Sri S.r. Dilip Kumar Naik

1

O.S.No.179 OF 2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PARKAL

Wednesday, this the 24th day of March, 2021

Present : Sri S.R.DILIP KUMR NAIK,

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

O.S.No. 179 OF 2020

Between PunemUpender,S/o.Kotaiah,Aged:34years,Occu:Business, R/o.H.No.11-197, Subash Colony, Bhupalpally Village and Mandal,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally District... Plaintiff

A N D

1) Erram Laxminarayana, S/o.Veeraswamy, Age:52 years, Occu:Singareni Employee, R/o.Q.No.T2-614, Bhupalpally Village and Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

2) Goggela Srinivas, S/o.Sammaiah, Age:45 years, Occu:Singareni Employee, R/o.H.No.14-71/2, Subash Colony, Bhupalpally Village and Mandal,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally District... Defendants

This suit having come before me for final hearing on 18.03.2021 in the presence of Sri Sangem Ravinder, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendants failed to appear before the Court and remained set exparte, and upon hearing arguments and perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.3,13,466/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirteen thousand

Four hundred and Sixty Six only) against the person and property of defendants holding that the defendant nos.1 aand 2 are liable to pay the amount; grant interest @ 2% per month on Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) from the date of the suit to till the realization of total decreetal amount.

2.The averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint in brief as follows:-

It is the contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and defendants are acquainted with each since long time. The defendant no.1 representing his family necessities approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on 10.06.2018 from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the said amount together with interest @ 2% per month on demand. The plaintiff lent the said amount on 10.06.2018 to the defendant 2

O.S.No.179 OF 2020

no.1 in view of the close acquaintance between the parties as a hand loan.

The defendant no.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day i.e., on 10.06.2018 as a collateral security undertaking his liability to repay the amount together with 2% interest. The defendant no.2 has stood as guarantor and executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff undertaking his liability to pay amount borrowed by the defendant no.1 in the event the defendant no.1 commits default. The defendant no.1 never paid the principal amount and accrued rate of interest nor any part thereof inspite of plaintiff's repeated demands and the defendant no.1 postponed the repayment of amount due under the promissory note under one or the other pretexts. The defendant no.2 did not respond in this regard inspite of plaintiff's demands. The plaintiff repeated demands for the repayment of amount by the defendants went in vain. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 23.09.2020 to the defendants calling him to pay the amount due under promissory note along with interest and the defendants received the same. Even though there is no response from the defendants who neither replied to the legal notice or paid the amount due or any part thereof. In these circumstances the plaintiff has no other go except to file the suit for recovery of money.

3.The defendant nos.1 and 2 failed to appear before the Court and remained set exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, he filed his chief affidavit and examined himself as PW.1, Exs.A.1 to A.5 got marked. Ex.A.1 is the Original Promissory

Note, dt.10.06.2018, Ex.A.2 is the Office copy of legal notice, dt.23.09.2020,

Ex.A.3 is the Postal Receipt, dt.23.09.2020, Ex.A.4 is the Postal

Acknowledgement Card and Ex.A.5 is the Surety Bond, dt.10.06.2018.

5.Heard.

3

O.S.No.179 OF 2020

6.1) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim as prayed for”?

2) To what relief?

7. POINT NO.1:-

The plaintiff through his chief examination affidavit has reiterated his plaint averments that, he and the defendant no.1 is well acquaintance to each other since long time and upon such acquaintance the defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs only) to meet his family necessities, upon such acquaintance the plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and the defendant no.1 having receipt of the said amount executed a demand promissory note on 10.06.2018 by agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per month as and when demanded by the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor to the defendant no.1 and executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff undertaking his liability to pay the amount borrowed by the defendant no.1 in the event of defendant no.1 commit default. On many occasions the plaintiff demanded the defendants for repayment of loan amount with interest, but the defendants used to dodge the matter on one pretext or the other, for which, the plaintiff issued legal notices under Ex.A.2.

8.The defendant nos.1 and 2 failed to appear before this Court and remained set exparte and thus the evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged as the defendants were set exparte.

9.Hence, this Court by considering the oral and documentary evidence of

PW.1, Exs.A.1 to A.5, holds that the plaintiff could successfully establish that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the amount of Rs.3,13,466/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirteen thousand Four hundred and Sixty Six only) 4

O.S.No.179 OF 2020

along with interest @ 2% per month from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of decree. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. POINT NO.2:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant nos.1 and 2 for Rs.3,13,466/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirteen thousand Four hundred and Sixty Six only) along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th of March, 2021)

Sd/- S.R. Dilip Kumar Naik,

FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:-

PW.1: Punem Upender- Nil –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1 is the Original Promissory Note, dt.10.06.2018, Ex.A.2 is the Office copy of legal notice, dt.23.09.2020, Ex.A.3 is the Postal Receipt, dt.23.09.2020, Ex.A.4 is the Postal Acknowledgement Card, Ex.A.5 is the Surety Bond, dt.10.06.2018.

For Defendants:- - Nil –

Sd/- S.R. Dilip Kumar Naik,

FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

1

O.S.No.178 OF 2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PARKAL

Wednesday, this the 24th day of March, 2021

Present : Sri S.R.DILIP KUMR NAIK,

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

O.S.No. 178 OF 2020

Between Peddi Prudvi, S/o.Muthyam, Aged:40 years, Occu:Business, R/o.H.No.10-27, R/o.H.No.14-97, Subash Colony, Bhupalpally Village and Mandal, Jayashankar

Bhupalpally District... Plaintiff

A N D

1) Gurukuntla Suresh, S/o.Rajaiah, Age:32 years, Occu:Business,

2) Gurukuntla Rajaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Age:58 years, Occu:Singareni Employee, Both are R/o.H.No.357, Yadava Colony, Bhupalpally Village and Mandal,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally District... Defendants

This suit having come before me for final hearing on 18.03.2021 in the presence of Sri Sangem Ravinder, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendants failed to appear before the Court and remained set exparte, and upon hearing arguments and perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Three thousand only) against the person and property of defendants holding that the defendant nos.1 aand 2 are liable to pay the amount; grant interest @ 2% per month on Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only) from the date of the suit to till the realization of total decreetal amount.

2.The averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint in brief as follows:-

It is the contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and defendants are acquainted with each since long time. The defendant no.1 representing his family necessities approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of

Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only) on 21.01.2018 from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the said amount together with interest @ 2% per month on demand. The plaintiff lent the said amount on 21.01.2018 to the defendant no.1 in view of the close acquaintance between the parties as a 2

O.S.No.178 OF 2020

hand loan. The defendant no.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees

Eighty thousand only) and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day i.e., on 21.01.2018 as a collateral security undertaking his liability to repay the amount together with 2% interest. The defendant no.2 has stood as guarantor and executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff undertaking his liability to pay amount borrowed by the defendant no.1 in the event the defendant no.1 commits default. The defendant no.1 never paid the principal amount and accrued rate of interest nor any part thereof inspite of plaintiff's repeated demands and the defendant no.1 postponed the repayment of amount due under the promissory note under one or the other pretexts. The defendant no.2 did not respond in this regard inspite of plaintiff's demands. The plaintiff repeated demands for the repayment of amount by the defendants went in vain. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff go issued a legal notice on 24.02.2020 to the defendants calling him to pay the amount due under promissory note along with interest and the defendants received the same. Even though there is no response from the defendants who neither replied to the legal notice or paid the amount due or any part thereof. In these circumstances the plaintiff has no other go except to file the suit for recovery of money.

3.The defendant nos.1 and 2 failed to appear before the Court and remained set exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, he filed his chief affidavit and examined himself as PW.1, Exs.A.1 to A.5 got marked. Ex.A.1 is the Original Promissory

Note, dt.21.01.2018, Ex.A.2 is the Office copy of legal notice, dt.24.02.2020,

Ex.A.3 is the Postal Receipt, dt.24.02.2020, Ex.A.4 is the Postal

Acknowledgement Card and Ex.A.5 is the Surety Bond, dt.21.01.2018.

5.Heard.

3

O.S.No.178 OF 2020

6.1) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim as prayed for”?

2) To what relief?

7. POINT NO.1:-

The plaintiff through his chief examination affidavit has reiterated his plaint averments that, he and the defendant no.1 is well acquaintance to each other since long time and upon such acquaintance the defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees

Eighty thousand only) to meet his family necessities, upon such acquaintance the plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only) and the defendant no.1 having receipt of the said amount executed a demand promissory note on 21.01.2018 by agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per month as and when demanded by the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor to the defendant no.1 and executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff undertaking his liability to pay the amount borrowed by the defendant no.1 in the event of defendant no.1 commit default. On many occasions the plaintiff demanded the defendants for repayment of loan amount with interest, but the defendants used to dodge the matter on one pretext or the other, for which, the plaintiff issued legal notices under Ex.A.2.

8.The defendant nos.1 and 2 failed to appear before this Court and remained set exparte and thus the evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged as the defendants were set exparte.

9.Hence, this Court by considering the oral and documentary evidence of

PW.1, Exs.A.1 to A.5, holds that the plaintiff could successfully establish that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,33,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Three thousand only) along with interest @ 2% per month from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of decree. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

4

O.S.No.178 OF 2020

10. POINT NO.2:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant nos.1 and 2 for Rs.1,33,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Three thousand only) along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only).

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th of March, 2021)

Sd/- S.R.Dilip Kumar Naik,

FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:-

PW.1: Peddi Prudvi - Nil –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1 is the Original Promissory Note, dt.21.01.2018, Ex.A.2 is the Office copy of legal notice, dt.24.02.2020, Ex.A.3 is the Postal Receipt, dt.24.02.2020, Ex.A.4 is the Postal Acknowledgement Card, Ex.A.5 is the Surety Bond, dt.21.01.2018.

For Defendants:- - Nil –

Sd/- S.R.Dilip Kumar Naik,

FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PARKAL

Monday, this the 22nd day of March, 2021

Present:- SRI S.R.DILIP KUMAR NAIK,

FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 85 OF 2020

Between:

Pendli Mallaiah.. Plaintiff

AND

Pendli Komuraiah.. Defendant

This Suit having come before me for final hearing on 22.03.2021 in the presence of Sri Bandela Swamy, Learned Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant failed to appear before the Court and remained set exparte, and upon hearing arguments and perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his successors, agents, workmen etc., or any other persons acting on their behalf from interfering or in any invading with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2.The averments of the plaintiff in brief is, as follows:-

The plaintiff is the owner, possessor and pattedar of the agricultural land to an extent of 0-20 guntas in Sy.No.731/A/1 and Ac.4-23 guntas in

Sy.No.731/A/3, totaling to an extent of Ac.5-03 guntas, situated at Issipet

Village, Mogullapally Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District. The plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property from his ancestors and later the plaintiff filed an application for mutation and the revenue authorities after verifying 2 the records and entered his name in the revenu records i.e., Form1-B as the owner, possessor and pattedar of the suit schedule property and later the plaintiff obtained the Pattedar Pass Book and Title Deed from the Tahsildar,

Mogullapally vide Patta No.546. Since the date of acquisition the plaintiff is enjoying his possession over the suit schedule property.

The defendant is no way concerned to the suit schedule property, with an ill motive to interfere the suit schedule property of the plaintiff making efforts to create right over the suit schedule property, which is in possession of the plaintiff. The defendant under the guise of his alleged and non-existing right in the land of the plaintiff by proclaiming his alleged legacy in suit schedule property tried to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property without any basis and jurisdiction.

The defendant is not having any subsisting right or title or interest over the suit schedule property at any point of time viewing in any single, the defendant with the malafide to enrich himself for wrongful gain by depriving the legitimate right of the plaintiff are making hectic efforts to defraud the ownership and enjoyment of the plaintiff by laying false and frivolous claims over the suit schedule property. The defendant with an oblique motive to gain wrongfully frequently the suit schedule property by threatening the plaintiff by taking advantage of innocence of the plaintiff. The defendant tried to interfere into the land of the plaintiff at that time the plaintiff being law abiding citizen he opposed the same, but the defendant show all of sudden on 06.07.2020 and 11.07.2020 with the assistance of his hired men in ugly haste made strenous efforts to interfere without any basis and jurisdiction to show semblance of his non-existing right, high handedly under guise of alleged claim and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences and the plaintiff with the assistance of neighbours, well wishers and elders, resisted the defendant and driven him, but while leaving the suit schedule property, the defendant threatened that at any point of time theyshall interfere into the suit schedule property with the muscle force and as such 3 the plaintiff apprehends imminent threat to his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The act of the defendants to dispossess the plaintiff over the suit land persist day in and day out and plaintiff is under apprehension of dispossession in the hands of defendants and is not in a position to safeguard his right and possession over the suit land without aid and assistance of the Hon'ble Court. Having no other option, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

3.The defendant failed to appear before the Court and remained set exparte.

4. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. Ex.A.1 is the Pattedar Pass Book-cum-Title Deed, dt.21.04.2018, Ex.A.2 is the Mee-seva Form 1-B (ROR), dt.09.07.2020 and

Ex.A.3 is the Mee-seva pahanies for the year 2020 (2 Nos.) and since the defendant is set exparte, the evidence of PW.1 is unchallenged. As such, it appears that he is admitting the case of the plaintiff.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6. POINT:-

1) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?”

2) To what relief?

7. POINT NO.1:-

The plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit and examined as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, Exs.A.1 to A.3 are marked. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 to A.3 remained unchallenged, as such, the plaintiff has proved his case and he is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

4

8. POINT NO.2:-

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by way of granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22 nd day of March, 2021).

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

PW.1: Pendli Mallaiah- Nil –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1 is the Pattedar Pass Book-cum-Title Deed, dt.21.04.2018, Ex.A.2 is the Mee-seva Form 1-B (ROR), dt.09.07.2020, Ex.A.3 is the Mee-seva pahanies for the year 2020 (2 Nos.)

For Defendant:- - Nil -

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

O.S.NO. 89 OF 2020

(On the file of Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Parkal) 1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PARKAL

Tuesday, this the 9th day of March, 2021

Present : Sri S.R.DILIP KUMAR NAIK,

FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

O.S.No. 89 OF 2020

Between: Jilella Devender… Plaintiff

A n d

Pavushetti Raju ... Defendant

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 0303.2021 in the presence of Sri D.Satya Sagar,Learned Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant failed to appear before this Court and remained set-exparte, and upon perusing the entire material available on record, and hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The suit is filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree of specific performance of the contract, by directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed of the schedule property, in favour of the plaintiff; pass a decree for the alternative relief of refund of the paid amount of the sale consideration along with interest and damages, in the event of the relief of specific performance of the contract is not possible to grant.

2.The brief averments of the plaintiff is that:-

The plaintiff is the resident of Parkal Village and Mandal, Warangal

Rural District. The defendant being the GPA Holder of the property (GPA

No.1496/2009), open house plot, admeasuring to 219.86 sq.yards, forming part in Sy.No.963/C, situated at Ward No.5, Parkal Village and Mandal,

Warangal Rural District, offered to sale of the same for the consideration of

Rs.500/- per sq.yards and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same at the

O.S.NO. 89 OF 2020

(On the file of Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Parkal) 2 said consideration and that on 11.11.2009, the defendant executed a written agreement of sale with terms and conditions by getting an amount of

Rs.10,000/- as advance and acknowledged the receipt of the amount in the agreement. As per the terms of agreement the plaintiff has to pay the balance sale consideration at the time of registration of the property.

Thereafter that on 20.11.2009, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to pay the amount of balance sale consideration, as per the correct measurement of the plot for his urgent need an got measured the plot which is comes to 180 Sq.yards and as per the measurement, the plaintiff paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.80,000/- and after receipt of the amount the defendant has executed a written receipt in witness and delivered the possession of the property to the plaintiff, on the same day and also agreed to execute registered sale for the property as and when the plaintiff demanded for the same. Thereafter, after sometime the defendant left to somewhere and the plaintiff was unable to get his whereabouts for a long time. Thereafter recently the plaintiff got the whereabouts of the defendant and asked him to execute registered sale deed for the property on his name, but the defendant postponed to execute registered sale deed for the property, by saying one or the other reasons and not come forward for the same. The plaintiff vexed with the attitude of the defendant and at last that on 10.03.2020 got issued a legal notice demanding the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the above said property on his name.

The defendant has willfully violated the terms of contract by not coming forward to register the property on the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not able to get registration of the property, without aid and assistance of the

Hon'ble Court and filed the present suit.

O.S.NO. 89 OF 2020

(On the file of Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Parkal) 3

3.The defendant failed to appear before this Court and remained set exparte.

4. On behalf of plaintiff, he himself examined as PW-1 and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.5. Ex.A.1 is the Original Agreement of Sale, dt.11.11.2009,

Ex.A.2 is the Original Cash Payment receipt, dt.20.11.2009, Ex.A.3 is the

Office copy of legal notice, dt.10.03.2020, Ex.A.4 is the Postal acknowledgement card, dt.13.03.2020 and Ex.A.5 is the Certified copy of

Registered G.P.A. vide Doc.No.1496/2009, dt.03.11.2009 and since the defendant is set exparte, the evidence of PW.1 is unchallenged. As such, it appears that she is admitting the case of the plaintiff.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6. POINT:-

1) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?”

2) To what relief?

7. POINT NO.1:-

The plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit and examined as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff Exs.A.1 to A.5 are marked. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 to A.5 remained unchallenged, as such, the plaintiff has proved his case and he is entitled for relief as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

8. POINT NO.2:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed or through the special power of attorney

O.S.NO. 89 OF 2020

(On the file of Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Parkal) 4 holder with in the period of three months from the date of decree, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the sale deed executed and registered through Court.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of March, 2021).

FAC.Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:-

PW.1: Jilella Devender - Nil –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1 is the Original Agreement of Sale, dt.11.11.2009, Ex.A.2 is the Original Cash Payment receipt, dt.20.11.2009, Ex.A.3 is the Office copy of legal notice, dt.10.03.2020, Ex.A.4 is the Postal acknowledgement card, dt.13.03.2020, Ex.A.5 is the Certified copy of Registered G.P.A. vide Doc.No.1496/2009, dt.03.11.2009.

For Defendant:- - Nil -

FAC.Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

1 O.S.NO: 142 OF 2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PARKAL

Wednesday, this the 24th day of March, 2021

Present:- SRI S.R.DILIP KUMAR NAIK, FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 142 OF 2020

Between:- Paka Ravi, S/o.Paka Ilaiah, Age:-35 years, Occu:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.4-44/A, Peddampally Village, Tekumatla Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

.. Plaintiff

A N D

1) To whom so ever it may concern

2) The Tahasildar, Tekumatla, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District

3) The State of Telangana through District Collector, Jayashankar Bhupalpally

District... Defendants

This suit having come before me for final hearing on 17.03.2021 in the presence of Sri Guda Raghavendra Sharma, Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and paper publication filed for defendant no.1, and on behalf of defendant no.1, nobody came with any objection against the defendant no.1, remained set exparte, and defendant nos.2 and 3 absent and remained set exparte, and upon hearing and perusing the entire material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:-

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

The suit is filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree declaring the plaintiff is the legal heir of Late Paka Rajamma.

2.The brief averments of the plaintiff is that:-

That the plaintiff is the adopted son of Late Paka Rajamma. The Late

Paka Rajamma is spinster, as such, she adopted the plaintiff on 06.07.1995 by giving and taking ceremony was performed and since then the plaintiff has been the adoptive son of Late Paka Rajamma. The late Paka Rajamma died intestate on 30.05.2019 leaving behind the plaintiff as her legal heir.

The late Paka Rajamma during her life time subscribed policy with Life

Insurance Corporation vide Policy No.684388429 shown plaintiff as nominee disclosing her statue with plaintiff as mother and plaintiff also subscribed 2 O.S.NO: 142 OF 2020 policy with Life Insurance Corporation vide Policy No.689897771 and made his mother, Paka Rajamma as his nominee. Further late Paka Rajamma also availed gold loan with the Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Tekumatla

Branch also mentioning the plaintiff as nominee showing status of plaintiff as on. On his application the Life Insurance Corporation of Indian has paid the amounts covered under the policies as well the A.P. Grameena Viks Bank,

Tekumatla Branch also releasing the gold loan subject to payment of the loan amount. The late Paka Rajamma owned and possessed agricultural land measuring Ac.0-30 guntas out of Sy.No.129/B, situated at Velishala Village,

Tekumatla Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, after her death the plaintiff made application to the defendant no.2 to mutate his name in the revenue records and to issue pass book, but the defendant no.2 required to furnish the legal heir certificate. The plaintiff is the Class-1 Legal Heirs, hence, the suit is filed to declare the plaintiff as legal heir of late Paka

Rajamma.

3.Paper publication filed for defendant no.1, and on behalf of defendant no.1, nobody came with any objection against the defendant no.1, remained set exparte. Summons served on defendant nos.2 and 3, the defendant nos.2 and 3 failed to appear before the Court and remained set exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, he filed his chief examination affidavit and he himself examined as PW.1, got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. Ex.A.1 is the Original

Death Certificate of Paka Rajamma issued on 15.11.2019, Ex.A.2 is the Mee- seva extract of Family Member Certificate and Ex.A.3 is the Original Life

Insurance Corporation Policy Bond of Plaintiff.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is:- 3 O.S.NO: 142 OF 2020

1) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare as Legal Heir of Late Paka Rajamma, as prayed for?

2) To what Relief?

7. POINT NO.1:-

The plaintiff through his chief-examination affidavit has reiterated plaint averments that Late Paka Rajamma is spinster and she adopted the plaintiff on 06.07.1995 by giving and taking ceremony. The Late Paka

Rajamma died intestate on 30.05.2019 leaving behind the plaintiff. The Late

Paka Rajamma during her life time subscribed policy with the Life Insurance

Corporation vide policy no.684388429 showing the plaintiff name as nominee and as also the plaintiff also subscribed the policy with the Life

Insurance Corporation vide policy no.689897771 showing the name of Late

Paka Rajamma as nominee. The Late Paka Rajamma also owned and possessed the agricultural land measuring Ac.0-30 guntas in Sy.No.129/B, situated at Velishala Village, Tekumatla Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally

District. The plaintiff approached the defendant no.2 to mutate his name in the revenue records, but the defendant no.2 requested to furnish the legal heir certificate.

8.As such, the plaintiff constrained to file this present suit against the defendant nos.1 to 3. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged as nobody came forward for taking any objection on the side of defendant no.1.

9.Hence, this Court by considering the oral and documentary evidence of

PW.1, Ex.A.1 to A.3, hold that the plaintiff is successfully establish that the plaintiff is the legal heir of Late Paka Rajamma. Hence, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

4 O.S.NO: 142 OF 2020

10. POINT NO.2:-

In the result, the suit is decreed, without costs, declaring that the plaintiff is the legal heir of Late Paka Rajamma.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on the open Court on this the 24 th day of March, 2021)

Sd/- S.R. Dilip Kumar Naik,

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW.1:- Paka Ravi - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1 is the Original Death Certificate of Paka Rajamma issued on 15.11.2019, Ex.A.2 is the Mee-seva extract of Family Member Certificate, Ex.A.3 is the Original Life Insurance Corporation Policy Bond of Plaintiff.

For Defendants:- - Nil –

Sd/- S.R. Dilip Kumar Naik,

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.