Sri S.Ravi Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WANAPARTHY

Friday, the 2 nd day of August, 2019

Present : Sri S.Ravi Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

HMOP.NO.393 of 2013

Between:

Smt.G.Swarna W/o Eashwar, 30 Yrs, Occ: Employee, R/o: Khajaguda Village of Serilingam- Pally Mandal, Rangareddi District. …Petitioner.

And

M.Eashwar S/o Ramulu, 38 Yrs, Occ: Employee, R/o: H.No. 2-5-60/12, PJP Camp Road, Pebbair.

…Respondent. ***

The petition coming before me for hearing on 31.07.2019 in presence of Sri B.Chandrasekhar Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri

K.Mohan Goud, Advocate for respondent and upon hearing and perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

O R D E R

The petition is filed by the wife/petitioner under section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 seeking dissolution of her marriage with her husband/respondent.

2. The brief averments of the petition:-

The respondent and petitioner are husband and wife; their marriage had taken place on 19-04-2000 at Pebbair village as per caste customs. The parents of the petitioner gave 4 tolas of gold, net cash of

Rs.1,45,000/- towards dowry. The petitioner having 3 daughters Mishritha aged about 6 years, Thapasvi and Thanmayi (twins) aged about 6 months and now they are with the petitioner.

2

Few months of their marriage, respondent and his parents used to quarrel with the petitioner on flimsy reasons, abused in filthy language and treated her cruelty by harassing physically and mentally. The respondent addicted to alcohol and used to beat the petitioner by consuming alcohol. The petitioner bore harassment with an intention that the respondent may change his attitude, but he doubted the character of petitioner when she looks towards doors, windows while walking on the streets. The respondent harassed the petitioner physically and mentally and caused mental agony to her. So many times the elders and neighbours warned and tried to convenience the respondent not to harass the petitioner.

The respondent took personal loan of Rs.80,000/- on the name of petitioner and also house loan in the name of his father where the petitioner salary is being treated to the loan account at SBI., Pebbair

Branch. The petitioner used to spend her entire salary to the family. After birth of 3 daughters the respondent with a malafide intention harassed her. The respondent and his parents want a male child, but the petitioner is helpless. The petitioner being a human, she could not tolerate the mentality and the crucial harassment of respondent, when she pointed out the same the respondent beat her several times and driven away from his house on 27-06-2013, now the petitioner is living with her parents.

At present the petitioner is preparing for Teachers Entrance Test, but the respondent disturbing her on phone and used to come to her place. On 14-08-2013 the respondent came to the house of petitioner where she is peacefully living, beat her and threatened to kill. The conduct and character of respondent may cause danger to the life, limb or health of the petitioner and raises a reasonable apprehension to the petitioner. The cohabitation will be harmful and injurious to the petitioner 3 and her children. The mental cruelty can cause even more grievous injury in the mind of petitioner and such a reasonable apprehension will be harmful and unsafe to live with the respondent.

3. The respondent filed counter denied the averments while admitting the relationship with the petitioner and also children and submit that the petitioner forcibly took the children, not taking care of their welfare, as she is roaming just like a kite of broken thread. The petitioner herself used to tease, insult and humiliated him and his parents and exhibited her evil designs. The petitioner openly calling her paramour to home in absence of himself and his parents in the village, but she cleverly attributing false and frivolous allegations against him to escape from her bad and in human habits.

The petitioner created false story about the loans and spending her money to the family, since the petitioner accustomed to roam with her paramour who is working same department, even she expended amount towards her bad events with the said fellow. But, to defame him and his parents she is making false allegations against them. Since the petitioner completely molded to the words of her paramour and living with him in Wanaparthy town roaming shamelessly with him on the roads and even she is intimating to the children that her paramour is her husband and asked them to call the said fellow as their father.

The petitioner herself humiliated insulted him and his parents. The petitioner in humanly living with her paramour even made in human messages on phone calls with paramour, the said messages are made

CD by him and he will file them in due course of enquiry, since it was filed in DVC proceedings. The petitioner tried to show her false innocence with meaningless facts selected purposely as she has created false story and filed this petition. He is requesting the phone to call for entire data 4 and also the message list of the petitioner from her cell phone in which the real facts will come to know the attitude of the petitioner and also her movements with her paramour, when she is working, but she is making allegations against him. On 14-08-2013 the petitioner and her paramour were jumped from the place. Since he gave complaint to her brother to overcome the same she made false allegations against him.

It is false and incorrect to say that there is no possibility for reunion.

In fact the petitioner herself leading her adulteress life by living with her paramour without caring him and his parents and she is accustomed to live with the paramour keeping illegal contacts with him.

The petitioner is working on contract basis in the Government

Organization. He used to look after the children but after some days the petitioner inhumanly started to tease him and his parents, she started with her bad character made illegal contracts with her superior staff in the same office and completely fell into her paramour’s sorcery and used to call him to the house, openly move with him thereby insulted him and his parents. Though the elders and other relatives advised and admonished the petitioner not to live with her paramour she did not care of the same and completely left his company and used live with her paramour along with the children in Wanaparthy town.

The petitioner and her paramour living adulteress life to discard him filed this petition without any cause. He is suffering lot due to inhuman attitude and bad behavior of the petitioner. Now he is having no source of income and unable to maintain himself, and suffering even for food.

Since he could obtained the job for the petitioner with fond hope that she may look after the welfare of the children and family. If the divorce is granted he would be caused to miserable life with a bold heartedly he is ready to take back the petitioner from the court premises and run the 5 future life, if the petitioner may change her bad habits for the welfare of children and also for the conjugal life with him by forgetting her bad events exhibited till this day. The petitioner also filed DVC with false allegations and thereafter she misrepresented the facts made him not to contest the same and obtained orders in her favour. For all these circumstances exhibited by the petitioner against him, he suffered a lot and the petitioner is liable and responsible for his mental agony and psychological sufferance. Therefore, prays the Hon’ble court may please to dismiss the petitioner with costs, in the interest of justice.

4. During trial on behalf of petitioner herself examined as Pw1, Pw2, no documents marked. On behalf of respondent himself examined as Rw1,

RWs2 and 3 marked Ex.R1 and R2.

5. Heard the learned counsels for petitioner and respondent.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent as prayed for?

7. (a) There is no dispute as to the marriage of petitioner and respondent on 19.04.2000, their children and they lived together in Pebbair until the end of June 2013 ,at the time of their marriage the petitioner was completed SSC ,there after she completed Graduation ,joined in service as a Mandal Training Coordinator in DRDA on contract basis in the year 2006 and as on now she completed M.A Sociology by distance education, and also the petitioner attended the job at Wanaparthy by shuttling from Pebbair only until she came out from the respondent.

(b) The evidence of P.W.1 is that after few months of marriage the respondent and his parents used to quarrel with her on flimsy reasons ,abused in filthy language ,treated cruelly by harassing physically and mentally and caused mental agony to her .The respondent used to bet 6 her by consuming alcohol and he addicted the same. The respondent doubted her character when she looks towards the doors , windows while walking on the streets. So many times the elders and neighbours also warned and tried to convince the respondent not to harass her .The respondent took personal loan of Rs.80,000/- under her name ,and also took housing loan in the name of his father where her salary is being credited to the loan amount at SBI Pebbair. The respondent with malafide intention harassing her as she blessed with three daughters, the respondent and his parents wanted male child from her. The respondent bet her several times and driven away from the house on 27.06.2013 and he is disturbing her on phone and used to coming to her while she was preparing for teachers entrance test. On 14.08.2013 the respondent came to her house where she was peacefully living ,bet and threat hen her to kill and the conduct of respondent cause danger to her life, limb or health and giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger.

(c) The petitioner either in petition or in chief exam did not state when and how many times, she looked towards doors and windows while walking on the streets and the respondent doubted her character and even she did not disclosed her job except in cross examination.

Admittedly, since 2016 she used to attend the job at Wanaparthy by shuttling from Pebbair, it appears she was traveled in bus only. As the petitioner is working in DRDA Mandal training co-coordinator which is always with so many people, if really the respondent is suspect the petitioner he may not allow her to pursue graduation and also joining in the job and shuttle from Pebbair to Wanaparthy for 7 years to attend the job.

(d) The petitioner cleverly stated in Para no 3 of the petition that the respondent has taken personal loan of sum of Rs.80,000/- under her 7 name and also housing loan in the name of his father where her salary is being credited to the loan account at State Bank Of India ,Pebbair

Branch. No one can understand what the petitioner want to say about the loans taken by the respondent, whether the respondent took the loan against her will and in her name, and whether she stood as a guarantor for the housing loan of the father of respondent. Unless, the petitioner applied for loan and stood as a guarantor, and the father of respondent fail to discharge the loan or the petitioner herself consented for deduction of amount as instalment for clearing the loan, no bank can sanction loan to the respondent in her name and also her salary could be deducted for the housing loan. The petitioner as P.W.1 in her cross examination state that in general any loan would be sanctioned by any bank or financial institution the signature and consult of the employee who intending to avail the loan should be taken by them. It is not the case of petitioner that herself applied for loan and the same was taken by the respondent and also she cleared the housing loan of father of respondent by deducting the amount from her salary. Therefore, there is no truth in the allegations of the petitioner.

(e) The P.W.1 in her cross examination clearly admitted that as on today she did not made any criminal complaint against the respondent alleging that he had been harassing her. Of course she volunteered that she informed the harassment of respondent to the elders Uppari Pentaiah ,Uppari Ramulu and also the parents of respondent. The said Uppari

Pentaiah and Uppari Ramulu are not examined. When the petitioner herself made allegations against the parents of the respondent, no one can expect that the petitioner can complain to them against the respondent. If really the respondent harassed the petitioner since three months after their marriage, even after she joined in job at Wanaparthy 8 no one can expect that she could lived with the respondent until June 2013 from the year 2000 without making any complaints to the police and panchayats of elders.

(f) The petitioner states the respondent driven her away from the house on 27.06.2013 and now she is living with her parents. But she did not state the interference of her parents when the respondent came to her and disturbed while preparing for teachers test. Further, the petitioner as

P.W.1 in her cross exam state when the respondent harass her from the month of August 2013 she was brought by her brother and in Wanaparthy she is residing in the house of her brothers and doing her job which is quite contrary to her own statement that she is residing with her parents.

(g) The P.W.2 who is brother of P.W.1 in his chief examination clearly stated, his sister and her children are living separately and he did not state that himself or his brother and their parents brought the petitioner when she was necked out by the respondent from his house. Therefore the petitioner is neither with her parents nor with her brothers but she is living separately. The P.W.2 in his cross examination state that the petitioner after blessing the children she would have completed her

Degree by distance education while she was with the respondent.

Therefore, the petitioner with the help of respondent only she pursued her

Graduation.

(h) The petitioner left the respondent on 27.06.2013 allegedly the respondent necked out her and there after he was disturbed her through phone and used to come to her and on 14.08.2013 he came to her home, bet her and threaten to kill. But in her cross examination/P.W.1 she state that from 2013 onwards she has no any personal phone number but recently from net connection she took the jio connection by submitting her ID proof, apart that the department also provided a cell phon.

9

Whereas the P.W.2 who is brother of P.W.1 in his cross examination state that since he is an illiterate he do not remember the cell phone we number of the petitioner and he got mentioned in his affidavit that the respondent caused disturbance to the petitioner through cell phone.

When the petitioner alleged that the respondent was disturbed her between 28.06.2013 and 14.08.2013 by phone and personally visiting her ,the statement of petitioner that she had no phone from the year 2013 is only to deny the evidence of respondent secured through phone i.e., the photos of petitioner with her paramour and the obscene messages between them. No neighbours even the parents with whom the petitioner is residing are examined to prove the allegations against the respondent.

(i) The P.W.1 in her cross examination denied about the panchayat convened by the respondent through her brothers and her parents in connection with the Sms sent through her phone through the cell phone of Rajashekar Reddy by insulting the respondent in vulgar language, but she volunteered when the respondent harassed her in that connection the panchayat was held and on the advice of elders she promised to live with the respondent if he would harass her and the same is contrary to the suggestion of petitioners counsel to the R.W.1 that the respondent did not made any efforts to take back the petitioner. If the petitioner with the respondent the question of panchayat and she promised to live with him doesn’t arise and it is not the case of petitioner and also the P.W.2 that a panchayats held to admonish the respondent when he was harass the petitioner. Further ,the P.w.2 also in his cross examination clearly stated that himself and his family members once requested the respondent to treat the petitioner with affection but no panchayats were held between the elders.Therefore, it is only at the instance of respondent panchayat 1 0 was held with regarding to the Sms between petitioner and Rajashekar

Reddy.

(j) In view of the above discussion and the evidence of R.ws 1 and 2 coupled with Ex.R1/five positive photos and Ex.R2/CD containing photos and messages proves that the allegations of the respondent that after the petitioner joining in the job in the year 2006 developed illegal relationship with her superior officer by name Rajashekar Reddy and now she is living with him and to leave the respondent permanently she filed this petition with false allegations against respondent.

(k) Though the petitioner denied the geniuses of the photographs and

CD/Ex.R1 & R2 if we go through those photographs and CD certainly we have to believe the allegations of the respondent against the petitioner.

The CD was opened in the lab tab and also taken print out of the messages between the cell phone numbers of 9542001706 and 8790990521( the same is placed in the record ) and the language in those messages are very vulgar and Unparliamentarily. The R.W.2 in his cross examination clearly stated the photographs under Ex.R1 taken from the cell phone of petitioner and she has taken the same through her cell phone/Nokia phone and the same were seen by him in the year 2013 in the cell phone. It appears to deny the Ex.R1,R2 only the petitioner as

P.W.1 denied that she is having cell phone from the year 2013. No husband made such an allegation as the respondent made against the petitioner and it is highly impossible to create the messages and photos under Ex.R1,R2 except by extracting from the cell phone.

(l) All the circumstances of the case reveals that the petitioner having developed illegal relations with her superior officer namely Rajashekar

Reddy, to leave the respondent permanently filed this petition with false allegations though the respondent gave life to the petitioner by 1 1 providing opportunities to pursue Graduation and also secure job and permitted to do the job by shuttling from Pebbair to Wanaparthy etc., which cannot appreciate by any society. So the respondent will suffer in future also if the relation with the petitioner continues, if allowed this petition it will give wrong message to the society or particularly to the women who are like the petitioner to harass their husbands by developing illegal relations with others. Therefore, the petitioner is failed to prove the harassment of respondent towards her, as such she is not entitled to seek dissolution of her marriage with the respondent.

(m) Since, the petitioner is at fault and seeking dissolution of her marriage with the respondent basing on false allegations and caused him to move around the court since the year 2013; she is liable to pay the costs to the respondent.

In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Typed to my dictation to the Superintendent ( Cat.3 ) corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 2nd day of August, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

APPINDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW1 Smt.G.Suwarna RW1 M.Eashwar Pw2 G.Chandra Sekhar RW2 B.Bhagavanthu RW3 Bichasagar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:-

---nil--- 1 2

For Respondent:

Ex.R1 five positive photos Ex.R2 C.D., containing the photos and messages.

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WANAPARTHY

Monday, the 5 th day of August, 2019

Present:- Sri S.Ravi Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

OS.NO.48 of 2015

Between:

Smt M. Pushpalatha W/o Ravindhar Reddy, D/o M. Narsimha Reddy, age: 30 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Gidimettla, Hyderabad.

…Plaintiff.

And

1. M. Venkat Reddy S/o Late M. Narsimha Reddy, age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. M. Thirupathi Reddy S/o Late M. Narsimha Reddy, age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. M. Anand Reddy S/o Late M. Narsimha Reddy (died),

4. M. Laxmi W/o Late M. Anand Reddy, age: 34 years, Occ: House hold,

5. M. Harisha D/o Late M. Anand Reddy, age: 14 years, Occ: Student,

6. M. Naresh Kumar Reddy S/o Late M. Anand Reddy, age: 12 years, Occ: Student, All are R/o Palem Village of Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, defendant No.4 to 6 are added as per orders of the Hon’ble Court, dt: 05-11-2018 in I.A.No.1291 of 2015).

…Defendants.

***

The suit coming before me on 11-06-2019 for hearing in presence of Sri P.

Sreeram Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendans remained exparte and upon hearing and perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed seeking to declare the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the registered gift deed (doc.No.1525 of 2003), dt:

28-04-2003 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and direct the defendants to restore the possession of the suit land and costs of the suit.

2

The brief averments of the plaint:-

The plaintiff is own sister of defendants No.1 to 3 and they are children of

Late M. Narsimha Reddy and Manikyamma. The plaintiff is owner and possessor of land an extent of Ac.0-08 gts in Sy.No.115/Aa3 and an extent of Ac.5-02 gts in

Sy.No.116/Aa totally Ac.5-10 gts bounded by: East: Land in Sy.No.114, West:

Land in Sy.No.116, North: Land of Balaiah and South: Land of Galla Adivanna situate in Pallem Village of Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District/suit schedule property.

Originally the suit schedule property and other properties belongs to father of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3, during his life time to avoid further complications allotted his properties to all his children. Accordingly the suit schedule property is under ownership and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Their father/M. Narsimha Reddy was died on 10-08-2001. the marriage of plaintiff was held with Ravindhar Reddy on 22-05-2003 and they are living happily at

Hyderabad with her in-laws, as such the plaintiff is not able to cultivate the suit land personally, but leased out to the defendants. The defendants some time paid amount and some times gave half of the yield after deducting the investment.

Due to financial problems, when the plaintiff intending to sell away the suit property approached the defendants in the last week of May, 2015 to help for selling the suit property as per prevailing market value, then they denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit land alleging that she gifted the suit land to them on 28-04-2003 under a registered gift deed (doc.No.1525 of 2003) and shown the said document. Then the plaintiff astonished and shocked on seeing the gift deed. In fact she never executed the alleged gift deed.

3

The defendants might be fabricated the alleged gift deed by obtaining the signatures of the plaintiff by mis-guiding or mis-representing. In fact the plaintiff was born on 20-06-1985, to prove the same she is filing her bonafide certificates issued by the Z.P High School, Kothakota. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff was minor on the date of the alleged vide registered gift deed, dt: 28- 04-2003 (doc.No.1525 of 2003). The alleged gift deed is never acted upon and never binding on the plaintiff.

Since, the plaintiff is in Hyderabad and leased out the suit property to the defendants, taking advantage of the same the defendants created the void document. The defendants developed ill motive and malafide intention to grab the suit schedule property, taking advantage of innocence of the plaintiff, the defendants colluding each and created the gift deed. On verifying all the documents, on 07-06-2015 the plaintiff approached the defendants, requested them to vacate the suit schedule land and co-operate for cancellation of gift deed, dt: 28-04-2003 (doc.No.1525), but they bluntly refused for the same.

3.The defendants remained ex-parte,

4.During trial the plaintiff examined herself as PW1, marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

6. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

7Now the point for consideration is: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the registered gift deed (doc.No.1525 of 2003), dt: 28-04-2003 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and direct the defendants to restore the possession of the suit land?

8. FINDINGS:- 4

Issue No.1: The evidence of PW1/M. Pushpalatha coupled with

Ex.A2/ROR, dt: 02-07-2015, Ex.A3/pahani for 2014-2015 is that she is absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Since her marriage was held on 22-05- 2003 with Ravindhar Reddy and residing with her in-laws at Hyderabad, she leased out the suit schedule property to the defendants, but when she approached them to sell the suit property due to her financial needs, they denied her title over the suit property, as she gifted the same to them and shown the gift deed dt: 28-04-2003 (Doc.No.1525 of 2003)/Ex.A1 which was not executed by her, but it is created by the defendants. Further, she was a minor as on the date of the said gift deed as per her bonafide certificate, dt: 16-06- 2015/Ex.A4.

The Ex.A1/gift deed, dt: 28-04-2003 (Doc.No.1525 of 2003) reveals that the plaintiff has gifted the suit schedule property to the D1 to D3 as they are depended upon her for their livelihood and with love and affection towards then and she attained majority. The Ex.A4/Bonafide Certificate, dt: 16-06-2015 issued by the Gazetted Head Master, Z.P High School, Kothakota, Mahabubnagar

District reveals that the plaintiff was studied 8th class with Admission No.2526 and her date of birth according to the school register is 20-06-1985. Therefore, the plaintiff’s age as on 28-02-2003 i.e., by the date of gift deed/Ex.A1., is 17 years 8 months and 8 days and thereby she can be said a minor.

Since a contract with a minor is a void, hence no obligation can ever arise on the minor as per the Indian Contract Act. The evidence of PW1 clearly reveals that she is owner of the suit schedule property and the gift deed said to have been executed by her/plaintiff in favour of the D1 toD3 is void because of she was a minor on the date of the said gift deed/Ex.A1. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief as prayed for.

5

9.In the result, the suit is decreed declaring that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the registered gift deed (Doc.No.1525 of 2003), dt: 28-04-2003 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and directing the defendants to restore the possession of the suit land within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the possession of suit property as per law. Since the defendants remained exparte, the plaintiff has to bear her own costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Superintendent (Cat.3) corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 5th day of August, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

APPINDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW1: M. PushpalathaNil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: Ex.A1: C.C of Registered Gift Deed, -Nil-

dt: 28-02-2003,

Ex.A2: C.C of R.O.R, dt: 02-07-2015, Ex.A3: C.C of pahani for the year 2014-2015, Ex.A4: Bonafide Certificate, dt: 16-06-2015.

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WANAPARTHY

Friday, the 2 nd day of August, 2019

Present:- Sri S.Ravi Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

OS.NO.43 of 2016

Between:

Modela Narsimha S/o Beesanna @ Beesaiah,age: 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Hyderabad.

…Plaintiff.

And

1. Musini Thirupathaiah S/o M. Narayana,age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Musini Kurumurthy S/o M. Narayana,age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, Both are R/o Mandhapur Village of Pangal Mandal.

…Defendants.

***

The suit coming before me on 30-07-2019 for hearing in presence of Sri K.

Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri S. Baleeshwaraiah Advocate for the defendants, upon hearing and perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

Th is suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,87,200/- being the principle and interest due under promissory note, dt: 10-12-2015 against the defendant and his properties with future interest and costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint:- The plaintiff acquainted with the defendant with his brother-in-law/Baswaraj. On 10-12-2015 the defendant for his family necessities took a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ 12% per annum by executing promissory note.

Inspite of repeated demands the defendant failed to repay intentionally knowing that the limitation of pro-note will expire on 09-12-2018. On 25-11-2018 2 when the plaintiff demanded to pay the due under the pro-note, he refused to pay the same.

3. Though the defendant appeared with counsel, no written statement filed.

Later, remained ex-parte,

4. The following issues settled for trial:

i) Whether the suit pronote is true and valid ? And ii) To what relief ?

5. During trial the plaintiff himself examined as PW1, marked Ex.A1.

6. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

7 FINDINGS:

Issue No.1:- The evidence of PW1/Siddappa coupled with Ex.A1/Promissory note, dt: 10-12-2015 is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000 from him agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ 24% p.a and executed the promissory note. Inspite of repeated demands the defendant did not pay intentionally assuming that the limitation will expire by 09-12-2018.

There are no any reasons to disbelieve the version of PW1 as to the suit transaction. Therefore, the plaintiff proved his claim.

Issue No.2:- For the finding in Issue No.1 the suit is decreed for a sum of

Rs.6,87,200/- with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a during pendency and post pendency of the suit/until realization on principle amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with costs of the suit.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this th2 2nd day of August, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

3

Wanaparthy.

APPINDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

PW1Modela Narsimha -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

Ex.A1C.C of ROR. -Nil- :

Ex.A2Original pass book. :

Ex.A3C.C of pahani for the year 2010-2011 : (1420),

Ex.A4C.C of pahani for the year 2011-2012 : (1421),

Ex.A5C.C of pahani for the year 2015-2016 : (1425).

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WANAPARTHY

Friday, the 2 nd day of August, 2019

Present:- Sri S.Ravi Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

OS.NO.43 of 2016

Between:

Modela Narsimha S/o Beesanna @ Beesaiah, age: 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Hyderabad.

…Plaintiff.

And

1. Musini Thirupathaiah S/o M. Narayana, age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Musini Kurumurthy S/o M. Narayana, age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, Both are R/o Mandhapur Village of Pangal Mandal.

…Defendants.

***

The suit coming before me on 30-07-2019 for hearing in presence of Sri K.

Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri S. Baleeshwaraiah Advocate for the defendants, upon hearing and perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

Th is suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,87,200/- being the principle and interest due under promissory note, dt: 10-12-2015 against the defendant and his properties with future interest and costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint:- The plaintiff acquainted with the defendant with his brother-in-law/Baswaraj. On 10-12-2015 the defendant for his family necessities took a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ 12% per annum by executing promissory note.

Inspite of repeated demands the defendant failed to repay intentionally knowing that the limitation of pro-note will expire on 09-12-2018. On 25-11-2018 2 when the plaintiff demanded to pay the due under the pro-note, he refused to pay the same.

3.Though the defendant appeared with counsel, no written statement filed.

Later, remained ex-parte,

4.The following issues settled for trial:

i) Whether the suit pronote is true and valid ? And ii) To what relief ?

5.During trial the plaintiff himself examined as PW1, marked Ex.A1.

6. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

7FINDINGS:

Issue No.1:- The evidence of PW1/Siddappa coupled with Ex.A1/Promissory note, dt: 10-12-2015 is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000 from him agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ 24% p.a and executed the promissory note. Inspite of repeated demands the defendant did not pay intentionally assuming that the limitation will expire by 09-12-2018.

There are no any reasons to disbelieve the version of PW1 as to the suit transaction. Therefore, the plaintiff proved his claim.

Issue No.2:- For the finding in Issue No.1 the suit is decreed for a sum of

Rs.6,87,200/- with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a during pendency and post pendency of the suit/until realization on principle amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with costs of the suit.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this th2 2nd day of August, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

3

APPINDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:- PW1Modela Narsimha -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:- Ex.A1: C.C of ROR. -Nil- Ex.A2: Original pass book. Ex.A3: C.C of pahani for the year 2010-2011 (1420), Ex.A4: C.C of pahani for the year 2011-2012 (1421), Ex.A5: C.C of pahani for the year 2015-2016 (1425).

Senior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT WANAPARTHY

Presided Over by Sri S.Ravi Kumar H.M.O.P/1/2019

Saravanthi Age: 22 Address: R/o H.No.9-1-333/A/3/5 Laxminagar Langar House Hyderabad VERSUS B.Mahesh Age: 29 Address: R/o H.No.15-1 Raigadda Wanaparthy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : K.Shashibushan Advocate for : appearing for B.Mahesh: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

Petitioner present filed their affidavit seeking to dissolved their marriage and even on enquiry found no scope for their reunion. In view of the above and six months and either petitioner not withdraw from their claim, the petition is allowed as prayed for i.e the marriage of petitioner is dissolved

Date : 02-08-2019 Principal Senior Civil Judge

Wanaparthy