S.Ramanaiah

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: DARSI

PRESENT : SRI S. RAMANAIAH,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DARSI

Wednesday, the 11th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.58/2011

BETWEEN :

Shaik Abdul Raseed, S/o. Abdul Sattar, Muslim, aged 60 years, Business, R/o. Veera Venkatapuram of Donakonda Village and Mandal, Prakasam District...Plaintif

And

1. American Baptist Foreign Mission Society represented by its Power of Attorney Dr. K. Immotemgen Aier, S/o. Kariongadang Aier, Mission Box, Hostel Compound, Belgoda, Orrisa District

2. Palle Francis Xavier, S/o. Late Devadanam, Christian, aged 47 years, Donakonda Village and Mandal, Prakasam District

3. Ramireddy Sateesh Reddy, S/o. Yogi Reddy, Hindu, aged 40 years, Business, Door No.4-7-946, Womens College back side, Koti, Hyderabad … Defendants

This suit coming on 28-03-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Srinivasa Sastry, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri G.T. Shiva Sharma, Advocate for 2 nd Defendant and Sri M. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for 3rd Defendant; 1st Defendant having remained exparte; upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following ;

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit is filed for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for ever by the plaintiff, his men and agents and for costs of the suit.

2.Brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

The plaint schedule property is situated at Badapuram village of

Donakonda Panchayat, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District is more fully described in the schedule appended to the plaint. An extent of Ac.10-20 2 cents in Patta No.13, Survey Number 211/1 of Badapuram village was the full and absolute property of Property Association of Baptist Society called as PABC Private Limited. The then General Power of Attorney agent of PABC

Private Limited by name Peddeti Jarge sold the same to one Mangali

Kanthamma wife of Anandam under a register sale deed dated 09-01-1981 in Document No.17/1981. Subsequently said Mangali Kanthamma sold an extent of Ac.1-20 cents out of Ac.10-20 cents in Survey Number 211/1 to one Kakarla Venkatamma wife of late Pedda Narapu Reddy for a valuable consideration of Rs.13,200/- under a register sale deed dated 12-03-1982 in

Document No.1951/1982. Thus an extent of Ac.1-20 cents out of Ac.10-20 cents of Patta No.13, Survey Number 211/1 was the full and absolute property of Kakarla Venkatamma. The said Kakarla Venkatamma sold an extent of Ac.0-10 cents i.e. the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,000/- under a register sale deed dated 31-07- 2000 in Document No.2679 /2000. On the same day i.e. 31-07-2000 the possession also delivered to the plaintiff. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same to the knowledge of one and all including the defendants. Thus the plaintiff is the full and absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and except the plaintiff, nobody have any manner of right, title or interest over the same.

Subsequently the plaintiff make an application to the Gram Panchayat,

Donakonda for approval of the plan for constructing a building and the same was approved by Gram Panchayath, Donakonda on 30-11-2010 in

P.R.No.49(1). Immediately after approved the plan by the Gram Panchayat,

Donakonda, the plaintiff started the construction of a plaint schedule building and now the constructions are in progress and at the stage of roofing of the building.

While so, the defendants are seriously trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the 3 plaintiff with an evil intention to get wrongful gain. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest into the plaint schedule property. Since two days the defendants 2 and 3 who are the followers of the 1st defendant are obstructing the plaintiff to make the constructions of the plaint schedule building. The defendants are also openly threatening the plaintiff that they would disposes the plaintiff and occupy the plaint schedule property even by use of force. The defendants are very powerful in the village and their activities in this regard are very high handed and illegal. The plaintiff who is a lonely person, could not resist the high handed and unlawful activities of the defendants with out the aid of this Court. So, the plaintiff is obliged to file this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff into the plaint schedule property. Hence this suit.

3.D1 set exparte. D2 filed written statement and the same is adopted by D3 denying the allegations of the plaint and submitted that in fact the

Property Association of Baptist Churches Private Limited ie., P.A.B.C. have no manner of right, title or possession in the plaint schedule property. The

Honourable High Court of Judicature of Madras appointed a sole Arbitrator

who is His Lordship Justice K.Punnaiah to conduct investigation into the affairs of the P.A.B.C. from 1.1.1980 to 21.6.1989 (i.e., till the date of the order of the Hon’ble High Court) His Lordship Justice K.Punnaiah submitted award stating that the transactions made by P.A.B.C. in S.Nos.211/1, 212/3, 201/1 of Badapuram Village are invalid transactions. It is clearly stated at page 81 of the award submitted by His Lordship Justice K.Punnaiah. Further the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Madras, ordered in OS.No.69/1999 that P.A.B.C. cannot sell any other properties till the disposal of the suit.

Further it is held that the scheme of amalgamation between American

Baptist Foreign Mission Society and property Association of Baptist Churches 4

Private limited is not completed and the order passed in company petitions 109/73, and 110/73 has no legal force. The Division Bench of Madras High

Court clearly stated that the scheme of amalgamation is not completed and the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society has not transferred its property to property Association of Baptist Churches ie., P.A.B.C. Even if any document is executed by the P.A.B.C. is not valid document and it is void abinitio. They cannot be enforce in court of law. Further the A.B.F.M.S. ie., 1st respondent filed I.A.477/2011 in O.S.103/2011 and also another

I.A.478/2011 in the same suit restraining the property association of Baptist

Churches and its purchasers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of A.B.F.M.S. and the Hon’ble Prl. Junior Civil Judge granted injunction in both the I.As. Suppressing the real facts and pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed this frivolous suit with an intention to obtain exparte orders from this Hon’ble court. The plaintiff intended to trespass into the plaint schedule property under the guise of injunction order if it is granted by this court. The plaintiff is trying to trespass into the property of the

American Baptist Foreign Mission Society under the guise of the injunction order if it is granted by this Court. Even till today the A.B.F.M.S. is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Therefore the defendant most humbly pray that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial :

1. Whether the sale deed executed by Power of Attorney agent of

PABC is valid?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5

The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc. from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. As the suit is filed for permanent injunction, it is for the plaintiff to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

The issue No.1 framed is “whether the sale deed executed by power of attorney of PABC is valid?” As the suit is filed for permanent injunction, the lawful possession has to be proved, so issue no.1 is not properly framed and hence it is strike out under Or.14 R.5(2) CPC.

5.During the course of trial, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and he examined one witness by name Shaik Magbol Ahammad as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6.

The defendants did not adduce any evidence and no documents marked on their behalf.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Issue No.2 :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to PABC and on 9.1.1981 the power of attorney holder of PABC by name Pedditi Jeorge sold the Ac.1-20 cents in S.No.211/1 to one Mangali Kanthamma and in turn Mangali Kanthamma sold an extent of Ac.1-20 cents to Kakarla Venkatamma under document on 12.3.1982. The plaint schedule property is 10 cents which is purchased by plaintiff from

Kakarla Venkatamma on 31.7.2000 and later he constructed a house on the approval of grama panchayat dt.7.2.2011. Since the date of purchase ie., on 31.7.2000 plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same 6 and the defendants have no manner of right, or title over the plaint schedule property.

8.It is the contention of the defendants, Property Association of Baptist

Churches Private Limited i.e., P.A.B.C. have no manner of right, title or possession in the plaint schedule property. The Honourable High Court of

Judicature of Madras appointed a sole Arbitrator who is His Lordship Justice

K.Punnaiah to conduct investigation into the affairs of the P.A.B.C. from 1.1.1980 to 21.6.1989 (ie., till the date of the order of the Hon’ble High

Court) His Lordship Justice K.Punnaiah submitted award stating that the transactions made by P.A.B.C. in S.Nos.211/1, 212/3, 201/1 of Badapuram

Village are invalid transactions. It is clearly stated at page 81 of the award submitted by His Lordship Justice K.Punnaiah. Further the Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature of Madras, ordered in OS.No.69/1999 that P.A.B.C. cannot sell any other properties till the disposal of the suit. Further P.A.B.C. cannot sell any other properties till the disposal of the suit. Future it is held that the scheme of amolgation between American Baptist Foreign Mission Society and property Association of Baptist Churches Private limited is not completed and the order passed in company petitions 109/73, and 110/73 has no legal force. The Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court clearly stated that the scheme of amalgamation is not completed and the American

Baptist Foreign Mission Society has not transferred its property to property

Association of Baptist Churches ie., P.A.B.C. Even if any document is executed by the P.A.B.C. is not valid document and it is void abinitio. They cannot be enforced in court of law. Further the A.B.f.M.S. ie., 1st respondent filed I.A.477/2011 in O.S.103/2011 and also another I.A.478/2011 in the same suit restraining the property association of Baptist Churches and its purchasers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of

A.B.F.M.S. and the Hon’ble Prl.Junior Civil Judge granted injunction in both 7 the I.As. Suppressing the real facts and pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed this frivolous suit with an intention to obtain exparte orders from this court. The plaintiff intended to trespass into the plaint schedule property under the guise of injunction order if it is granted by this court. The plaintiff is trying to trespass into the property of the American Baptist Foreign

Mission Society under the guise of the injunction order if it is granted by this

Court. Even till today the A.B.F.M.S. is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

9.The suit in OS.103/2011 filed by the ABFMS i.e. American Baptist

Foreign Mission Society on the file of J.C.J. Court, Darsi which was transferred to this Court as per orders in Tr.O.P.55/2013 to try the suit along with the present suit. The said suit is renumbered as O.S.20/2017. The

O.S.20/2017 is dismissed as the plaintiff did not prosecute the case. In this

case also the defendants 2 and 3 did not adduce evidence and no documents are marked. The plaintiff in OS.20/2017 is D1 in the present suit who was set exparte. So only D2 and D3 contesting the matter.

10.As per the evidence of PW-1, the plaint schedule property Ac.0-10 cents purchased by the plaintiff from one Kakarla Venkatamma under Ex.A3 on 31-07-2000. In fact, the said Kakarla Venkatamma purchased Ac.1-20 cents under registered sale deed dt.12-03-1982 under Ex.A2 by one Mangali

Kanthamma. The said Mangali Kanthamma purchased Ac.1-20 cents under

Registered sale deed dt.09-01-1981 from Peddeti Jarge. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and he also obtained the proceedings of Gram Panchayat,

Donakonda dt.07-02-2011 under Ex.A4 for construction of house.

11.PW-2 is one Sk. Magbol Ahamad. He deposed that he purchased

Ac.1.10 cents from Kakarla Venkatamma under registered sale deed 8 dt.14.02-.1985 under Ex.A5. The plaint schedule property is lying to the east and south of his Ac.1-10 cents. He says that, on 09-01-1981, the power of attorney holder of PABC Private Limited by name Peddeti Jarge sold the same to Mangali Kanthamma and in turn Mangali Kanthamma sold

Ac.1.20 cents to Kakarla Venkatamma and in turn Kakarla Venkatamma sold

Ac.0-10 cents to plaintiff and Ac.1-10 cents to him.

12.In the cross-examination by D2, PW-1 says that at the time of purchase, they verified the documents of his vendor Kakarla Venkatamma.

The property is situated in Sy.No.211/1. He do not know whether the land in

Sy.No.211/1, 212/3 and 201/1 of Badapuram Village belong to Christian

Missionary. He do not know whether the said property belong to American

Baptist Foreign Society. He denied to a suggestion that his vendor has no right to sell the property to him.

In the cross-examination by D3, PW-1 denied to a suggestion that he has not mentioned in his plaint or in his chief examination affidavit as to how his vendor got the property. He denied to a suggestion that his vendor or himself has no right in the property. He denied to a suggestion that

Exs.A1 to A3 are created, as his vendor has no right, since his vendor’s vendor has no right in the property. His name is mutated in the revenue records to the suit property. He denied to a suggestion that he is never in possession and enjoyment of the said property. He denied to a suggestion that PABC has no right to sell the property to anybody and also denied that

PABC never executed general power of attorney in favour of Peddeti George.

He says that he do not know whether award passed by the Hon’ble

Arbitrator that PABC has no right in Sy.No.211/1, 212/3 and 201/1 of

Badapuram village and the transactions made by PABC is invalid.

9

13.The defendants have not adduced evidence and no documents filed. The contention of the defendant is that, as per the Orders of the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras, His Lordship Justice Sri K. Punnaiah

appointed as sole arbitrator to investigate into the properties of PABC.

The said orders were not filed before this Court and also not filed whether any award is passed by the Hon’ble Arbitrator that the PABC has no right in Sy.No.211/1, 212/3 and 201/1. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the properties are not belong to PABC and the Peddeti George is not the General Power of Attorney to PABC. In fact, the property purchased by one Mangali Kanthamma under Ex.A1 to an extent of Ac.10-20 cents and subsequently she sold Ac.1-20 cents under Ex.A2 to Kakarla Venkatamma. From Kakarla Venkatamma, th plaintiff purchased Ac.0-10 cents under Ex.A2 which is suit schedule property. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of PWs-1 and 2 that the sale deed in favour of Mangali Kanthamma under Ex.A1 is not valid, since Peddeti George has no right to execute the sale deed.

Except saying that the property is not belong to PABC and Hon’ble

Arbitrator was appointed, nothing placed on record. Since the suit is filed for permanent injunction, the document Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 shows that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The title also has to gone incidentally. Ex.A3 is the title deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff proved that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit.

14.Issue No.3 :

To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering 10 with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11 th day of April, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI

// Appendix of evidence //

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :For Defendants :

PW-1 : Shaik Abdul RaseedNone PW-2 : Shaik Magbol Ahamad

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/ –: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.09-01-1981 executed by Peddeti Jarge in favour of Mangali Kanthamma. Ex.A2/ –: Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt.12-03-1982 executed by Mangali Kanthamma in favour of Kakarla Venkatamma. Ex.A3/ –: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.31-07-2000 executed by Kakarla Venkatamma in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A4/07-02-2011: Proceedings of the Gram Panchayat, Donakonda along with rough sketch. Ex.A5/ –: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.14-02-1985 executed by Kakarla Venkatamma in favour of Khadarvali and Sk. Magbol Ahamad. Ex.A6/ –: Certified copy of gift deed dt.09-01-2018 stands in the name of Shaik Naseema Sulthana.

For Defendants : Nil.

S.C.J. Darsi 12

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: DARSI

PRESENT : SRI S. RAMANAIAH,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DARSI

Wednesday, the 11th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.58/2011

BETWEEN :

Shaik Abdul Raseed, S/o. Abdul Sattar, Muslim, aged 60 years, Business, R/o. Veera Venkatapuram of Donakonda Village and Mandal, Prakasam District...Plaintif

And

1. American Baptist Foreign Mission Society represented by its Power of Attorney Dr. K. Immotemgen Aier, S/o. Kariongadang Aier, Mission Box, Hostel Compound, Belgoda, Orrisa District

2. Palle Francis Xavier, S/o. Late Devadanam, Christian, aged 47 years, Donakonda Village and Mandal, Prakasam District

3. Ramireddy Sateesh Reddy, S/o. Yogi Reddy, Hindu, aged 40 years, Business, Door No.4-7-946, Womens College back side, Koti, Hyderabad … Defendants

The suit is filed for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for ever by the plaintiff, his men and agents and for costs of the suit.

Valuation : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction,

The relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs.1,10,000/- on which a Court Fee of Rs.3,526/- is paid under Sec.26(c) of A.P.C.F. and

S.V. Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendants with an evil intention to get wrongful gain, are seriously trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff into the plaint schedule property and since two days when the defendants obstruct the plaintiff to make the constructions by force and openly threatening the plaintiff that they would occupy the plaint schedule property even by use of force and at

Badapuram Village, Donakonda Mandal, where the schedule property situated within the jurisdiction of this court.

13

Plaint presented on 20-06-2011 and filed on 22-06-2011.

This suit coming on 28-03-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Srinivasa Sastry, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri G.T. Shiva Sharma, Advocate for 2 nd Defendant and Sri M. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for 3rd Defendant; 1st Defendant having remained exparte; upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court doth order and decree;

1. that the defendants, their men and agents be and are hereby restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property; and

2. that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.8,628/- towards costs of the suit; and do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil (No C.M. & F.C. filed by defendants) - Plaint schedule is hereto enclosed -

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 11th day of

April, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintif For Defendants (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00- No C.M. & F.C. filed Stamp on Plaint3,526-00 Stamp on process100-00 Advocate Fee5,000-00 Total 8,628-00

S.C.J.

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: DARSI

PRESENT : SRI S.RAMANAIAH,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DARSI

Wednesday, the 11th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.18/2017

BETWEEN :

Velanati Swamulu, S/o. Subba Rao, aged 44 years, Hindu, Business and Landholder, R/o. Darsi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District… PLAINTIFF

A N D

Devasothu Nanu Nayak, S/o. Mun Sing Nayak, Hindu, Aged 56 years, Business and Landholder, R/o. Brindavanam Thanda Village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District… DEFENDANT

This suit coming on 10-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for the Plaintif and of Sri G.R. Venkatesan, Advocate for the Defendant; upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following ;

J U D G M E N T

01.Suit is filed for passing of preliminary decree for an amount of

Rs.13,92,800/-, directing the defendant to pay the amount with interest, with subsequent interest and for costs.

02.Brief averments of plaint are as follows :

The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

The defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 11-08-2011 for his family needs and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. The defendant should discharged the debt amount with interest to the plaintiff or to his order whenever demanded by the plaintiff.

Subsequently the plaintiff demanded the defendant on several occasions to discharge the debt and also issued notice on 09-07-2016 and defendant received the notice and kept quite. Hence the suit.

2

03.The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaint and he admitted that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. In fact, the plaintiff and his partners doing business in the name and style of “Nagarjuna Financiers, Podili Road, Darsi”. The defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on 16-08-2011 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 20-08-2011 for his family needs, through the plaintiff’s finance, in that connection the defendant executed simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on 11- 08-2011 and signed three promissory notes and 12 blank cheques and handed over to the plaintiff.

Subsequently the defendant paid Rs.60,000/- on 04-07-2013,

Rs.50,000/- on 18-11-2013, Rs.1,00,000/- on 12-04-2014 and Rs.70,000/- on 29-01-2016 to said Nagarjuna Financiers, Darsi in the presence of elders and partners of the said finance firm also passed receipts to the defendant.

Due to financial troubles, the defendant did not pay the remaining balance to the plaintiff’s finance firm. The plaintiff did not return the three promissory notes and blank cheques and suppressed the payments and filed the suit with false allegations. So, the mortgage deed is not supported by cash consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-. The defendant made total payment of Rs.2,80,000/-. The suit claim is not maintainable. Hence prayed the court that the suit may be dismissed with costs.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial :

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for suit claim?

2. To what relief ?

In view of arguments of counsels, the following additional issue is framed as follows :

1. Whether the mortgage deed dt.11-08-2011is true and valid?

3

05.During the course of trial, PWs-1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A1 to

A4 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

On behalf of the defendant, DWs-1 to 3 are examined and Exs.B1 to

B4 are marked through DW-1 and Ex.B5 is marked with consent of both the counsels.

06.Heard both sides.

07.ADDL. ISSUE NO.1 :

Whether the mortgage deed dt.11-08-2011is true and valid?

It is the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- and executed suit mortgage deed i.e. Ex.A1 on 11- 08-2011.

Whereas it is the contention of the defendant that, he borrowed money of Rs.5,00,000/- on 16-08-2011 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 20-08-2011 from Nagarjuna Financiers and executed simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff, since the plaintiff and his partners are doing Nagarjuna

Finance business.

08.In the written statement, the defendant admitted that he executed simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on 11-08-2011. But his contention is that, no cash consideration received under the mortgage deed. As Ex.A1 is admitted by the defendant, it is for him to show that no consideration is passed under Ex.A1.

09.During chief examination, DW-1 reiterated the contents which he averred in the written statement.

In the cross-examination, he stated that he knows the plaintiff since 10 years. He never borrowed money from the plaintiff. He borrowed

Rs.6,00,000/- under Ex.A1 from Nagarjuna Finance. He admitted Ex.A1 is in favour of the plaintiff as he borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from him. He denied 4 to a suggestion that he never borrowed money from Nagarjuna Financiers and he borrowed money from the plaintiff. He denied to a suggestion that

Exs.B1 to B4 are no way concerned to Ex.A1 transaction.

10.DW-2 is one Devasothu Srinivasa Naik. In his chief examination, he says that the defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on 16-08-2011 by way of cheque drawn in favour of the defendant and Rs.1,00,000/- on 20-08-2011 by way of cheque for his family needs through the plaintiff’s Nagarjuna

Finance Company. In that connection, the defendant executed Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff on 11-08-2011 and signed three blank promissory notes and four blank cheques. Subsequently the defendant paid the amount to said Nagarjuna Financiers and finance firm also issued four receipts.

11.DW-3 also deposed as per the chief examination of DW-2.

In the cross-examination, DW-2 admitted that the defendant executed Ex.A1 and received the amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. He denied to a suggestion that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and not from Nagarjuna Financiers. The defendant is his brother. DW-3 is his brother-in-law.

DW-3 stated in his cross-examination that, he is attestor of Ex.A1 under which the defendant received Rs.6,00,000/- and executed Ex.A1.

So, DWs-2 and 3 admitted that the defendant executed Ex.A1 and received Rs.6,00,000/-.

12.PW-1 in his chief examination reiterated the contents which he averred in the plaint.

In the cross-examination,he admitted that the defendant took

Rs.6,00,000/- from the finance company. He do not know whether the finance company made payment of Rs.6,00,000/- at a time or not. The 5 defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from him and he paid that amount personally on mortgage. He denied to a suggestion that as Managing

Partner, he sanctioned Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendant, but obtained mortgage from the defendant in his name. He do not know whether the defendant paid Rs.2,80,000/- to the finance company.

13.As per the recitals of Ex.A1, on 11-08-2011 the defendant received

Rs.6,00,000/- and he agreed to pay the interest @ 24% per annum. So, the document itself speaks that, the defendant received Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff.

The defendant filed Exs.B1 to B5. Ex.B1 is receipt dt.04-07-2013 issued by Nagarjuna Financiers, Darsi in his favour for Rs.60,000/-, Ex.B2 is receipt dt.18-11-2013 for Rs.50,000/- issued by Nagarjuna Financiers in his favour, Ex.B3 is the receipt issued by Nagarjuna Financiers dt.12-04-2014 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.B4 is the receipt dt.29-01-2016 issued by Nagarjuna

Financiers in favour of the defendant for Rs.70,000/- and Ex.B5 is the bank account of the defendant bearing No.31228428518 shows that

Rs.5,00,000/- was credited to his account on 16-08-2011. Ex.A1 is dt.11- 08-2011. Exs.B1 to B4 receipts issued by Nagarjuna Financiers. So, there is no mention that the payments under Exs.B1 to B4 are made towards

Ex.A1. if really, the payments are made towards Ex.A1, there should be entries in Ex.A1. But no such payment endorsements are there in Ex.A1.

14.The plaintiff examined PW-2, who says that he is document writer.

On 11-08-2011, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family needs and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. He is the scribe of Ex.A1. The defendant asked him to scribe Ex.A1.

6

In the cross-examination, he says that he do not know whether the plaintiff remitted Rs.6,00,000/- under two installments to the account of defendant. The witness volunteers that the plaintiff given Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendant in his presence at the time of Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is prepared by him. He denied to a suggestion that no consideration was passed under

Ex.A1.

15.As per the contention of the defendant, he borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on 16-08-2011 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 20-08-2011. Ex.A1 is dt.11-08-2011. The recitals shows that, he received Rs.6,00,000/- on the same day of Ex.A1 and executed it. There is no nexus between Exs.B1 to B4 and Ex.A1. The own witnesses of the defendant i.e. DW-2 admitted that the defendant executed Ex.A1 and received an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. So, as documentary evidence prevails over the oral evidence, as the defendant admitted Ex.A1, it can be said that Ex.A1 is executed by the defendant for consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

16.ISSUE NO.1 :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

In view of findings in Additional Issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

17.ISSUE NO.2 :

To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and preliminary decree is hereby passed for an amount of Rs.13,92,800/- against defendant with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of redemption and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

7

If the mortgage amount is not sufficient to meet the decretal amount, the defendant is liable to pay the amount personally.

Time for redemption is six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 11 th day of April, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI

// Appendix of evidence //

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

PW1 : Velanati Swamulu DW-1: Devasothu Nanu Nayak PW-2: Appikatla Adiseshachari DW-2: Devasothu Srinivasa Naik DW-3: Jasavath Ramsing Naik

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/11-08-2011: Registered simple mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2/09-07-2016: Office copy of the legal notice. Ex.A3/11-07-2016: Postal receipt. Ex.A4/15-07-2016: Postal acknowledgment.

For Defendant :

Ex.B1/04-07-2013: Receipt issued by the Nagarjuna Financiers, Darsi in favour of defendant for Rs.60,000/-. Ex.B2/18-11-2013: Receipt issued by the Nagarjuna Financiers, Darsi in favour of defendant for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.B3/12-04-2014: Receipt issued by the Nagarjuna Financiers, Darsi in favour of defendant for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.B4/29-01-2016: Receipt issued by the Nagarjuna Financiers, Darsi in favour of defendant for Rs.70,000/-. Ex.B5/ --: Bank account of the defendant bearing No.31228428518.

S.C.J. Darsi 8

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: DARSI

PRESENT : SRI S.RAMANAIAH,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DARSI

Wednesday, the 11th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.18/2017

BETWEEN :

Velanati Swamulu, S/o. Subba Rao, aged 44 years, Hindu, Business and Landholder, R/o. Darsi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District… PLAINTIFF

A N D

Devasothu Nanu Nayak, S/o. Mun Sing Nayak, Hindu, Aged 56 years, Business and Landholder, R/o. Brindavanam Thanda Village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District… DEFENDANT

Suit is filed for passing of preliminary decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,92,800/- directing the defendant personally or by way of foreclosure of the simple mortgage deed dated 11-08-2011 and for costs.

Valuation and Court Fee : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs.13,92,800/- on which a Court Fee of Rs.16,426/- is paid under Sec.20 of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action : Cause of action for the suit arose on 11-08-2011 when the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and executed a registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest, subsequently the defendant failed to repay the same inspite of demands and at Brindavanam Village of Mundlamur Mandal, where the schedule property situated within the jurisdiction of this court.

Date of presentation of plaint : 13-02-2017 and Date of filing : 02-03- 2017.

This suit coming on 10-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for the Plaintif and of Sri G.R. Venkatesan, Advocate for the Defendant; upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court doth order and preliminary decree;

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to this the 13th day of

February, 2017 is the sum of Rs.13,92,800/- for the suit claim amount; the 10 sum of Rs.1,19,523/- for interest (i.e. @ 12 % per annum from the date of presentation of suit i.e. 13-02-2017 till the date of redemption i.e. 11-10- 2018 on the principal loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/-); and the sum of

Rs.60,092/- for costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, making in all the sum of Rs.15,72,415/-.

2.And it is hereby ordered as follows :

i. That the defendant do pay into the court on or before 11th day of October, 2018 or any later date up to which time for payment may be extended by the court the said sum of Rs.15,72,415/- as mentioned in clause 1, supra; and i (i) that if the mortgage amount is not sufficient to meet the decretal amount, the defendant be and is hereby liable to pay the amount personally.

ii. That on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such date as the court may adjudged due in respect of such costs of suit and such costs charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10, together with such expenses as may be payable under rule 11 of order XXXIV of the first schedule to the code of civil procedure, 1908 the plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant or to such persons as he appoints, and the plaintiff shall if so required re-convey or re-transfer the said property from the said mortgage and clear of the from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall if so required deliver up to the defendant quite and peaceable possession of the said property.

3.And it is hereby further ordered and decree that in default of payment as aforesaid the plaintiff may apply to the court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and on such application being made the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgage property.

4.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit, and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under rule 10 of order XXXIV of the first schedule to the code of civil procedure, 1908 and that the balance, if any shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same.

5.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff, as afore said, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to apply for personal decree against the defendant for the amount 11 of the balance and that the parties are at liberty to the court from time to time as may have occasion and on such application or otherwise the court may given such directions as it thinks fit.

6.That the defendant be and is hereby granted Six Months time for redemption.

7. Subsequent interest is hereby granted at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of redemption i.e. from 11-10-2018 till realization on the

principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

(Plaint schedule is herewith appended) (Defendant do bear his own costs)

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the day of 11th day of April, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

DARSI

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00No C.M. & F.C. filed Stamp on Plaint16,426-00 Stamp on process80-00 Advocate Fee43,484-00 Type charges100-00 Total 60,092-00

S.C.J. Darsi.

NOTE: Both parties concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non- exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “ the same should produce as and when required by the Court”.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: DARSI

PRESENT : SRI S.RAMANAIAH,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DARSI

Wednesday, the 11th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.468/2017

BETWEEN :

Velanati Swamulu, S/o. Subba Rao, aged 44 years, Hindu, Business and Landholder, R/o. Darsi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District… PLAINTIFF

A N D

Devasothu Nanu Nayak, S/o. Mun Sing Nayak, Hindu, Aged 56 years, Business and Landholder, R/o. Brindavanam Thanda Village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District… DEFENDANT

This suit coming on 10-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for the Plaintif and of Sri G.R. Venkatesan, Advocate for the Defendant; upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following ;

J U D G M E N T

01.Suit is filed for passing of preliminary decree for an amount of

Rs.13,92,800/-, directing the defendant to pay the amount with interest, with subsequent interest and for costs.

02.Brief averments of plaint are as follows :

The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

The defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 11-08-2011 for his family needs and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. The defendant should discharged the debt amount with interest to the plaintiff or to his order whenever demanded by the plaintiff.

Subsequently the plaintiff demanded the defendant on several occasions to discharge the debt and also issued notice on 09-07-2016 and defendant received the notice and kept quite. Hence the suit.

2

03.The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaint and he admitted that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. In fact, the plaintiff and his partners doing business in the name and style of “Nagarjuna Financiers, Podili Road, Darsi”. The defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on 16-08-2011 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 20-08-2011 for his family needs, through the plaintiff’s finance, in that connection the defendant executed simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on 11- 08-2011 and signed three promissory notes and 12 blank cheques and handed over to the plaintiff.

Subsequently the defendant paid Rs.60,000/- on 04-07-2013,

Rs.50,000/- on 18-11-2013, Rs.1,00,000/- on 12-04-2014 and Rs.70,000/- on 29-01-2016 to said Nagarjuna Financiers, Darsi in the presence of elders and partners of the said finance firm also passed receipts to the defendant.

Due to financial troubles, the defendant did not pay the remaining balance to the plaintiff’s finance firm. The plaintiff did not return the three promissory notes and blank cheques and suppressed the payments and filed the suit with false allegations. So, the mortgage deed is not supported by cash consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-. The defendant made total payment of Rs.2,80,000/-. The suit claim is not maintainable. Hence prayed the court that the suit may be dismissed with costs.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial :

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for suit claim?

2. To what relief ?

In view of arguments of counsels, the following additional issue is framed as follows :

1. Whether the mortgage deed dt.11-08-2011is true and valid?

3

05.During the course of trial, PWs-1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A1 to

A4 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

On behalf of the defendant, DWs-1 to 3 are examined and Exs.B1 to

B4 are marked through DW-1 and Ex.B5 is marked with consent of both the counsels.

06.Heard both sides.

07.ADDL. ISSUE NO.1 :

Whether the mortgage deed dt.11-08-2011is true and valid?

It is the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- and executed suit mortgage deed i.e. Ex.A1 on 11- 08-2011.

Whereas it is the contention of the defendant that, he borrowed money of Rs.5,00,000/- on 16-08-2011 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 20-08-2011 from Nagarjuna Financiers and executed simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff, since the plaintiff and his partners are doing Nagarjuna

Finance business.

08.In the written statement, the defendant admitted that he executed simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on 11-08-2011. But his contention is that, no cash consideration received under the mortgage deed. As Ex.A1 is admitted by the defendant, it is for him to show that no consideration is passed under Ex.A1.

09.During chief examination, DW-1 reiterated the contents which he averred in the written statement.

In the cross-examination, he stated that he knows the plaintiff since 10 years. He never borrowed money from the plaintiff. He borrowed

Rs.6,00,000/- under Ex.A1 from Nagarjuna Finance. He admitted Ex.A1 is in favour of the plaintiff as he borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from him. He denied 4 to a suggestion that he never borrowed money from Nagarjuna Financiers and he borrowed money from the plaintiff. He denied to a suggestion that

Exs.B1 to B4 are no way concerned to Ex.A1 transaction.

10.DW-2 is one Devasothu Srinivasa Naik. In his chief examination, he says that the defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on 16-08-2011 by way of cheque drawn in favour of the defendant and Rs.1,00,000/- on 20-08-2011 by way of cheque for his family needs through the plaintiff’s Nagarjuna

Finance Company. In that connection, the defendant executed Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff on 11-08-2011 and signed three blank promissory notes and four blank cheques. Subsequently the defendant paid the amount to said Nagarjuna Financiers and finance firm also issued four receipts.

11.DW-3 also deposed as per the chief examination of DW-2.

In the cross-examination, DW-2 admitted that the defendant executed Ex.A1 and received the amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. He denied to a suggestion that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and not from Nagarjuna Financiers. The defendant is his brother. DW-3 is his brother-in-law.

DW-3 stated in his cross-examination that, he is attestor of Ex.A1 under which the defendant received Rs.6,00,000/- and executed Ex.A1.

So, DWs-2 and 3 admitted that the defendant executed Ex.A1 and received Rs.6,00,000/-.

12.PW-1 in his chief examination reiterated the contents which he averred in the plaint.

In the cross-examination,he admitted that the defendant took

Rs.6,00,000/- from the finance company. He do not know whether the finance company made payment of Rs.6,00,000/- at a time or not. The 5 defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from him and he paid that amount personally on mortgage. He denied to a suggestion that as Managing

Partner, he sanctioned Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendant, but obtained mortgage from the defendant in his name. He do not know whether the defendant paid Rs.2,80,000/- to the finance company.

13.As per the recitals of Ex.A1, on 11-08-2011 the defendant received

Rs.6,00,000/- and he agreed to pay the interest @ 24% per annum. So, the document itself speaks that, the defendant received Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff.

The defendant filed Exs.B1 to B5. Ex.B1 is receipt dt.04-07-2013 issued by Nagarjuna Financiers, Darsi in his favour for Rs.60,000/-, Ex.B2 is receipt dt.18-11-2013 for Rs.50,000/- issued by Nagarjuna Financiers in his favour, Ex.B3 is the receipt issued by Nagarjuna Financiers dt.12-04-2014 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.B4 is the receipt dt.29-01-2016 issued by Nagarjuna

Financiers in favour of the defendant for Rs.70,000/- and Ex.B5 is the bank account of the defendant bearing No.31228428518 shows that

Rs.5,00,000/- was credited to his account on 16-08-2011. Ex.A1 is dt.11- 08-2011. Exs.B1 to B4 receipts issued by Nagarjuna Financiers. So, there is no mention that the payments under Exs.B1 to B4 are made towards

Ex.A1. if really, the payments are made towards Ex.A1, there should be entries in Ex.A1. But no such payment endorsements are there in Ex.A1.

14.The plaintiff examined PW-2, who says that he is document writer.

On 11-08-2011, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family needs and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. He is the scribe of Ex.A1. The defendant asked him to scribe Ex.A1.

6

In the cross-examination, he says that he do not know whether the plaintiff remitted Rs.6,00,000/- under two installments to the account of defendant. The witness volunteers that the plaintiff given Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendant in his presence at the time of Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is prepared by him. He denied to a suggestion that no consideration was passed under

Ex.A1.

15.As per the contention of the defendant, he borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on 16-08-2011 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 20-08-2011. Ex.A1 is dt.11-08-2011. The recitals shows that, he received Rs.6,00,000/- on the same day of Ex.A1 and executed it. There is no nexus between Exs.B1 to B4 and Ex.A1. The own witnesses of the defendant i.e. DW-2 admitted that the defendant executed Ex.A1 and received an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. So, as documentary evidence prevails over the oral evidence, as the defendant admitted Ex.A1, it can be said that Ex.A1 is executed by the defendant for consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

16.ISSUE NO.1 :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

In view of findings in Additional Issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

17.ISSUE NO.2 :

To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and preliminary decree is hereby passed for an amount of Rs.13,92,800/- against defendant with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of redemption and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

7

If the mortgage amount is not sufficient to meet the decretal amount, the defendant is liable to pay the amount personally.

Time for redemption is six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 11 th day of April, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI

// Appendix of evidence //

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

PW1 : Velanati Swamulu DW-1: Devasothu Nanu Nayak PW-2: Appikatla Adiseshachari DW-2: Devasothu Srinivasa Naik DW-3: Jasavath Ramsing Naik

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/11-08-2011: Registered simple mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2/09-07-2016: Office copy of the legal notice. Ex.A3/11-07-2016: Postal receipt. Ex.A4/15-07-2016: Postal acknowledgment.

For Defendant :

Ex.B1/04-07-2013: Receipt issued by the Nagarjuna Financiers, Darsi in favour of defendant for Rs.60,000/-. Ex.B2/18-11-2013: Receipt issued by the Nagarjuna Financiers, Darsi in favour of defendant for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.B3/12-04-2014: Receipt issued by the Nagarjuna Financiers, Darsi in favour of defendant for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.B4/29-01-2016: Receipt issued by the Nagarjuna Financiers, Darsi in favour of defendant for Rs.70,000/-. Ex.B5/ --: Bank account of the defendant bearing No.31228428518.

S.C.J. Darsi 8

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: DARSI

PRESENT : SRI S.RAMANAIAH,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DARSI

Wednesday, the 11th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.468/2017

BETWEEN :

Velanati Swamulu, S/o. Subba Rao, aged 44 years, Hindu, Business and Landholder, R/o. Darsi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District… PLAINTIFF

A N D

Devasothu Nanu Nayak, S/o. Mun Sing Nayak, Hindu, Aged 56 years, Business and Landholder, R/o. Brindavanam Thanda Village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District… DEFENDANT

Suit is filed for passing of preliminary decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,92,800/- directing the defendant personally or by way of foreclosure of the simple mortgage deed dated 11-08-2011 and for costs.

Valuation and Court Fee : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs.13,92,800/- on which a Court Fee of Rs.16,426/- is paid under Sec.20 of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action : Cause of action for the suit arose on 11-08-2011 when the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and executed a registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest, subsequently the defendant failed to repay the same inspite of demands and at Brindavanam Village of Mundlamur Mandal, where the schedule property situated within the jurisdiction of this court.

Date of presentation of plaint : 13-02-2017 and Date of filing : 02-03- 2017.

This suit coming on 10-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for the Plaintif and of Sri G.R. Venkatesan, Advocate for the Defendant; upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court doth order and preliminary decree;

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to this the 13th day of

February, 2017 is the sum of Rs.13,92,800/- for the suit claim amount; the 10 sum of Rs.1,19,523/- for interest (i.e. @ 12 % per annum from the date of presentation of suit i.e. 13-02-2017 till the date of redemption i.e. 11-10- 2018 on the principal loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/-); and the sum of

Rs.60,092/- for costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, making in all the sum of Rs.15,72,415/-.

2.And it is hereby ordered as follows :

i. That the defendant do pay into the court on or before 11th day of October, 2018 or any later date up to which time for payment may be extended by the court the said sum of Rs.15,72,415/- as mentioned in clause 1, supra; and i (i) that if the mortgage amount is not sufficient to meet the decretal amount, the defendant be and is hereby liable to pay the amount personally.

ii. That on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such date as the court may adjudged due in respect of such costs of suit and such costs charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10, together with such expenses as may be payable under rule 11 of order XXXIV of the first schedule to the code of civil procedure, 1908 the plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant or to such persons as he appoints, and the plaintiff shall if so required re-convey or re-transfer the said property from the said mortgage and clear of the from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall if so required deliver up to the defendant quite and peaceable possession of the said property.

3.And it is hereby further ordered and decree that in default of payment as aforesaid the plaintiff may apply to the court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and on such application being made the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgage property.

4.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit, and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under rule 10 of order XXXIV of the first schedule to the code of civil procedure, 1908 and that the balance, if any shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same.

5.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff, as afore said, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to apply for personal decree against the defendant for the amount 11 of the balance and that the parties are at liberty to the court from time to time as may have occasion and on such application or otherwise the court may given such directions as it thinks fit.

6.That the defendant be and is hereby granted Six Months time for redemption.

7. Subsequent interest is hereby granted at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of redemption i.e. from 11-10-2018 till realization on the

principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

(Plaint schedule is herewith appended) (Defendant do bear his own costs)

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the day of 11th day of April, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

DARSI

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00No C.M. & F.C. filed Stamp on Plaint16,426-00 Stamp on process80-00 Advocate Fee43,484-00 Type charges100-00 Total 60,092-00

S.C.J. Darsi.

NOTE: Both parties concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non- exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “ the same should produce as and when required by the Court”.

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: DARSI

PRESENT : SRI S. RAMANAIAH,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DARSI

Tuesday, the 10th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.45/2017

BETWEEN :

Padarthi Nageswara Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 49 years, Business by profession, R/o. East Gangavaram Village, Thallur Mandal, Prakasam District… Plaintif

A N D

Kota Nagarjuna Reddy, S/o. Koti Reddy, Hindu, Aged 40 years, Business and Landholder, R/o. Near Ramalayam, Thallur village and Mandal, Prakasam District… Defendant

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri M. Rajasekhara Reddy, Advocate for Defendant, upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following ;

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit is filed for recovery of Rs.5,84,800/- basing on three promissory notes, with future interest and for costs.

2.Brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

The Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-04-2014 under A marked promissory note and borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- each at the same time under B and C marked promissory notes and executed three promissory notes, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Subsequently, in need of money, the plaintiff demanded the defendant for the debt under three promissory notes. The defendant went on postponing the same. Hence the suit.

3.The Defendant filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaint and submitted that, in fact, the plaintiff is running chits business at 2

East Gangavaram village. The defendant is one of the chit members. The plaintiff started Rs.4,00,000/- chit in the month of May 2013 and chit was started from 15-05-2013. The term is 20 months. In the bid held on 15-04-2014, the defendant became highest bidder and received cash of

Rs.3,40,000/- and in that connection, the defendant executed three blank promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. The chit was completed on 15- 01-2015. The defendant paid entire amount every month to the plaintiff towards chit amount. Subsequently, the plaintiff borrowed an amount of

Rs.18,000/- from the defendant on 20-01-2015 and defendant sent amount through Andhra Bank, Doddavaram Branch on 20-01-2015 through his

Account No.019010027000754. Later the plaintiff again borrowed

Rs.38,000/- from the defendant on 17-10-2015 and the amount was received by the plaintiff. The said amount sent by the defendant through his account mentioned above. Subsequently the defendant in the need of money, demanded the plaintiff on several occasions to discharge the said debts. But the plaintiff did not discharge. The defendant will be filed suit against the plaintiff.

On account of misunderstandings between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff and his associates colluded with each other and for wrongful gain, filed this suit. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount much less the suit amount to the plaintiff. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence prayed the Court that the suit may be dismissed with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial :

1. Whether the defendant has executed suit promissory notes?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, Pws-1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A3 are marked on behalf of plaintiff.

3

On behalf of the defendant, he himself examined as DW-1 and no documents are marked.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Issue No.1 :

Whether the defendant has executed suit promissory notes?

The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,40,000/- under three promissory notes, one for

Rs.1,40,000/- and two for Rs.1,00,000/- each and executed three promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Subsequently, the defendant did not repay the amount inspite of demands and hence the plaintiff filed the suit.

8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that, the plaintiff running chits and the defendant became one of the subscriber of the chit and the chit was started from 15-05-2013 and it is for

Rs.4,00,000/- and duration is 20 months and it is completed on 15-01-2015 and he became highest bidder and took amount of Rs.3,40,000/- on 15-04- 2014 and for that, he has executed three blank promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently, the plaintiff borrowed Rs.18,000/- on 20- 01-2015 and Rs.38,000/- on 17-10-2015 and the defendant paid the amount through his account to the plaintiff and he is going to file suit against the plaintiff. Only for wrongful gain, the suit is filed and in fact, the defendant never borrowed Rs.3,40,000/-.

So, as per the contention of the defendant, the plaintiff running chits.

9.In the chief examination, DW-1 says as per his pleadings in the written statement.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that Exs.A1 to A3 executed by him with his own handwriting. But he says that they are executed for chit 4 transactions. In Exs.A1 and A2, it is mentioned that he borrowed money for his family expenses and in Ex.A3 it is mentioned that he borrowed money for agricultural expenses. Whereas he volunteers that at the instance of plaintiff, he mentioned like that in Exs.A1 to A3. It is not pleaded in the written statement that at the instance of plaintiff, he mentioned in Exs.A1 to

A3, the purpose of borrowal.

In the written statement, he pleaded that he received cash of

Rs.3,40,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-04-2014 and in that connection, he executed three promissory notes and three blank cheques in favour of the plaintiff. Nowhere he stated that he executed three blank promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. He says only three blank cheques given in favour of the plaintiff. It is a fact that Exs.A1 to A3 written by the defendant. He denied to a suggestion that the plaintiff never did chits and he never be a member of the alleged chits.

10.PW-1 in his cross-examination denied that he did chit business. He has given the consideration amount at a time under Exs.A1 to A3 between 9-00 to 10-00 A.M. The denomination is Rs.1,000/- Rs.500/- notes. PW-2 and one Haribabu are the attestors of Exs.A1 to A3. He denied to a suggestion that the attestors were not present at the time of alleged transaction of Exs.A1 to A3. The defendant issued cheque towards discharge of the amount under Exs.A1 to A3 and he filed case under

Negotiable Instruments Act basing on the cheque. He denied to a suggestion that the defendant stood highest bidder on 15-04-2014 and after deducting the bid amount, for remaining amount of Rs.3,40,000/-, the defendant executed three promissory notes. He denied to a suggestion that along with the defendant, one Medagam Subbareddy and Kaipu Janardhana

Reddy are subscribers to the chit.

5

11.First of all, the defendant has not filed any record to show that the plaintiff running chits and he is the subscriber. Further, it is suggested to

PW-1 by the defendant that one Medagam Subbareddy and Kaipu

Janardhana Reddy are subscribers. They are not examined in support of the defendant.

12.PW-2 is the second attestor of Exs.A1 to A3. He supported the evidence of PW-1 that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,40,000/- and executed three promissory notes, one for Rs.1,40,000/- and another two for

Rs.1,00,000/- each. He is the attestor of suit promissory notes. The defendant asked him to act as attestor. The defendant received

Rs.3,40,000/- and executed Exs.A1 to A3. Another attestor is one

Chennamsetty Hari Babu.

In the cross-examination, he says that, he knows the first attestor of

Exs.A1 to A3. He has not seen the defendant executed the promissory notes and passing of consideration. He signed in all the promissory notes in the shop of PW-1 in the first week of Last year. Except himself and 1st attestor, nobody were present at that time.

13.In the chief examination, PW-2 deposed that the defendant executed the promissory notes and received cash consideration of Rs.3,40,000/-.

Whereas coming to his cross-examination, he says that he has not seen the defendant executed the promissory notes and receiving the cash consideration.

It is a fact that Exs.A1 to A3 are executed with the own handwriting of the defendant.

14.The promissory note is not compulsory attestable document. Though attestor PW-2 did not say about execution of the documents and passing of consideration, but it is an admitted fact that the defendant executed Exs.A1 to A3. But his contention is, no consideration was passed under Exs.A1 to 6

A3. As the due execution is admitted, the presumption under Sec.118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play that the promissory notes are supported by consideration. It is for the defendant to rebut the presumption to show that no consideration was passed. For that, he says that the amount under Exs.A1 to A3 relates to chit transaction. He became highest bidder on 15-04-2014 and received Rs.3,40,000/- and executed promissory notes. He has not filed any evidence to show that the plaintiff run chits and he is the subscriber. The other two persons one Medagam

Subbareddy and Kaipu Janardhana Reddy, who said to be the subscribers of the chit, are also not examined. Nothing has been elicited from the cross- examination of PW-1 that PW-1 run chits and the defendant is one of the subscribers.

In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that no consideration was passed under Exs.A1 to A3 and that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption. Therefore, this issue goes in favour of the plaintiff.

15.Issue No.2 :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

As issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

16.Issue No.3 :

To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.5,84,800/- with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization on the principal sum of Rs.3,40,000/-.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 10 th day of April, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI 7

// Appendix of evidence //

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :For Defendant :

PW-1 : Padarthi Nageswara Rao DW-1: Kota Nagarjuna Reddy PW-2 : Baddula Srinu

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/15-04-2014: 'A' marked promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,40,000/-. Ex.A2/15-04-2014: 'B' marked promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A3/15-04-2014: 'C' marked promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-.

For Defendant : Nil.

S.C.J. Darsi 8

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: DARSI

PRESENT : SRI S. RAMANAIAH,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DARSI

Tuesday, the 10th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.45/2017

BETWEEN :

Padarthi Nageswara Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 49 years, Business by profession, R/o. East Gangavaram Village, Thallur Mandal, Prakasam District… Plaintif

A N D

Kota Nagarjuna Reddy, S/o. Koti Reddy, Hindu, Aged 40 years, Business and Landholder, R/o. Near Ramalayam, Thallur village and Mandal, Prakasam District… Defendant

Suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,84,800/- made up of (1) Rs.2,40,800/- being the amount of principal and interest due on ‘A’ marked promissory note dt.15-04-2014 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,40,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum; (2) Rs.1,72,000/- being the principal and interest due on ‘B’ marked promissory note dt.15-04-2014 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum; and (3) Rs.1,72,000/- being the amount of principal and interest due on ‘C’ marked promissory note dt.15-04-2014 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum, for subsequent interest and for costs.

Valuation : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued as follows -

Date of Pronote AmountCourt Fee 15-04-2014Rs.2,40,800/-Rs. 4,926/- 15-04-2014Rs.1,72,000/-Rs. 4,226/- 15-04-2014Rs.1,72,000/-Rs. 4,226/-

-----------------------------------

Rs.5,84,800/-Rs.13,378/-

-----------------------------------

Total jurisdiction value is Rs.5,84,800/- on which a total Court Fee of

Rs.13,378/- is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 15-04-2014 when the defendant borrowed Rs.3,40,000/- from the plaintiff and executed three promissory notes for Rs.1,40,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively in favour of plaintiff, subsequently inspite of demands the defendant failed to 9 repay the same and at East Gangavaram Village, Thallur Mandal, where the transactions took place within the jurisdiction of this court.

Plaint presented on 15-04-2017 and filed on 26-04-2017.

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri M. Rajasekhara Reddy, Advocate for Defendant, upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court doth order and decree;

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,84,800/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit i.e. 15-04-2017 till realization on the principal amount of

Rs.3,40,000/-; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.32,780/- towards costs of the suit; and do bear his own costs; (No C.M. & F.C. filed by defendant)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 10th day of

April, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DARSI

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintif For Defendant (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00 - No C.M. & F.C. filed - Stamp on Plaint13,378-00 Stamp on process80-00 Advocate Fee 19,220-00 Type charges100-00 Total 32,780-00

S.C.J.

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE NO.206/2016 (Crime No.148/2012 of Addanki P.S. - P.R.C. No.15/2014 on the fie of Additionai Judiciai

Magistrate of I Ciass Court, Addanki) ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT ::: ADDANKI :::

(1) NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : State : Inspector of Poiice, Addanki Circie. (2)DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED :

Yediapaiii Nagaraju, S/o.Nageswara Rao, aged 25 years, Madiga by caste, Vemparaia Viiiage, Addanki Mandai.

(3)DATES OF :

Occurrence: Prior to 02-07-2012 Compiaint: 02-07-2012 Committai Order : 13-11-2014 Apprehension: 29-07-2016 Commencement of triai: 25-04-2017 Ciosure of traii: 25-04-2017 Sentence or Order: 28-04-2017 (4)Offences/Charge: U/Sec.417 and 376 of I.P.C. (5) Piea of accused : Not guiity. (6)Finding of Court: Not guiity.

(7) SENTENCE OR ORDER : Accused is found not guiity for the offences punishabie U/Sec.417 and 376 of I.P.C. Accordingiy, he is acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. and set him at iiberty for the same. The baii bonds of the accused shaii be in force for a period of Six Months U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property which was produced vide C.P.R. No.8/2017 (C.P.R. No.198/2014 of A.J.M.F.C. Court, Addanki) shaii be destroyed after appeai time is over. (8) EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY: The Additionai Judiciai Magistrate of I Ciass Court, Addanki committed this case as P.R.C. No.15/2014 on 13-11-2014 to Hon'bie Sessions Division, Prakasam District, Ongoie and the same was numbered as this case by the Hon'bie Sessions Court, Ongoie and made over the same to this court on 01-07-2016 for disposai according to iaw and this court received the same on 05-07-2016. On 28-03-2017 accused was examined U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C. and charges U/Sec.417, 376 of I.P.C. framed against the accused, and he pieaded not guiity and ciaimed to be tried. In this case, triai was commenced on 25-04-2017 and conciuded on the same day. During the triai period, PWs.1 to 4 were examined, and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, examination U/Sec.313 is dispensed with and heard arguments and the matter adjourned for judgment to 28-04-2017. On 28-04-2017 judgment pronounced (vide separate judgment) in open court). Hence, the deiay.

Sd/- S. Ramanaiah

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, DARSI

FAC: ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDANKI.

Copy Submitted to : The Hon’bie Registrar (Judiciai), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by way of C.D. (Through the Hon'bie Pri. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongoie). The Hon'bie Pri. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongoie.

Copies to: 1. The Addi.Judi. Magistrate of I Ciass, Addanki. 2. The Superintendent of Poiice, Prakasam District, Ongoie. 3. The Additionai Pubiic Prosecutor, Addanki.

// True Copy \\

ASJ, Addanki.

2

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::: ADDANKI :::

Present : Sri S. RAMANAIAH,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi.

F.A.C.: Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki

Friday, the 28th day of Aprii, 2017.

SESSIONS CASE NO.206/2016

(Crime No.148/2012 of Addanki P.S. - P.R.C. No.15/2014 on the fie of Additionai Judiciai Magistrate of I Ciass Court, Addanki) BETWEEN : Inspector of Poiice,

Addanki Circie.... COMPLAINANT/STATE.

A N D Yediapaiii Nagaraju, S/o.Nageswara Rao, aged 25 years, Madiga by caste, Vemparaia Viiiage, Addanki Mandai. … ACCUSED.

Plea of accused : Not guiity.

Finding of the Court : Accused is found not guiity for the offences punishabie U/Sec.417 and 376 of I.P.C. Accordingiy, he is acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. and set him at iiberty for the same. The baii bonds of the accused shaii be in force for a period of Six Months U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property which was produced vide C.P.R. No.8/2017 (C.P.R. No.198/2014 of A.J.M.F.C. Court, Addanki) shaii be destroyed after appeai time is over.

This case coming on 25-04-2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Venkateswara Rao, In-charge Additionai Pubiic Prosecutor for Compiainant/State and of Sri G.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Accused, and upon hearing arguments and upon perusai of materiai on record, and having stood over for consideration, tiii this day this Court deiivered the foiiowing:

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

01. The Inspector of Poiice, Addanki Circie iaid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.417, 376 of I.P.C. in Cr.No.148/2012 of Addanki

P.S.

Brief averments of the charge sheet are as foiiows :

PW1 is younger daughter of PW2 and LW3-Munnangi Prabhudas. PW1 used to attend masonry works and cooii works in brick kiin at Addanki. PW1,

PW3 and other cooiies of Vemparaia Viiiage have been attending masonry works under the ieadership of the accused. The accused used to take PW1 and other cooiies from Vemparaia Viiiage to Addanki in his auto for attending cooii works.

In that juncture, the accused got acquaintance with PW1 and by saying deceitfui words that his wife is an ineffective person and she is not ft for ieading maritai iife and deveioped iiiegai intimacy with PW1 by saying that he wouid marry her.

3

The accused used to go to the house of LW4-Thaiiuri Peramma aiong with PW1 and fuifiied his iust with PW1 in the absence of LW4 whenever they went to

Addanki for attending mason works. LW5-Chaiakapati Kaveiamma observed the iiiegai attitudes and informed the same to LW4-Thaiiuri Peramma and iater LW4 admonished PW1 and advised her to change her attitude. Since then the accused and PW1 went outside to fuifi their iust now and then. Later, PW1 observed changes in her body and growth of her abdomen and informed the same to the accused. On that the accused took her to LW6-Shaik Nagoor Meera

Vaii, Registered Medicai Practitioner, Addanki and got medicai check up and on examination LW6 deciared that PW1 was pregnant. Since then the accused did not come to meet with PW1 and ieft her to her fate. On 02-07-2012 PW1 gave report to poiice and basing on it LW18-B.Prbhakar, Sub-Inspector of Poiice,

Addanki P.S. registered a case in Cr. No.148/2012 U/Sec.417, 376 of I.P.C. of

Addanki P.S. and took up investigation. After compietion of the investigating,

LW20-V.V. Ramana Kumar, Inspector of Poiice, Addanki Circie iaid charge sheet.

02. The Additionai Judiciai Magistrate of I Ciass, Addanki has taken this case on fie U/Sec.417 and 376 of I.P.C. against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished as contempiated U/Sec.208 of Cr.P.C.

03. As the offence U/Sec.376 of I.P.C., is exciusiveiy triabie by the Court of

Session, the Additionai Judiciai Magistrate of I Ciass, Addanki committed this case to the Hon’bie Principai District & Sessions Judge, Ongoie U/Sec.209 of

Cr.P.C., in turn the Hon'bie Principai District & Sessions Judge, Ongoie made over this case to this court for disposai according to iaw.

04. On appearance of the accused, he was examined U/Sec.228 of Cr.P.C.

The sum and substance of the charge sheet read over and expiained to the accused in Teiugu, having understood the same he denied the offence. Charges framed U/Sec.417 and 376 of I.P.C. against the accused, read over and expiained to him in Teiugu, for which he denied the charges and ciaimed to be tried.

05. To substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

4

06. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, examination

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

07. Heard arguments on both sides.

08. NOW, THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS :

Whether the prosecution has proved it's case against the accused

for the charges U/Sec.417 and 376 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable

doubt ?

09.It is the case of the prosecution that, on 02-07-2012 at about 09-30 p.m.

PW1 gave report to LW18-B.Prabhakar, Sub-Inspector of Poiice, Addanki P.S.

stating that, she is iiving by cooii works and she got acquaintance with the accused as he was working with her. The accused toid her that his wife is not ft for maritai iife and he promised to marry her and that whenever they come to

Addanki for cooii works they used to go to the house of her grand-mother and in her absence they both had intercourse. Subsequentiy, she got pregnancy and on that eiders asked the accused to marry her and that the accused did not agree.

Basing on the report of PW1, LW18-B. Prabhakar, Sub-Inspector of Poiice,

Addanki P.S. registered a case in Cr. No.148/2012 of Addanki P.S. U/Sec.417 and 376 of I.P.C. and submitted First Information Report to aii the concerned. LW19-

G.Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Poiice, Addanki Circie took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW19 visited the scene of offence, inspected the same in the presence of LW12-Jyothi Rosaiah and LW13-Nuthaiapati

Hanumantha Rao, prepared scene observation report and rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements

U/Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C., and forwarded PW1 to R.I.M.S. Hospitai, Ongoie for medicai examination. On 04-09-2012 LW19 arrested the accused at S.C.

Coiony, Vemparaia Viiiage in the presence of LW12-Jyothi Rosaiah and LW13-

Nuthaiapati Hanumantha Rao and seized the ciothes which were wore by the accused under cover of mahazarnama and forwarded the accused to

Community Heaith Centre, Addanki for potency test. LW15-Dr. D.Anjana Devi,

Civii Assistant Surgeon, R.I.M.S. Hospitai, Ongoie who examined PW1 and issued 5 wound certifcate. LW16-T.Venkatewariu, Medicai Ofcer, Community Heaith

Centre, Addanki, who examined the accused and issued potency certifcate opining that there is nothing to suggest that the maie examined is not capabie of performing sexuai act. LW14-B.Rama Krishna, Scientifc Ofcer, Regionai

Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur who examined the materiai objects and issued anaiysis report. LW17-Dr. M.Subba Rao, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, R.I.M.S., Ongoie, who examined PW1 and issued age certifcate opining that the age of PW1 is 17 to 18 years. After compietion of the investigation, LW20-V.V.Ramana Kumar, Inspector of Poiice, Addanki Circie iaid charge sheet against the accused.

10.The iearned defence counsei submitted that there is no evidence is on record against the accused to prove the charges. Hence, pray the court that the accused may be acquitted.

11.Prosecution examined four witnesses in aii and Ex.P1 to ExP4 are marked.

PW1 is the defacto-compiainant. She deposed that she does not know the accused. Nothing has been happened in this case. She did not give report to poiice. She was not examined by the poiice. PW2 deposed that she does not know the accused. She does not know about the facts of the case. She was not examined by the poiice. PW3 deposed that she does not know the accused. She does not know anything about this case. Nothing happened to PW1. PW4 deposed that he does not know PW1 to PW3 and he does not know the accused.

He does not know anything about this case. He was not examined by the poiice.

12. Aii the witnesses PW1 to PW4 turned hostiie to the case of prosecution and they have not stated anything against the accused. Though they were cross examined by the iearned A.P.P., nothing has been eiicited in support of the case of the prosecution. Remaining iist of witnesses are given up by the iearned

A.P.P. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, examination

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has miserabiy faiied to prove it’s case against the accused beyond aii reasonabie doubt. Hence, the accused is entitied for acquittai for the charges ieveiied against him.

6

14. In the resuit, accused is found not guiity for the offences punishabie

U/Sec.417 and 376 of I.P.C. Accordingiy, he is acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. and set him at iiberty for the same. The baii bonds of the accused shaii be in force for a period of Six Months U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property which was produced vide C.P.R. No.8/2017 (C.P.R. No.198/2014 of A.J.M.F.C.

Court, Addanki) shaii be destroyed after appeai time is over.

(Dictated to Personai Assistant of S.C.J.C., Darsi, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th day of Aprii, 2017).

Sd/- S. Ramanaiah

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, DARSI

FAC: ASSSTANT SESSONS JUDGE, ADDANKI.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDECNE //

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

PW1 : M.Mariyamma. -NONE- PW2 : M.Prameeia. PW3 : N.Sugunamma. PW4 : M. Singaiah.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. –NIL- Ex.P2 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P3 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P4 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/- S. Ramanaiah

A.S.J.

// True Copy \\

ASJ, Addanki.