt.05.10.2007 in RCC.6/2004. According to the said order in RCC.6./2004 respondent No.1 herein is entitled to deposit from

January, 2004. According to the material on record there is no oral or 9 written agreement between the husband of the petitioner and respondent No.1 that the respondent No.1 has to deposit or to pay the rents once in six months. Thus, considering the discussion as above this court is of the opinion that the respondent No.1 is not prompt and regular in paying monthly rents to the petitioner. As such, it can be said that the respondent No.1 is defaulter in payment of regular rents to the petitioner. As such, respondent No.1 and 2 are liable to be evicted from schedule property.

10.It is also required to look in to whether the petitioner being senior citizen is required the schedule property either for her personal occupancy or to establish her son in running the business in schedule property. Petitioner also strongly contended that she requires the petition schedule property being senior citizen. It is also the contention of the respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 is also senior citizen and he is mainly depending upon his business which is conducting in schedule property. According to the admission of RW.1 and the material placed before the court respondent No.1 is doing business in schedule property since more than 20 years. It is also elicited from Ex.P.5 that the respondent No.1 herein is in occupation of schedule property since 20 years as on the date of filing of RCC.6/2004. Now it can be said that the respondent No.1 is in possession of schedule property since more than 30 years. The petitioner relied upon Exs.P.8 and P.9 in order to prove that she is a senior citizen. According to the particulars of Exs.P.8 and P.9 it can be said that the petitioner is aged about more than 65 years. No doubt as contended by the 1st respondent this court has no hesitation to say that the respondent No.1 is also a senior citizen. But 10 according to the law of Rent Control a protection is given to the Senior citizen land lord to take possession of property. There is no such protection provided to senior citizen tenant. Further no documentary evidence is placed by the respondent No.1 and 2 to show that the petitioner is having other properties either for the survival of her husband or children. Thus, the oral contention of respondents to the effect that the petitioner is having sufficient properties apart from the schedule property is not accepted in the absence of documentary evidence. As such, it is justified in ordering the respondents to evict from the schedule property and to handover the vacant possession of same to the petitioner forthwith. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are liable to vacate from schedule property by handing over the vacant possession of the same to the petitioner forthwith.

11.In view of above observations and discussion the petitioner is entitled for recovery of vacant possession of schedule property from respondents 1 and 2. As such, the petition is to be allowed.

12.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs directing the respondents 1 and 2 to vacate from the schedule property forthwith and deliver the vacant possession of the same to the petitioner in good condition, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to get the order executed under due process of law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2018.

Rent Controller-cum- Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

11

Appendix of evidence Witness Examined

For Petitioner:For Respondent:

P.W.1: Shaik Mohammad KhaleelRW.1 : Komara Lingaiah RW.2 : Simhadri Venkata Ranga Rao

Documents Marked

For petitioner:

Ex.P.1 : Special Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of PW.1. Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of ledger extract filed in RCC.6/2004. Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of registered gift deed, dt.17-09-2010. Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of Judgment in OS.1220/2004 Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of Judgment in RCC.6/2004 Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Judgment in AS.3/2009 Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of Judgment in RCA.11/2009. Ex.P.8 : Voter ID Card of wife of PW.1. Ex.P.9 : Adhar Card of wife of PW.1.

For Respondent:

Ex.R.1 : Adhar Card Ex.R.2 : Voter Card issued by the election authorities Ex.R.3 : D & O Trade receipt, 31-01-2014 issued by Municipal Corporation, Guntur. Ex.R.4 : Certificate of registration of establishment, dt.14-10-2015 for shop issued by the Labour Department through Mee Seva. Ex.R.5 : License Certificate, dt.27-05-2014 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Ex.R.6 : Certificate and Medical reports, dt.23-08-2007 issued by NRI Heart Center. Ex.R.7 : Medical Certificate, dt.05-03-2013 issued by Guntur Medical Collage, Guntur. Ex.R.8 : Treasury Challan bearing No.1635 (marked subject to objection) Ex.R.9 : Ledger Extract.

Rent Controller-cum- Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER-CUM-PRINCIPAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE , GUNTUR.

PRESENT: Sri S.Praveen Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., Rent controller – cum - Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, Guntur

Thursday, this the 19th day of April, 2018

R.C.C.No.5 of 2015

Between:

Shaik Ayesha Begum, Rep.by her Power of Attorney Holder Shaik Mohammad Khaleel, S/o Mastan, Muslim, aged about 80 years, Senior Citizen, R/o Dr.No.5-25-16, 3/1 Bordipet, Guntur. ….Petitioner

and

1. Komara Lingaiah, S/o Pitchaiah, Hindu, aged about 66 years, Business,

2. Simhadri Venkata Ranga Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 64 years, Business,

Both are residents of Dr.No.23-4-143, Near Fish Market, Hazaruvari Street, R.Agraharam, Guntur. ….Respondents

On 12-02-2015 the petitioner who was aged about 74 years by then filed the present application seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to vacate from the petition schedule property and deliver the vacant possession of the same to the petitioner in good condition.

Plaint presented : on 12-02-2015 Plaint filed : on 12-02-2015

Cause of action: For the petition arose when the respondent took the petition schedule property on lease on a monthly rent from the husband of the petitioner payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month and when the rent was enhanced from time to time, and the present rent per month is Rs.750/- as per the findings of the civil court in

OS.1220/2004, when the respondent committed default in payment of

rent, when the petitioner requires the premises for the personal occupation of her son and where the petition schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation and Court Fee: A fixed Court fee of Rs.3/- is paid herewith under Article 1, Schedule(2) of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.

This suit is coming on 17-04-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Krishna Kishore, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri

J.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Respondent, and after perusing the material available on record, this Court doth order and decree as follows :-

1.that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to vacate from the schedule property forthwith and deliver the vacant possession of the same to the petitioner in good condition, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to get the order executed under due process of law.

2.that the respondents do pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.2,230/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred and thirty only) towards institution costs of the suit and the respondents do bear their own costs of Rs.2,125/-.

(Petition Schedule is hereto attached.)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on 19th day of April, 2018.

Rent Controller –cum- Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

TABLE OF COSTS

Sl.No.For PlaintiffFor defendant 1Stamp on Vakalat 52-00 52-00 2Court Fee 3-00 - 3Process fee 100-00- 4Stamp on petition 5-00 3-00 5Typing charges 50-00 50-00 6Writing charges 20-00 20-00 7Advocate fee 2000-00 2000-00

Total2230-00 2125-00

Rent Controller –cum- Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

GUNTUR

PRESENT: : SRI S.PRAVEEN KUMAR

VI Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Guntur

Saturday, the 24 th day of September, 2016

C.C.NO.498/2015

Between:

Ila Srinivasa Rao S/o. Babu Rao Aged about 39 years, R/o. Old Guntur, Guntur. …Complainant

And

Vennagiri Suresh Kumar S/o. Bala Nageswara Rao Aged about 39 years, R/o.Door NO.16-8-102,

2nd lane, 2/2 Yadava street, Guntur....Accused

This case is coming on 8-9-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Kidambi Devarajan/ Gummadi Divakar, Advocates

for Complainant and of Sri Dulla Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for accused,

upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a complaint filed U/s.200 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the sole accused alleging that on 26-01-2014 the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a in favour of Complainant. Later on the demands made by the Complainant on 30-03-2015, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.314767 for Rs.1,90,000/- towards part payment of the said debt. When the said cheque was presented for collection by the complainant, the same was got dishonoured on 07-04-2015 on the ground of ''Account closed''. On 21-04-2015 the Complainant issued a statutory notice to the accused demanding to pay the amount covered under the said cheque. But the accused refused to receive the said notice. Hence, the complaint.

2.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused. On appearance of accused, he was furnished with copies of documents as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

3.Thereafter the accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C, and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On completion of evidence on the side of Complainant, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material found in the evidence of Complainant side witnesses. On behalf of accused, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked.

5.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6.The Point for determination is whether the Complainant

was successful in establishing the guilt of accused punishable

u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act?

7In-order-to substantiate the case of complainant, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1. The scribe of pronote was examined as P.W.2. In order to disprove the case of complainant, the accused himself got examined as D.W.1. The father of accused was examined as D.W.2. The case being criminal in nature, it is for the complainant to prove this case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is relevant to testify the entire evidence which is available before the Court. It is the case of prosecution that P.W.2 scribed Ex.P1 pronote. Therefore, it is relevant to look into the evidence of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2 goes to show that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Complainant and agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and on that P.W.2 scribed Ex.P1. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that P.W.2 is none other than the friend of accused and complainant. It is also elicited that on the request of the accused, P.W.2 scribed the pronote. It is also elicited that the complainant paid the amount to the accused after execution of pronote. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.2, it is clear that P.W.2 scribed Ex.P1 pronote. The evidence of P.W.1 also speaks that P.W.2 scribed Ex.P1 pronote. Now, it is to be looked into whether Ex.P2 cheque was got dishonoured on the ground of ''Account Closed''. On this aspect, it is relevant to look into Ex.P3 document. Ex.P3 was issued by bank authorities wherein it discloses that the cheque bearing No. 314767 was got dishonoured on the reason Account closed on 7.4.2015.The Counsel

for the accused did not challenge the content of Ex.P3 document. It is

also the admission of accused that a long back he has closed his account in State Bank of India, Old Guntur branch. The evidence of P.W.1 also speaks that Ex.P2 cheque was got dishonoured through Ex.P3 Return Endorsement Memo. Thus, considering the content of Ex.P3 and the evidence of P.W.1, this Court has no hesitation to say that Ex.P2 cheque which was presented for collection of Rs.1,90,000/- got dishonoured on 07-4-2015.

8.Now, it is to be looked into whether Ex.P4 Statutory notice was issued on the accused and whether it was served on the accused or not. It is the case of prosecution that on 21-04-2015, the Complainant issued Ex.P4 legal notice on the accused. It is also the case of complainant that the said notice was returned on 24-04-2015 since the accused refused to receive the same. On this aspect, it is relevant to look over Ex.P5 unserved registered cover which contain Ex.P4 legal notice. On careful observation of the body of Ex.P5, it goes to show that the postal authorities made an endorsement as refused. Thus, it can be said that Ex.P5 unserved registered post was got returned on the ground of ''Refusal'' by the addressee. When this fact is taken into consideration, it can be said that the Complainant made clear attempt in serving Ex.P4 notice on the correct address of accused. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to say that the service of notice on the accused is held sufficient.

9.Now, it is to be looked into whether Ex.P4 contain any demand by the complainant in seeking the amount covered under Ex.P2 cheque. On going through the content of Ex.P4, it is noticed that the Complainant called upon the accused to pay cheque amount within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of the notice. When such clear demand was made by complainant in Ex.P4 notice, safely, it can be said that the accused has ignored the demand of complainant by refusing Ex.P5 registered notice.

10.Now, it is to be looked into whether there is legal enforceable debt is existing between complainant and accused. It is already stated, supra that the evidence of P.W.2 given strong strength in believing that after execution of Ex.P1 pronote, the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused. When this fact is taken into consideration and when the content of Ex.P1 and P2 are taken into consideration safely it can be said that the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque towards discharge of legal enforceable debt. With these observations, this Court has no hesitation to say that the Complainant has discharged his initial burden in proving the guilt of accused.

11. Now, it is for the accused to disprove the case of complainant since he has denied the case of complainant in toto and placed relevant material. It is the case of accused that on 15-04-2014, the Complainant went upon the house of accused along with his men and caused damage to the household articles and taken-away the cheque book and promissory notes which were kept at his house. Later the accused closed his account in bank on 25-04-2014 and thereafter the Complainant filed the present case by filling the content of cheque in order to grab the amount from the accused. The accused also given the same versions in his evidence as D.W.1. The evidence of D.W.2 goes to show that one Kurakula Peda Srinivasa Rao, Kurakula China Srinivasa Rao and Kurakula Prabhkara Rao and their henchmen came upon the house of D.Ws 1 and 2 and thrown away the household articles from their house and taken away the cheque book of D.W.1. Further, the evidence of D.W.2 goes to show that the said Kurakula Peda Srinivasa Rao filed the present complainant through his friend who is complainant herein with false allegations in order to extract the amount from the accused. When the evidence of D.W.2 is taken into consideration one Ila Srinivasa Rao who is the complainant herein went upon the house of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and taken away the cheque book of DW.1 and later he filed the present complaint through the complainant herein. When the evidence of D.W.1 is taken into consideration, the complainant herein himself went upon the house of D.W.1 and taken away the cheque book of D.W.1. When the evidence of D.W.2 is taken into consideration, the complainant herein directly has not taken away the cheque book of DW.1 from his house. Thus, when the evidence of D.Ws 1 and 2 is read together, it can be said that the evidence of D.Ws 1 and 2 is not corroborating with each other in respect of the actual possession who alleged to have taken away the cheque book of D.W.1 from his house. Thus, the entire evidence of D.Ws 1 and 2 is not taken into consideration in disproving the case of complainant. It is also the strong contention of learned counsel for the accused that the accused is not residing in the address which was given on Ex.P5 registered post and as such Ex.P4 legal notice was not served on accused and therefore the complaint is bad in the eye of law.

12.In order to prove the same, the Counsel for accused relied upon Ex.D1 Aadhar card of accused which was obtained on 04-08-2016. According to the content of Ex.D1 the accused is not residing in the address given on Ex.P5 unserved registered cover. It is the admission of accused being D.W.1 that the address of accused which was revealed on Ex.P5 and Complaint is one and the same. It is the version of complainant that the accused made his appearance before the Court on receiving summons under Ex.P6 acknowledgment.The accused admitted about his signature on Ex.P6 acknowledgment. It is also admitted by the accused that the address particulars of the accused which were given in complaint and the address particulars of accused which were given in Ex.P4 and on Ex.P6 are one and the same. When the accused received the summons under Ex.P6 acknowledgment safely it can be said that the accused is still residing in the address which was given on Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for the accused that the accused is not residing in the address which was given on Ex.P5 is not accepted. More-over, when the date of issuance of Ex.D1 Aadhar Card is taken into consideration, the accused obtained the said Aadhar card very recently i.e. on 4.8.2016. Thus, it is not required to consider the content of Ex.D1 Aadhar Card in order to establish the address particulars of accused.

13. In the light of afore-going reasons, this Court has no hesitation to say that though accused made an attempt to disprove the case of complainant, utterly failed to disprove the case of complainant. As complainant discharged his initial burden in proving the guilt of accused, safely, this Court taken shelter u/s. 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to say that the Complainant has proved his case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

14.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and he is convicted u/s. 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of September, 2016.

Sd/-S.Praveen Kumar

VI ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

GUNTUR.

15. When the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, he has submitted that he is a tuition master and he is the sole bread winner of his family and many students are depending upon him to develop their career and hence prayed to take lenient view while imposing the sentence on him.

16.This is a matter pertaining to the financial transaction. According to the case facts, the accused issued cheque in order to discharge the huge debt amount. As per the elicited facts during the course of trial, the accused borrowed the amount to meet his financial necessities. On the other hand, the complainant is running cool drink shop. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to take lenient view. Hence, I feel the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

17. Hence, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards fine and in default of payment of such fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. As the accused is suffering from financial crises as per the elicited facts, no compen-sation is awarded and the complainant is at liberty to file a suit basing on promissory note for recovery of the amount since the limitation period of promissory note has not been lapsed. The detention period undergone by the accused on 07-01-2016 shall be set off. The right of preferring an appeal against this Judgment is informed to the accused. When the accused is questioned with regard to his means in engaging a counsel before Appellate authority, the accused replied positively.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of September, 2016.

Sd/-S.Praveen Kumar,

VI ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I LASS

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR DEFENCE :

P.W.1: Ila Srinivasa RaoD.W1: Vennagiri Suresh Kumar

P.W.2: Ch.Sambasiva RaoD.W.2:Vennagiri Balanageswararao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1: Promissory note dt. 67.2015 executed by the accused in favour of complainant for Rs.3,50,000/-

Ex.P2: Cheque bearing No.085645, dt. 2.12.32015 for Rs.3,50,000/-

Ex.P3: Return memo dt. 15.12.2015

Ex.P4: Office copy of legal notice dt. 31.12.2015 got issued by the complainant to the accused.

Ex.P5: Postal receipt dt. 31.12.2015

Ex.P6: Postal acknowledgment which contain the signatures of accused

dt. 6.1.2016.

Ex.P7: Reply notice issued by the accused to the complainant dt.

12.1.2016.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1: Aadhar card of accused

M.Os. Marked

-NIL--

Ild/-S.P.K

VI A.J.C.J, G.N.T.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:GUNTUR

C.C.No.498/2015

Date of OffenceFilingApprehenReleased CommeClosure Sentence sionon bailncement of the Order/ of trialtrial 25.04.1525.5.1507/07/15----03/03/1601/09/1624.9.16 EXPLANATION FOR DELAY: on 7.7.15 This case was taken on file u/s.138 of N.I.Act against the accused. On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 21.1.16 accused was examined u/s. 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of N.I.Act. On 3.3.16 complainant filed chief affidavit as P.W.1. Exs.P1 to P5 were got marked. On 24.3.16 P.W.1 was cross examined. On 21.4.16 P.w.2 was examined in chief. On 14.7.16 P.W.2 was cross examined. On 21.7.16 completion of evidence on the side of Complainant the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material found in the evidence of Complainant side witnesses. On 11.8.16 accused was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.P6 and Ex.D1 was got marked. On 1.9.16 the father of accused was examined as D.W.2. On 8.9.16 Heard the arguments on both sides. On 24.9.16 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay. Name of the complainant:Ila Srinivasa Rao S/o. Babu Rao, Aged about 39 years, R/o. Old Guntur,Guntur. Name of the father’s agereligioncallingVillage. accusedname Vennagiri Suresh Kumar S/o. Bala Nageswara Rao, Aged about 39 years, R/o.Door NO.16-8-102, 2nd lane, 2/2 Yadava street, Old Guntur, Guntur town and District.

Offence : U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act Finding : Guilty

Sentence or Order :In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and he is convicted u/s. 255(2) Cr.P.C. Hence, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards fine and in default of payment of such fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. As the accused is suffering from financial crises as per the elicited facts, no compensation is awarded and the complainant is at liberty to file a suit basing on promissory note for recovery of the amount since the limitation period of promissory note has not been lapsed. The detention period undergone by the accused on 07-01-2016 shall be set off. The right of preferring an appeal against this Judgment is informed to the accused. When the accused is questioned with regard to his means in engaging a counsel

before Appellate authority, the accused replied positively.

Fine Amount of Rs.5,000/- is collected from accused. Sentence suspended till 24-10-2016 as per the Orders in Crl.M.P No.1559/16, dt. 24-9-2016.

Sd/-S.Praveen Kumar,

VI ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GUNTUR

Present: Sri S.Praveen Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., Prl. Junior Civil Judge: Guntur.

Monday, this the 23rd day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.519/2015

Between:

Thota Vijaya Lakshmi S/o Abburi Chandramouli, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Land Lady & Internet Center, R/o D.No.3-1-197/2, Georgepet, opposite Pattabhipuram Main Gate, Guntur. … Plaintif

and

Gondi Srihari S/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, 45 years, Proprietor of Studio Srinivas Delux, R/o D.No.3-1-197/5, Georgepet, opposite Pattabhipuram Main Gate, Guntur. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 19-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.N.Lakshman Kumar, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri A.R.Srinivas Murthi, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration and having perusal the material and other circumstances available on record, till this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.72,000/- which is arrears of rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month for the period April, 2012 to March, 2015 and for interest @ 24% per annum and costs .

2.In brief the averments of the plaint are that :

The defendant has taken the schedule property on lease from plaintif for running of his photo studio in the year 2005 for a period of three years. Thereafter, the defendant also continued the lease with the consent of plaintif and paid the rents up to December, 2011. On the request of the plaintif, the defendant also agreed to vacate from suit schedule property by the end of December 2011 in the presence of one M.D.Vajid Ali and another. Since 2012 the 2 defendant is not prompt in paying regular rents. As such, the defendant became defaulter in payment of rent from January 2012 to November 2012 to a tune of Rs.22,000/-. Defendant also filed a false suit in OS.773/2012 and obtained exparte interim injunction vide IA.1930/2012 against the plaintif. Defendant also issued legal notice dt.07-12-2012 with false allegations by enclosing a cheque for Rs,2,000/- in respect of rent of November, 2012. Thereafter the defendant has also mailed the rents for the months of February and

March of 2012. Thereafter the defendant did not pay the rents. As such he was fell due to a tune of Rs.80,000- which is the rent from,

April, 2012 to July, 2015 (40 months). The defendant also agreed to pay the rents with the enhancement of 10% on the existing rent for every two years. Defendant also agreed to pay the rent at

Rs.2,200/- from January, 2014. But the plaintif filed RCC.9/2013

before the Rent Controller Guntur seeking eviction of defendant

from schedule property. Plaintif also filed IA.444/2013 in the said

RCC seeing for deposit of arrears of rent. Defendant also filed counter in main matter and in IA. Thereafter, the defendant also filed RCC.23/2013 U/Sec.8 of AP BLRE Act seeking permission to deposit rents to the court. But the same was dismissed on 06-11- 2014 as no deposit was made by the defendant. On 20-08-2015

RCC.9/2013 was allowed directing the defendant to vacate from the schedule property with in three months. On 08-08-2015 plaintif also issued legal notice through his counsel directing to pay the arrears of rent at Rs.2,000/- per month for the period April, 2012 to July, 2016 which is an amount of Rs.80,000/- in total along with future interest @ 24% per annum. Though the defendant received the 3 notice, did not choose to pay the arrears of rent with interest.

Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, the defendant filed written statement by contending that defendant has paid Rs.50,00,00/- towards advance and taken the lease of schedule property upon to 01-01-2010. The plaintif is not in the habit of issuing receipts after receiving the rents. Defendant never committee default of rents. All of sudden, the plaintif enhanced the rent to a tune of Rs.6000/- and demanded either to pay the same or to vacate from schedule property. Upon that the defendant filed the suit in OS.773/2012 and obtained the decree against the plaintif in respect of permanent injunction. The plaintif collected the rents till October, 2012 at Rs.2,000/- per month. Thereafter, plaintif refused to collect the rents from

November, 2012. Upon that defendant sent the rent for the month of 2012 by way of demand draft along with a notice dt.07-12-2012.

The same was accepted by the plaintif and issued receipt for 1st time along with reply notice with false allegations. Then the defendant also issued rejoineder notice dt.21-12-2012. Again the defendant sent the rent in respect of December, 2012 by way of demand Draft and the same was accepted by the plaintif and issued receipt dt.10-01-2013. Again the plaintif issued reply notice with false allegations. Again the defendant issued rejoinder dt.21- 01-2013. Thereafter, the defendant also paid rent in respect of the month of January, 2013 by way of demand draft. The same was accepted by the plaintif and issued receipt along with false reply notice dt.07.02.2013. Again the defendant issued rejoinder dt.16- 4 02-2013. Thereafter, the plaintif refused to receive the rent in respect of February, 2013 which was sent by way demand draft and money order. Upon that defendant filed RCC.23/2013 seeking to deposit the rents in to the court. As such, the defendant is not defaulter in paying the rents to the plaintif. Unfortunately

RCC.23/2013 was dismissed. Then the defendant preferred appeal vide RCA.5/2015 before the Hon’ble Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur. Meanwhile, though the defendant sending the rents through demand drafts the plaintif refused to receive the rents. Defendant never agreed to vacate from the schedule property in the presence of said Mohammad Vajad Ali and another person. The lease period is not completed and the tenure of lease is till 01-01-2020.

defendant is having business in the schedule property. Plaintif is not required the schedule property in order to run typewriting institute since she is having more shops in the ground floor and first floor. The defendant preferred an appeal vide RCA.20/2015 against the orders in RCC.9/2013. Defendant is not liable to pay the rents from August 2012 since he has paid the same. Plaintif also collected the rents from defendant in person upto October, 2012.

Thereafter, the defendant has sent the rents through demand drafts from November, 2012 to January, 2013. Defendant is ready and willing to deposit rents from February, 2013 to till date. There is no cause of action. With these contentions the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.In view of the above pleadings this court framed the following

Issues and Additional Issues:

5

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery for arrears of rent as prayed for?

2. To what relief ?

Additional issues :

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recover of arrears of rent of Rs.72,000/- i.e. from April, 2012 to March, 2015 (36 months x 2000 = 72,000/-)?

2. Whether the suit became infructuous as the defendant deposited Rs.1,33,720/- as per the direction of Hon’ble

High Court?

5.During the course of enquiry plaintif was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the plaintif. DW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.B.1 on behalf of defendant.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Prior to deciding the issue No.1, 2 and Additional Issue No.1, it is relevant to decide additional issue no.2.

Additional Issue No.2:

Both counsels submitted before the court that the defendant paid Rs.1,33,720/- under Ex.B.1 receipt to the plaintif as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court towards arrears of rent till April, 2017 without future interest at 24% per annum. Plaintif being PW.1 reiterated the averments of the plaint in his evidence. Defendant being DW.1 reiterated the averments of the written statement in his evidence. It is elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 that the defendant has paid the rents up to August, 2017. It is also the 6 admission of PW.1 that no order was passed in respect of interest over arrears of rent in RCC.9/2013. It is also admission of PW.1 that he is not aware whether any order was passed for payment of arrears of rent with interest in RCA.20/2015 by the Hon’ble Appellate

Court. It is also elicited from the evidence of PW.1 that the Hon’ble

High Court did not direct the defendant herein to pay the arrears of rent with interest at 24% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit. It is also the admission of PW.1 that there is no specific agreement between the plaintif and defendant that the defendant has to pay the arrears of rent with interest. At this juncture it is also relevant to look into the cross examination of DW.1. At present the defendant is paying Rs.2,665/- towards monthly rent. It is also elicited that the plaintif claimed interest over the arrears of rent @ 24% per annum in Ex.A.2 notice. CRP.1568/2017 and

CRP.1569/2017 are pending before the Hon’ble High Court basing on

RCA.20/2015. When the admissions and elicited facts are taken in to consideration this court has no hesitation to say that the defendant paid rents upto August, 2017 to the plaintif. Thus, it can be said that the defendant paid the arrears of rent in respect of the period claimed under the subject matter suit. The plaintif also claimed interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree in suit. Originally, the suit was filed for seeking arrears in respect of the period April, 2012 to March, 2015. It is elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 that there is no specific agreement between the plaintif and defendant that the defendant has to pay the arrears of rent with interest. It is also noticed in the cross examination that no order was passed in RCC.9/2013 in respect of 7 interest over arrears of rent. When these facts are taken in to consideration this court is of the opinion that the plaintif is not entitle to claim interest @ 24% per annum over the suit amount.

There is also no agreement between the plaintif and defendant that the defendant has to pay interest over the arrears of rent at the time of entering in to lease agreement with plaintif. In the absence of such agreement between the parties herein it is not proper to consider the claim of plaintif in respect of interest. As such, the plaintif is not entitled to seek interest at 24% percent over the suit amount from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Since the defendant paid the arrears of rent under Ex.B.1 and as the plaintif is not entitle to claim interest @ 24% on suit amount, this court has no hesitation to say that the suit became infructuous.

Hence, this issue is answered against the plaintif.

8.Issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.1:

In view of the findings recorded in Additional Issue No.2 it is not required to look into these issues.

9.Issue No.2 :

In view of the answer given in Additional Issue No.2 the suit is liable to be dismissed without costs.

10.In the result, the suit is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 23rd of April, 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Plaintif : F or Defendant:

PW.1 : Thota Vijaya Lakshmi DW.1 : Gondi Srihari

Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintif

Ex.A.1: Certified copy of sale deed dt.08-07-1999 Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice with postal receipt dt.08-08-2015 Ex.A.3: Postal acknowledgment of defendant dt.12-08-2015 Ex.A.4: Certified copy of rent receipt in respect of the month of January, 2012, dt.15-12-2012. Ex.A.5: Certified copy of rent receipt in respect of the month of February, 2012, dt.10-01-2012. Ex.A.6: Certified copy of rent receipt in respect of the month of March, 2012, dt.16-02-2013. Ex.A.7: Registered notice issued by defendant dt.06-06-2016 Ex.A.8: Reply notice given by plaintif, dt.08-06-2016 Ex.A.9: Postal acknowledgment of defendant Ex.A.10: Memo filed in OS.773/2012 which was got returned.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendant

Ex.B.1 : Cash receipts dt.20-04-2017 (marked subject to objection)

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GUNTUR

Present: Sri S.Praveen Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., Prl. Junior Civil Judge: Guntur.

Monday, this the 23rd day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.519/2015

Between: Thota Vijaya Lakshmi S/o Abburi Chandramouli, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Land Lady & Internet Center, R/o D.No.3-1-197/2, Georgepet, opposite Pattabhipuram Main Gate, Guntur. … Plaintif

and

Gondi Srihari S/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, 45 years, Proprietor of Studio Srinivas Delux, R/o D.No.3-1-197/5, Georgepet, opposite Pattabhipuram Main Gate, Guntur. … Defendant

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.72,000/- which is the arrears of rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month for the period April, 2012 to March, 2015 and for interest @ 24% per annum and costs .

Plaint presented : on 24-08-2017 Plaint filed : on 24-08-2017

CAUSE OF ACTION:

Cause of action for the suit arose that when the defendant joined as a tenant in suit schedule property in the year 2005 in a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- and had given two months rent as advance and agreed to pay monthly rent on or before 5th of each succeeding month and the defendant also accepted to lease out the same after acknowledging two moths rent and entered the same in the rental book maintained by the defendant duly signing and when the defendant used to pay irregularly monthly rents once in favour months or five months and the same are being entered and signed by the plaintif in the said rent note book under protest and when the plaintif is running type/computer job work/xerox center in the western side premises to the suit schedule property and the defendant agreed to vacate the suit schedule property by the end of December, 2011 in the presence of one M.D.Vajad Ali in an around 2011 in the presence of plaintif and when the defendant is not paying monthly rents since January, 2012 and the defendant failed to deliver vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property by the end of December, 2011 and when the defendant committed willful default from January,2012 and there after paid through his advocate January, February and March, 2012 rents through his advocate to the plaintif who issued receipts in favour of the defendant mailed to the defendant advocate and when the defendant filed OS.773/2012 on the file of this court within the jurisdiction of the court.

Particulars of claim :

For recovery of arrears of rent for the period of 36 months @ Rs.2,000/- per month from April, 2012 to March, 2015 = Rs.72,000/-.

Valuation and Court Fee: The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.72,000/- on which a Court fee of Rs.2,866/- is paid herewith under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

This suit is coming on 19-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.N.Lakshman Kumar, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri A.R.Srinivas Murthi, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration and having perusal the material and other circumstances available on record, till this day this court doth order and deliver decree as follows:-

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as infructuous;

2.that each party do bear their own costs. (Costs Memo and Fee Certificate not filed by either of the parties).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on 23rd day of April, 2018.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Table of costs : Nil

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GUNTUR

Present: Sri S.Praveen Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., Prl. Junior Civil Judge: Guntur.

Monday, this the 23rd day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.282/2015

Between :

Kanna Dana Rao, S/o Surya Narayana, Hindu, aged about 66 years, Business, R/o Dr.No.5-167, Etukuru, Guntur Rural. … Plaintif

and

1. Nissankararao Sambrajyam W/o Late Appa Rao, Hindu, aged about 70 years,

2. Nissankararao Markandeyulu S/o Late Appa Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 years,

Both are R/o ZPH School Road, Etukuru, Guntur. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 20-04-2018 before me in the presence of Sri M.Sravan Kumar, Advocate for plaintif and Sri N.Venkata Venu, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration and having perusal of the material and other circumstances available on record, till this day this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

On 23-07-2015 the plaintif filed the present suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the thatched fencing at point CD as per the plaint plan and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, men, employees and associates from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over suit schedule property.

2. In brief the averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintif purchased an extent of Ac.0-01 cents/48 square yards under a registered sale deed bearing No.2309/1981, 2 dt.11.03.1981 and an extent of Ac.0-01¼ cents under a registered sale deed bearing No.6272/1981, dt.08.06.1981 from one Nissanakarao

Appa Rao. Thus, the plaintif got joint gally with the width of 28 inches wherein plaintif left 14 links and the neighbours left remaining 14 links. Therefore, the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the total extent of 108 square yards and he constructed RCC house in the southern side boundary and kept vacant on the northern side boundary.

The defendants are the owners of the northern side boundary of suit schedule property. Defendants by taking advantage of vacant site of plaintifs, tried to occupy the same. During the absence of plaintif in the village, the defendants raised fencing with thatched leafs by encroaching into the northern side open place left by the plaintif. Then the plaintifs placed the matter before the elders. But, the defendants did not remove the encroachment. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, 1st defendant filed written statement. 2nd defendant filed memo adopting the written statement of 1st defendant.

The averments of the written statement are that the rough sketch filed by the plaintif is no way relevant to the boundaries of suit schedule property. Originally the suit schedule property belongs to the ancestors of defendants. The same was acquired by the ancestors of the defendants during partition. The vendor of the plaintif sold the schedule property to the plaintif by showing false boundaries and accordingly the plaintif purchased the same without having enquiry.

Plaintif has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property including CD point. 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property from the date of purchase of the same and made 3 fencing with thatched leafs to the schedule property. Plaintif did not leave any property towards joint gally. With these contentions defendants 1 and 2 prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.With the above pleadings this court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of enquiry PW.1 alone was examined and

Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked on behalf of plaintif. DWs.1 and 2 were examined and no document was marked on behalf of defendants.

6.Heard the respective counsels of both parties and perused the entire material.

7.Issue No.1:

Plaintif being PW.1 reiterated the averments of the plaint in his evidence. Defendant No.2 being DW.1 reiterated the contents of written statement. DW.2 is the son in law of 1st defendant. 1st defendant did not adduce evidence before the court. No documents are also marked on behalf of defendants.

8.It is the contention of the plaintif that the defendants encroached into the site of plaintif and raised CD point thatched fencing as shown in plaint plan. Defendants also admitted about raising of thatched fencing in CD point by them. But, it is the strong contention of the defendants that the said fencing was laid by them in their site. It is 4 also the strong contention of defendants that the vendor of plaintifs sold the suit schedule property to the plaintif by showing false documents. Plaintif strongly relied upon Ex.A.1 and A.2 sale deeds in order to show his title over schedule property. In this matter either of the party did not choose to get inspection of the schedule property by an advocate commissioner in order to place the real facts in respect of the location and existence of thatched fencing before the court. Thus, this court has no other way except to look into the documents placed by the plaintif before the court. Though the defendants 1 and 2 strongly contended that the vendor of the plaintif sold the suit schedule property to the plaintif by showing the false documents, they have not filed any document before the court to show their right and title over the suit schedule property before the court. It is the admission of DW.1 that the plaintif purchased total extent of Ac.0.2¼ cents/104 square yards from the said Nissankararao Appa rao who is none other than the father of 2nd defendant. Defendants never pleaded in the written statement that the said Nissankararao Appa Rao is the father of 2nd defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 suppressed the said fact in the written statement. It is also the admission of 2nd defendant as

DW.1 that the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A.1 and A.2 sale deeds are true and correct. When such is the clear admission this court has no hesitation to consider the boundaries referred in Ex.A.1 and A.2 title deeds in order to believe the boundaries referred in plaint plan.

Defendants did not file any piece of paper to show that CD fencing was laid by them in their site. Moreover no piece of paper is also filed by the defendants to show that they are having right, interest and title over schedule property. Thus, this court has no hesitation to say that 5

Exs.A.1 and A.2 title deeds contain true facts. As such, this court is satisfied with the evidence placed by the plaintif in order to show that the plaintif is the absolute title holder of suit schedule property under

Ex.A.1 and A.2. As per the plaint plan the defendant being neighbour has no right to lay CD thatched fencing which is located in the exclusive property (schedule property) of plaintif. As the defendants maintained that they have raised the said thatched fencing it is for the defendants to remove the same. As such, it is required to grant mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintif in removing the CD thatched fencing by the defendants.

9.The counsel for the defendants also relied upon the Judgment of our Hon’ble High Court in a case between Kodali Rajendra Prasad and others Vs. Bandaru Nepolian and others reported in 2014 (4) ALD 505 wherein their lordship was pleased to observe that “the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable without seeking declaration of rights, when defendants categorically stated that so called common lane is part of property purchased by them under relevant documents and alleged construction was made by them within their property”.

10.In the instant case though the defendants 1 and 2 stated that the plaintifs purchased the suit schedule property under Exs.A.1 and A.2 basing on false document shown by their vendor, defendants 1 and 2 did not place any relevant material before the court to believe that the contents of Exs.A.1 and A.2 are false. Moreover, no document is filed by the defendant s 1 and 2 to show that they are having joint right over

CD property and the said CD thatched fencing was laid by them in 6 their property. As such, the defendants cannot take shelter basing on the above referred judgment of Hon’ble High Court in disproving the claim of plaintifs,. Hence, the judgment of Hon’ble High Court which is relied upon by the counsel of defendants is not taken in to consideration in support of defendants. Hence, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants 1 and 2.

11.Issue No.2 :

In issue No.1 it is decided that without having any manner of right over the suit schedule property, the defendants 1 and 2 laid CD thatched fencing. Further the plaintif by placing Ex.A.1 and A.2 documents proved his interest and title over schedule property.

Defendants also admitted about laying of the thatched fencing wherein it can be considered that the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintifs over suit schedule property. Moreover, nothing is placed to substantiate that the suit schedule property is the exclusive property of the defendants. As such, it is also relevant to grant permanent injunction as prayed by the plaintifs. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

12.Issue No.3 :

In view of the findings recorded in Issue No.1 and 2 the suit is to be decreed in favour of the plaintif.

13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting Mandatory

Injunction directing the defendants to remove the thatched fencing at point CD as per plaint plan within one month with their own expenses, 7 failing which the plaintif is at liberty to get execution of the same through process of the court with the expenses of defendants.

Further, permanent injunction is granted by restraining the defendants, their men, agents, employees, associates from in any way interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintif over suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Plaintif :F or Defendants:

PW.1 : Kanna Dana Rao DW.1 : Nissankararao Markandeyulu DW.2 : Kona Sivaji

Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintif

Ex.A.1 : Certified copy of registered sale deed, dt.11-03-1981 Ex.A.2 : Certified copy of registered sale deed, dt.08-06-1981 Ex.A.3 : Tax Receipt, dt.26-11-2014

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendants -Nil-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GUNTUR

Present: Sri S.Praveen Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., Prl. Junior Civil Judge: Guntur.

Monday, this the 23rd day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.282/2015

Between :

Kanna Dana Rao, S/o Surya Narayana, Hindu, aged about 66 years, Business, R/o Dr.No.5-167, Etukuru, Guntur Rural. … Plaintif

and

1. Nissankararao Sambrajyam W/o Late Appa Rao, Hindu, aged about 70 years,

2. Nissankararao Markandeyulu S/o Late Appa Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 years,

Both are R/o ZPH School Road, Etukuru, Guntur. … Defendants

On 23-07-2015 the plaintif filed the present suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the thatched fencing in the site of plaintif at point CD as per the plaint plan and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, men, employees and associates from in an way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over suit schedule property.

Plaint presented : on 19-06-2015. Plaint filed : on 22-06-2015.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Cause of action for the suit arose when then plaintif purchased the plaint schedule property from the husband of 1st defendant and father of 2nd defendant in the year 1981 under two registered sale deeds, when the plaintif constructed tailed house in the said site leaving open place in a width of 5 x 11 links, since few months when the defendants tried to encroach upon the said site, in the last month when the plaintif was out of station when the defendants raised thatched fencing by enclosing into the site of the plaintif at CD line as per the plaint plan and did not remove the same inspite of demands by plaintif at Etukuru within the jurisdiction of the court.

Particulars of suit claim: This being a suit filed for permanent injunction, the plaintif values the relief at Rs.15,000/-.

Valuation and Court Fee: The total value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.15,000/- on which a Court fee of Rs.1,086/- is paid herewith under Sec.26(C) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

This suit is coming on 20-04-2018 before me in the presence of Sri M.Sravan Kumar, Advocate for plaintif and Sri N.Venkata Venu, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration and having perusal of the material and other circumstances available on record, till this day this Court doth order and deliver decree as follows:-

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed by granting Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to remove the thatched fencing at point CD as per plaint plan within one month with their own expenses, failing which the plaintif is at liberty to get execution of the same through process of the court with the expenses of defendant.

2. that granting permanent injunction by restraining the defendants, their men, agents, employees, associates from in any way interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintif over suit schedule property.

3. that the defendants do pay to the plaintifs a sum of Rs.3,241/- (Rupees three thousand two hundred and forty one only) towards costs of the suit and the defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil as costs memo and fee certificate not filed by the defendants.

(Plaint Schedule and plan are hereto attached.)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

TABLE OF COSTS

Sl.No.For PlaintifFor defendant 1Stamp on Vakalat 52-00 2Court Fee 1086-00 3Stamp on Petition 3-00 4Process fee 30-00 CM & FC not 5Typing charges 50-00 filed 6Writing charges 20-00 7Senior Advocate fee 1500-00 8Junior Advocate fee 500-00

Total3241-00

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI S.PRAVEEN KUMAR II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

Saturday, the 29th day of April, 2017

O.S.No.379/2013

Between:

Gunji Umamaheswara Rao ...Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Dasari Kanakadurga

2. Dasari Rambabu ...Defendants

This suit is coming on 27-3-2017 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V.Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Alla Govinda Rao, Advocate for defendants, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed seeking for declaration and for mandatory injunction to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property encroached by the defendants and to direct the defendants to remove the boundary wall constructed by the eastern side of the suit schedule property.

2.In brief, the averments of the Plaint are that originally the suit schedule property was allotted to one Gunji Hanumayamma by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur on 4.9.2003 which is an extent of 102 Sq.Yds and which is located in plot No.107. The said Hanumayamma is the grand mother of plaintiff. Out of love and affection, the said Hanumayamma executed a Possessory Agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff on 15.05.2006 and delivered the possession of property to him. As such, the plaintiff took the possession of suit schedule property and mutated his name in Guntur Municipal corporation, Guntur. The Municipal Corporation, Guntur also issued assessment Number on the name of plaintiff vide assessment No.133639. The parents of plaintiff constructed a house and enjoying the same without any interruption from anybody. The defendants are adjacent land owners of plaintiff who is having cited in plot No.108. The defendants being wife and husband intentionally encroached an extent of 1.3 feet x 40 feet length on the northern side of the suit schedule property and constructed the compound wall. The plaintiff also submitted an application to the Guntur Municipal corporation, Guntur for conducting survey on the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the Town Surveyor conducted survey over the suit schedule property and found an encroachment of 1.3 feet with 40 feet length on the eastern side of the suit schedule property by the defendants. Though the plaintiff requested the defendants to remove the illegal construction of boundary wall, the defendant did not do so. As such, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit.

2

3.On the other hand, the defendants filed Written Statement contending that the Government allotted plot No.108 to the first defendant which is an extent of 102 Sq.Yds which is located in D.No.565, with door No.25-16-176/A, II land, Subbareddy nagar, Guntur. But the defendants were in occupation of said plot since 1990. The electricity authorities also given electricity connection to the said plot vide S.C No.455 on 4.9.1993. In the year 1992, the names of defendants were also incorporated in voters list with the address of Plot No.108. The Mandal Revenue Officer also issued Property right holder notice on 17.10.1993 to the first defendant in respect of plot No.108. In the year 1993-94 the defendants constructed full furnished house in the said plot No.108. As such, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the said plot. The Government allotted plot No.107 to the said Gunji Hanumayamma. The said Hanumayamma and the husband of Hanumayamma died. The Government given rights to the said Hanumayamma to reside in the said plot. The said Hanumayamma has no right of alienation of the said plot No.107 since the said plot was given in B-form patta. The plaintiff is a student and residing at Bapatla and he is not residing in Plot No.107. The plaintiff is no way relevant to the suit schedule property. Taking advantage of death of said Hanumayamma, the plaintiff and the father of plaintiff created a story in order to grab the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also created and fabricated documents. The plaintiff also managed the officials of Guntur Municipal Corporation and obtained false documents in his favour in order to create right over the said plot No.107. The plaintiff himself harassing the defendants without any right. With these submissions, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, this Court framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property i.e. 1.3 feet width x 40 feet length encroached by the defendants towards eastern side of the plaint schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the compound wall constructed in the eastern side of the plaintiff's plaint schedule property by encroaching 1.3 feet width x 40 feet length as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5During the course of enquiry, P.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were got marked on behalf of plaintiff. The defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were got marked on behalf of defendants.

6. Heard the arguments on both sides.

7. ISSUE NO.1: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Declaration

that he is the absolute owner of the property i.e. 1.3 feet width

x 40 feet length encroached by the defendants towards eastern

side of the plaint schedule property?

3

It is the admission of defendants in their written Statement that on 4.9.2005 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur alloted plot No.107 to one Gunji Hanumayamma. It is also the admission of defendants that the Government also allotted plot no.108 on the same day of allotment of 107 to the said Gunji Hanuamayamma. There is no dispute that the said two plots were issued under B-form patta. It is not in dispute that the said Hanumayamma and the husband of Hanumayamma died a long back. It is the case of plaintiff that the said Hanuamayamma given her plot 107 to the plaintiff on 5.5.2006 by executing Possessory Sale Agreement out of love and affection and delivered the possession of the said plot to the plaintiff and as such the parents of plaintiff constructed a house and residing in plot No.107. The plaintiff claimed his right over the plot No.107 being grand son of deceased Hanumayamma. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of B-form in respect of plot no.108 and as per the recitals of Ex.B4, the said plot No.108 was given to the defendant No.1 in the year 2007. Ex.A1 is the B-form patta in respect of plot No.107. After going through the content of Ex.A1, it is clear that the Government issued plot No.107 to t he said deceased Hanumayamma on 4.9.2003. when the dates of Ex.A1 and Ex.B4 are taken into consideration, it can be said that the Government issued plot No.107 to the said deceased Hanumayamma prior to issuing of plot No.108 to defendant No.1. It is the contention of defendants that since the deceased Hanumayamma is not having right of alienation, she cannot transfer the plot No.107 on the name of plaintiff under Possessory Sale Agreement on 15.05.2006. Though the alleged Possessory Sale Agreement was filed before the Court, the same is not marked since it is unregistered document.

8. It is not the case of defendants that the Government cancelled Ex.A1 B-form patta in respect of plot NO.107 and allotted plot No.107 to another person. There is also no evidence on record to show that the Government cancelled Ex.A1 B form patta which was given to the deceased Hanumayamma in order to show the possession of plaintiff over the plot No.107, the plaintiff relied upon Exs.A2 and A3 documents. Exs.A2 and A3 are the house tax receipts issued by Guntur Municipal Corporation. On going through the content of Ex.A3 it clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is paying tax on his name. It is the strong contention of plaintiff that Exs.A2 and A3 are pertaining to the plot No.107. It is not disputed by the defendant that EXs.A2 and A3 were not belongs to the plot No.107. When the contents of Exs.A2 and A3 are taken into consideration, it can be said that the plaintiff is in possessiion and enjoyment of 107 plot. The evidence of P.W.1 speaks that the plaintiff came into possession over the plot No.107 through the Possessory Sale Agreement. The plaintiff is none other than the grand child of deceased Hanumayamma. The evidence of P.W.3 also speaks that the plaintiff is in possesssion of plot No.107 and paying house taxes to the Municipal Corporation, Guntur and it issued assessment No.133639. When the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is taken into consideration, it can be said that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plot No.107. In order to show the ownership over the plot No.107, the plaintiff placed Exs.A1 to A3 before this court. As the plainfiff is paying property tax to the plot No.107, this Court has no hesitation to say that the plaintiff is the present owner of plot No.107. The Government did not choose to take action against the plaintiff in cancelling Ex.A1 B form patta. The Government is also not disputing 4 about the ownership of plaintiff over the plot No.107. It is for the Government to challenge the ownership of plaintiff over the plot No.107. The defendants have no role to challenge the ownership of plaintiff over the plot No.107. Taking advantage of the death of deceased Hanumayamma, the defendants did not have right to claim that the plaintiff has no right to reside in plot No.107. The defendants have also nko right to encroach into plot No.107 taking advantage of death of deceased Hanumayamma.

9.Now, it is to be looked into whether defendants have encroached into plot No.7. It is the case of plaintiff that the defendants constructed the wall by encroaching 1.3 feet with 40 feet length in 107 plot. In order to strengthen the same, the plaintiff placed Ex.A4. Ex.A4 is the endorsement issued by the Municipal Corporation, Guntur wherein it goes to show that the survey was conducted by the Town Surveyor basing on requisition of plaitniff and G.Ramana and found an encroachment of 1.3 feet x 40 feet length on the eastern side of plaintiff. When the content of Ex.A4 is taken into consideration, it can be said that an encroachment was taken place in the site of plaintiff. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 3 goes to show that the defendants constructed compound wall by encroaching an extent of 1.3 feet in plot No.107. When such is the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 and when the content of Ex.A4 speaks about encroachment of 1.3 feet, it can be said that the defendants have constructed the compound wall in plot No.107 without having any manner of right. It is not the case of defendants 1 and 2 that they have not constructed compound wall by encroaching 1.3 feet x 40 feet length in plot No.107. The only contention of defendants is that the plaintiff is not the owner of plot No.107. It is already stated supra that this Court is satisfied about the ownership of plaintiff over plot No.107. When such is the observation of this Court, it can be said that the plaintiff is entitled for declaratiion to the effect that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property which was encroached by the defendant on the easern site of plaint schedule property. As such, the issue is answered in favour of plantiff and against the defendants 1 and 2.

9. ISSUE NO.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Mandatory

injunction directing the defendants to remove the compound

wall constructed in the eastern side of the plaintiff's plaint

schedule property by encroaching 1.3 feet width x 40 feet

length as prayed for?

As this Court is satisfied with the right of plaintiff over plot No.107 and as a finding was recorded in issue No.1 that the defendants encroached 1.3 feet width x 40 feet length in plot No.107 by constructing a compound wall, it is relevant to direct the defendants to remove the compound wall constructed on the eastern side of suit schedule property by encroaching 1.3 feet width with 20 feet length. Thus, the issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

12. ISSUE NO.3: To what relief? In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property encroached by the defendants between eastern side of the suit schedule property by encroaching 1.3 feet x 40 feet length by the defendants. Mandatory injunction is granted by directing the defendants to remove the 5 compound wall constructed in the eastern side of the plaintiff's plaint schedule property by encroachng 1.3 feet x 40 feet length within three months. Failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get it done the same through the process of Court with the costs of defendants.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

her corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 29th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-S.Praveen Kumar,

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT: None

P.W1 : Gunji Umamaheswara Rao D.W.1: Dasari Kanaka Durga

P.W.2: M.Srinivasa Rao

P.W.3: Upputhalla Krishna

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1: Allotment order given by the M.R.O.., dt. 4.9.2003.

Ex.A2: House tax receipt issued by Guntur Municipal Corporation,

Guntur dt. 20.11.2012.

Ex.A3: House tax receipt issued by Guntur Municipal Corporation,

Guntur dt.06.05.2013.

Ex.A4: Endorsement by the commissioner, Guntur Municipal

Corporation, Guntur dt. 19.3.2013.

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1: Property Right holder Deed dt. 17.10.1993

Ex.B2: Certificate issued by A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Guntur.

Ex.B3: House tax receipt

Ex.B4: Certified copy of B form for Plot No.108

Ex.B5: Two positive photographs and C.D

Ild/-S.P.K

II A.J.C.J. G.N.T.