Sri S. Siva Sankar Reddy

O.S.No.382/2020 Dt.21.11.2023 1 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : SRI S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

Tuesday, this the 21st day of November, 2023

Original Suit No.382 of 2020 Between: Chelamkuri Pannagaveni, W/o. Late Dr.C.V.Krishna Rao, Hindu, female, aged about 85 years, residing at D.No.54/13/8, main road, Opp R&B, Superintendent Engineers Qtrs, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintiff. And:

1. Lovadora Shiddireddy (died).

2. Siddireddy Saraswathi, W/o. Late Lovadora Siddireddy, Hindu, female, age 33 years, residing at D.No.54/13/8, Main Road, Opp. R & B Superintendent Engineers Qtrs, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

3. Siddireddy Satya Satvika (minor), d/o. Late Lovadora Siddireddy, Hindu, female, age 12 years, residing at D.No.54/13/8, main road, Opp. R & B Superintendent Engineers Qtrs, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

(being minor represented by her mother and natural guardian Siddireddy Saraswathi, W/o. Late Lovadora Siddireddy)

Note: The case against defendant no.1 is abated as he died.

Note: The defendants 2 and 3 were added as per orders in I.A.1587/2022

dt.17.03.2023. … Defendants

This Suit is coming on 14.11.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.N.Srinivas, the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri B.S.S.T.Srinivas, the learned Advocate for the Defendants 2 and 3, the case against defendant no.1 is abated as he died; upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants no.2 and 3 for directing them to quit, vacate, leave and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff or nominee of the plaintiff withing the time to be stipulated by the Hon’ble Court, failing which, the plaintiff shall be given a liberty to recover possession of plaint schedule property through process of law at the cost and expenses of the defendant and for directing the 2nd and 3rd defendants to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the schedule property from the date of suit till the date of handing over of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

02.The brief plaint averments of the plaintiff is that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of a shop bearing d.no.54-13-8/1, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam and the

O.S.No.382/2020 Dt.21.11.2023 2 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

1st defendant took the said property from the plaintiff for business purpose on 26th

October, 2018 on a monthly rent of Rs.6,325/- vide lease deed dt.26.10.2018 and started his business in the name and style of “ Universal Digital Studio” in the schedule property. The plaintiff further averred that originally in the year 2006, husband of plaintiff i.e. C.V.Krishna Rao let out the schedule property to defendant on a monthly rent basis of Rs.3,000/- and subsequently, after demise of said

C.V.Krishna Rao, the plaintiff had let out the schedule property to 1st defendant and both plaintiff and 1st defendant had entered into fresh lease deed dt.26.10.2018 for a period of 11 months commencing from 26-10-2018. The plaintiff further averred that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.17.02.2020 to the 1st defendant to vacate, quit, leave and surrender vacant possession of the schedule property by the end of 7th March, 2020 and the same was received by 1st defendant on 24.02.2020 but the defendant neither issued any reply notice nor vacate the schedule property.

The plaintiff further averred that she issued a legal notice on 17.02.2020 to 1st defendant to vacate the suit schedule property by 7-03-2020 and after receiving the said legal notice dt.17.02.2020, filed a suit in O.S.328/2020 on the file of Hon’ble III

Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Visakhapatnam against the plaintiff and

obtained exparte interim orders in respect of the plaint schedule property and the said suit is filed as counter blast to the legal notice dt.17.02.2020. Hence, the suit.

03.On the other hand, the defendant filed his written statement denying most of the allegations in the plaint. The defendant further averred that he is proprietor of photo studio in the name and style of “Universal Digital Photo Studio” and running business before the lease agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendant.

The defendant further averred that the schedule property actually is a garage where the defendant with his partner by name K.Veerayya entered into lease agreement with the plaintiff’s husband during his life time on 15.12.2006, since then, the defendant running his business and enjoying the possession of schedule property without any interruption. The defendant further averred that after demisal of plaintiff’s husband, the plaintiff requested a fresh lease agreement from the defendant, as such, both plaintiff and defendant entered into a fresh lease agreement on 26.11.2018 for 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.6,325/-. The defendant further averred that immediately after expiry of lease agreement i.e.

O.S.No.382/2020 Dt.21.11.2023 3 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

October, 2019, the plaintiff started demanding the defendant to vacate the schedule property and the defendant requested the plaintiff to extend the lease agreement for further several months and the same is agreed by the plaintiff and extended the lease agreement orally by increasing monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-. The defendant further averred that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.17.02.2020 to the defendant to vacate and surrender the vacant possession of schedule property with all false and frivolous allegations. The defendant further averred that he requested the plaintiff for three months time to vacate the schedule property but the plaintiff refused the same and warned to vacate on or before 07.03.2020 and also the plaintiff affixed the legal notice copy at the entrance of defendant’s shop for causing loss of reputation to defendant. The defendant further averred that he filed a suit in O.S.328/2020 before the Hon’ble III Additional Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Visakhapatnam and the Hon’ble Court was granted temporary injunction in favour of defendant. Hence prayed the Hon’ble court to dismiss the suit with costs.

04.Basing on the above pleadings as there was no elements of settlement this

Court has framed the following issues for the purpose of trial :-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant and for vacant possession of the suit schedule property, as prayed for ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree, as prayed for ?

3) To what relief?

05.During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. Ex.A1 is Office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant along with postal receipts dt.17.02.2020. Ex.A2 is Online Downloaded copy of Track Consignment dt.24.02.2020. Ex.A3 is Served copy of plaint in

O.S.328/2020 on the file of III AJCJ Court. On the other hand, the defendant did not

adduce his side evidence in spite of sufficient time and opportunity. As seen ;from the record and memo filed by the counsel for plaintiff, the defendant has not complied the orders of this court under order 15-A of C.P.C. in I.A.154/2020

dt. 05.01.2022, hence, the defence of the defendant is struck off under section 15-A

of C.P.C.

06. Heard the arguments on plaintiff side counsel. As per the docket order dt.14.11.2023, the defence of the defendants 2 and 3 was already strike off under

O.S.No.382/2020 Dt.21.11.2023 4 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

order 15-A of C.P.C. and I.A.154/2020 dt. 05.01.2022. Hence, defendants 2 and 3 side arguments treated as nil and closed.

07.ISSUES No.1 AND 2 :

On perusal of the material on record, initially, the suit was filed by the plaintiff as landlord against the sole defendant/ D1. As seen from the docket orders, during the pendency of this suit, the sole defendant/ tenant/ D1 was died and accordingly, defendants no.2 and 3 being the legal representatives of the deceased defendant no.1 were added as per the orders in I.A.1587/2022 dt. 17.03.2023. Further, as per record, defendant no.3 being the minor represented by defendant no.2 natural mother/ guardian as per orders in I.A.1584/2022. Thereafter, the plaintiff carried out the consequential amendments and filed the neat copy of the plaint. After receipt of summons by defendants No.2 and 3, they represented through their counsel by name B.S.S.T.S. Further, as per the docket orders dt.23.06.2023, defendants no. 2 and 3 did not file any additional written statement in spite of sufficient time and opportunity and thereby, the additional written statement of defendants no.2 and 3 was treated as nil and closed and posted the matter for trial.

08.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and deposed that he is absolute owner of the plaint schedule shop and he let out the same to the defendant no.1 on 26.10.2018 on monthly rent of Rs.6,325/- under an unregistered lease deed dt. 26.10.2018. PW1 further deposed that the deceased/ tenant/ defendant no. 1 has opened a Studio in the name and style of

Universal Digital Studio in that schedule property and subsequently, defendant no.1 passed away on 13.06.2022 and thereafter, the defendants no. 2 and 3 being his wife and son have succeeded the estate of defendant no.1. PW1 further submitted that the lease entered between her and the deceased defendant no. 1/ under an unregistered lease deed for eleven months only and thereafter, the lease was on month to month basis. PW1 further deposed that the defendant no.1 was chronic defaulter in payment of monthly rents and he is in unauthorized possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since October, 2019. PW1 further deposed that after the defendant no.1, defendants no.2 and 3 also did not pay the rents of schedule property to her and continued unauthorized use in possession of the schedule property without having any manner of right and did not vacate the same.

O.S.No.382/2020 Dt.21.11.2023 5 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

PW1 further deposed that on 17.02.2020, she got issued a legal notice to the defendant no. 1 to vacate and hand over the schedule property and the same was duly served on the deceased defendant no.1, but they failed to do so. Ex.A1 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 along with postal receipts dt.17.02.2020. Ex.A2 is Online Downloaded copy of Track

Consignment dt.24.02.2020. PW1 further deposed that after issuance of Ex.A1/legal notice, the 1st defendant without vacating the schedule property and filed a suit in

O.S.328/2020 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam

and obtained exparte interim injunction orders against her. Ex.A3 is Served copy of plaint in O.S.328/2020 on the file of III AJCJ Court for permanent injunction. PW1 further deposed that after filing of said suit was only a counter blast to the claim of the plaintiff and she has been contested the said suit. Hence, she filed the present suit praying the Hon’ble Court to evict and hand over the schedule property from defendants no. 2 and 3 in her favour and for damages as prayed for.

09.The learned counsel for defendants no. 2 and 3 cross examined PW1 at length. In the cross examination, PW1 admitted that she inherited the plaint schedule property after the death of her husband and she is a wife and not doing any business and she is in the protection of her sons. PW1 denied the suggestion that the original unregistered lease deed dt. 26.10.2018 is with her and she voluntarily deposed that the said lease deed was in the custody of defendant no.1.

PW1 denied the suggestion that Ex.A1/legal notice is not in accordance with the law.

PW1 denied the suggestion that she has no habit of issuance of rent receipts and defendants no.2 and 3 have been paying their rents regularly by way of cash. PW1 also denied the suggestion that she tried to evict the defendants by force. On consideration of the above line and length of the cross examination of defendants no. 2 and 3 counsel, it appears that they required the schedule property for their livelihood and the same is not required by the plaintiff for her personal use. The said cross examination is of no use in the present case as it is not a case under the tenancy Act. The present case is specifically filed before a civil court for eviction into the C.P.C. Further more, defendants no.2 and 3 did not deny their continuation in the schedule property being the tenants without having any continuation of lease agreement after the death of defendant no.1. So, it is not in dispute that the

O.S.No.382/2020 Dt.21.11.2023 6 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

defendants 2 and 3 have been continuing in the schedule property being the tenants-at-sufferance only and they have no written lease or oral lease with the plaintiff. Though, the defendant put a suggestion that the plaintiff trying to evict by force, the same was denied by the plaintiff and the defendant did not adduce any evidence to prove the alleged forcible action of the plaintiff. Moreover, when the plaintiff has filed the present suit for eviction, the question of forceful eviction does not arise. Why because, if really, the plaintiff has such an intention to evict the defendants by force, she ought not to have filed the present suit for eviction. In addition to that, even according to the own case of the defendants, they have already filed a suit for permanent injunction and obtained injunction orders therein.

Therefore, on consideration of the above cross examination of PW1, it is crystal clear that the defendants no.2 and 3 did not elicit anything material from the cross examination of PW1 to discard her chief examination and thereby, the evidence of

PW1 is unshaken and trustworthy and supports and proves the case of the plaintiff.

10.Further more, on perusal of the docket orders coupled with material on record, the plaintiff has filed I.A.154/2020 under order 15-A of C.P.C. and the same was allowed by this court on 05.01.2022 by directing the defendants no. 2 and 3 to deposit the monthly rents of Rs.10,000/- per month regularly on or before every succeeding months till disposal of main suit, but as per the docket order dt.

03.10.2023, the plaintiff filed a memo and the court also found that the defendants no. 2 and 3 herein have not complied the orders of this court under order 15-A of

C.P.C. in I.A.154/2020 dt. 05.01.2022 and failed to deposit the rents before the court as ordered. Therefore, as per the docket order dt.03.10.2023, the defence of the defendants no. 2 and 3 was struck off under order 15-A of C.P.C. as the defendants failed to comply the orders. Thus, there is no defence at all on record for defendants no. 2 and 3.

11.As seen from the docket orders, this court has granted time to the defendants no. 2 and 3 for arguments from 16.10.2023, 19.10.2023 to 14.11.2023, but the defendants no. 2 and 3 counsel did not adduce their side arguments in spite of sufficient time and opportunity. As such, the arguments of defendants no. 2 and 3 treated as nil and closed as per the docket orders dt.14.11.2023.

O.S.No.382/2020 Dt.21.11.2023 7 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

12.On thorough consideration of the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1/legal notice, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff landlord has issued a notice under section 106 of T.P. Act by giving 15 days time to the defendants no. 2 and 3 to vacate and hand over the schedule property and the same was duly served on the defendants no. 2 and 3 vide Ex.A2/ copy of track consignment. Further more, on consideration of the evidence of PW1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff has complied all the requirements under section 106 of T.P. Act. But, the defendants no. 2 and 3 did not vacate and hand over the schedule property in spite of sufficient time and opportunity. Further more, defence of the defendants no. 2 and 3 was already strike off under order 15-A of C.P.C. as per record. Thus, there is no defence on record for defendants no. 2 and 3 except the cross examination of

PW1. As discussed above, the evidence of PW1 is unshaken in spite of thorough cross examination and nothing material was elicited by the defendants no. 2 and 3 to discard the evidence of PW1. Further more, as per the record and evidence on record, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is landlord and defendants no. 2 and 3 are the tenants in that schedule property. Moreover, even according to the cross examination of PW1 by defendants no. 2 and 3 counsel, they did not establish that there is an oral lease between them and thereby, the continuation of the defendants no. 2 and 3 in the schedule property after the demise of defendant no.1 being his L.Rs is nothing but of tenants-at-sufferance. The position of a tenants-at- sufferance according to law is a little bit above the trespasser and below the legal tenant. Therefore, the defendants no. 2 and 3 cannot get any protection under the law being the tenants-at-sufferance. In addition to that, the plaintiff has complied the provisions of section 106 of T.P.Act against the defendants no. 2 and 3 by issuing

Ex.A1/notice to defendants no. 2 and 3 to vacate and hand over the schedule property to the plaintiff as required under the law. Though, defendants no. 2 and 3 took a plea that they have been paying the rents regularly by way of cash but they did not adduce any evidence to prove the same when the plaintiff has specifically denied the same. As seen from the plaint, the plaintiff sought for eviction of the defendants and also sought for the relief of damages, but on perusal of the plaint and material on record, the plaintiff did not pay any court fee for the said damages and also did not adduce any specific evidence to decide the issue of damages or

O.S.No.382/2020 Dt.21.11.2023 8 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

mesne profits in this case at this juncture. Therefore, the plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate application for mesne profits/ damages if any, by paying requisite court fee in accordance with law.

13. As seen from Ex.A3/served copy of plaint in O.S.328/2020, it primafacie shows that the defendants have filed a suit for permanent injunction, but the same is not at a ground to deny the relief of eviction to the plaintiff/landlord. Why because, even if, any permanent injunction was granted by the court of law in

O.S.328/2020, the same is always subject to eviction of the defendants herein being

the plaintiffs therein under due process of law only. Moreover, a tenant cannot become a owner in spite of continuing of possession of the property in any number of arrears, as it is permissivepossession only. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff by examining himself as PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A3/documentary evidence categorically proved his case that the defendants no. 2 and 3 have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without any manner of right or any existing lease and thereby,the plaintiff is certainly entitled for eviction of defendants no. 2 and 3 from the schedule property and for delivery of eviction possession in his favour, as prayed for. Accordingly, these issues no. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 2 and 3.

14. ISSUE No.3:

3) If so, to what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.2 and 3 by directing the defendants no. 2 and 3 to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same through process of law.

Further, it is made clear that the plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate application for mesne profits/ damages, if any, in accordance with law.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me in

open court, this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Sd/- Sri S.Siva Sankar Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

O.S.No.382/2020 Dt.21.11.2023 9 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW1 : Chelamkuri Pannagaveni Closed

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant along with postal receipts dt.17.02.2020.

Ex.A2 : Online Downloaded copy of Track Consignment dt.24.02.2020.

Ex.A3 : Served copy of plaint in O.S.328/2020 on the file of III AJCJ Court.

For Defendants:

--NIL--

Sd/- Sri S.Siva Sankar Reddy,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

O.S.No.382/2020 Dt.21.11.2023 10 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

Date of Presentation : 12.03.2020; Date of Filing :17.03.2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL J`UDGE CUM METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : SRI S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam Tuesday, this the 21st day of November, 2023

Original Suit No.382 of 2020 Between: Chelamkuri Pannagaveni, W/o. Late Dr.C.V.Krishna Rao, Hindu, female, aged about 85 years, residing at D.No.54/13/8, main road, Opp R&B, Superintendent Engineers Qtrs, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintiff. And:

1. Lovadora Shiddireddy (died).

2. Siddireddy Saraswathi, W/o. Late Lovadora Siddireddy, Hindu, female, age 33 years, residing at D.No.54/13/8, Main Road, Opp. R & B Superintendent Engineers Qtrs, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

3. Siddireddy Satya Satvika (minor), d/o. Late Lovadora Siddireddy, Hindu, female, age 12 years, residing at D.No.54/13/8, main road, Opp. R & B Superintendent Engineers Qtrs, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

(being minor represented by her mother and natural guardian Siddireddy Saraswathi, W/o. Late Lovadora Siddireddy)

Note: The case against defendant no.1 is abated as he died.

Note: The defendants 2 and 3 were added as per orders in I.A.1587/2022

dt.17.03.2023. … Defendants

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants no.2 and 3 for directing them to quit, vacate, leave and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff or nominee of the plaintiff withing the time to be stipulated by the Hon’ble Court, failing which, the plaintiff shall be given a liberty to recover possession of plaint schedule property through process of law at the cost and expenses of the defendant and for directing the 2nd and 3rd defendants to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the schedule property from the date of suit till the date of handing over of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee for being eviction valued at Rs.6,325/- (being renal valued schedule property) Rs.75,900/- and court fee of Rs.2,946/- is paid u/sec. 40 (d) and Sec.20 Article – I (b & c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

This Suit is coming on 14.11.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.N.Srinivas, the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri B.S.S.T.Srinivas, the learned Advocate for the Defendants 2 and 3, the case against defendant no.1 is abated as he died; upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows::-

O.S.No.382/2020 Dt.21.11.2023 11 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

1)that the suit be and same is hereby decreed with costs.

2)that the defendants no. 2 and 3 be and the same is hereby directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same through process of law; and

3)that the plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate application for mesne profits/ damages, if any, in accordance with law; and

4)that the defendants no. 2 and 3 do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,914- 00 (Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen Only) towards costs of the suit. (The plaint schedule copy is hereby attached to the Decree)

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Sd/- S. Siva Sankar Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: No costs memo filed Stamp on Vakalat: Rs. 2-00 C.F. on Plaint: Rs. 2,946-00 Advocate fee : Rs. 3,977-00 Jr. Advocate fee: Rs. 1,989-00 --------------------- Costs Allowed : Rs. 8,914 -00 --------------------

Sd/- S. Siva Sankar Reddy,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits, which they may wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

O.S.No.500/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 1 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : SRI S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

Tuesday, this the 21st day of November, 2023

Original Suit No.500 of 2022 Between: Chapara Swapnasri, W/o. R.Durga Prasad, Residing at 124, Brisa-bend-way, Round Rock, Texas – 78681, represented by her Power of Attorney Holder Sri Chapara Vijaya Rao, S/o. Late Appa Rao, aged 66 years, Residing at D.No.39-33-77/1/4, Nimish Vihar, Madhavara, VUDA Layout, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintiff.

And: Dharmapuri Thirumala Venkata Narasimha Swamy, S/o. Dharmapuri Ramanujacharyulu, Hindu, aged 56 years, Residing at D.No.39-14-18/SF, Ward No.39, Zone V, Flat no.301, Pujari Dalappa Towers, Besides ICICI Bank, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam – 530007. … Defendant

This Suit is coming on 20.11.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Srinivas, the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri B.K.Satyanarayana, the learned Advocate for the Defendant; upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant to direct him to vacate the schedule premises within a time to be fixed by the Hon’ble Court and to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff and on his failure to do so grant liberty to the plaintiff to take possession through court and for recovery of

Rs.15,000/- towards rental arrears with subsequent interest at 18% per annum and for future damages as per section 23 of Andhra Pradesh Residential and non

Residential premises Tenancy Act and for costs of the suit.

02.The brief plaint averments of the plaintiff is that, the plaintiff is the owner of

Flat No.301, 2nd Floor and car parking in Stilt Floor in the Apartments named “PUJARI

DALAPPA TOWERS” situated in survey no.57/1A2, Marripalem. The plaintiff further averred that as the plaintiff is away at USA right from beginning the father of the plaintiff i.e. Ch.Vijaya Rao has been looking after the affairs of the property and also he was appointed as Power of Attorney Holder by the plaintiff vide dt.18.01.2019.

The plaintiff further averred that the defendant approached Vijaya Rao/father of plaintiff and requested him to lease out the schedule property and the same was accepted by the said Vijaya Rao and let out the Flat to defendant w.e.f. 01.04.2017

O.S.No.500/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 2 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

on behalf of plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.9000/- and there shall be increase of

Rs.500/- every year and enhanced the same per year from time to time.

The plaintiff further averred that the defendant did not pay the enhanced rent of Rs.10,500/- from 01.04.2020, but paying only Rs.10,000/- and that during

February, 2019, the said Vijaya Rao requested the defendant to vacate the property, but the defendant failed to vacate the property. The plaintiff further averred that the defendant got issued a lawyer’s notice dt.22.12.2020 and then, the plaintiff got issued a reply notice dt.01.02.2021. The plaintiff further averred that the defendant did not vacate the property and failed to pay the rents properly. The plaintiff further averred that the defendant issued a reply lawyer’s notice dt.09.07.2021 making some false allegations that he spent Rs.1,00,000/- etc., on the property. The plaintiff further averred that the defendant has to Rs.10,500/- per month from 01.04.2021, the defendant has to pay Rs.11,000/- p.m and from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.221, the total rent payable is Rs.1,26,000/- and from 01.04.2021 till 31.12.2021 i.e. 9 months, the total rent payable is Rs.99,000/- in toto Rs.2,25,000/- but the defendant paid only Rs.2,10,000/- during the period leaving a balance of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, the suit.

04.On the other hand, the defendant filed his written statement denying most of the allegations in the plaint. The defendant further averred that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the premises where the defendant is residing as a tenant on monthly rental basis and GPA holder is the father of plaintiff. The defendant further averred that he was inducted as a tenant on 1st April, 2017 on a monthly rent of

Rs.9,000/- and has to be paid on or before 16th of every month. The defendant further averred that the plaintiff engaged some goondas and rowdies comprising of 3 men sent them to defendant’s house and they forcefully entered into his residence unlawfully and threatened and abused his wife and parents using unparliamentary language. The defendant further averred that the same were informed to the plaintiff and her father GPA holder vide regd. Legal notice dt.22.12.2020 and the same was returned unclaimed. The defendant further averred that the plaintiff got issued a reply on 01.02.2021 with all frivolous allegations. The defendant further averred that on 25.06.2021, the plaintiff got

O.S.No.500/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 3 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

issued a legal notice demanding to vacate the premises immediately and the defendant also gave a reply to the counsel for the plaintiff on 09.07.2021.

The defendant further averred that the defendant wantonly paid to pay

Rs.500/- hike on existing rent from April, 2020 to March, 2021 and the plaintiff failed to attend the repairs due to pest and also demanding the defendant to pay

Rs.15,000/- per month. The defendant further averred that the defendant has been paying maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to the association but the association failed to issue receipt for the same. The defendant further averred that The defendant further averred that the plaintiff also liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant as the plaintiff failed to make any attempts to change the cupboards, which the defendant was forced to purchase the iron biruva. Hence prayed the

Hon’ble court to dismiss the suit with costs.

05.Basing on the above pleadings as there was no elements of settlement this

Court has framed the following issues for the purpose of trial :-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant and for delivery of the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, as prayed for ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.15,000/- towards rental arrears with subsequent interest @ 18 % p.a. from the defendant, as prayed for ?

3) To what relief?

06.During the course of trial, the GPA holder of plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is Office copy of registered legal notice got issued by the GPA holder of the plaintiff to the defendant dt.25.06.2021. Ex.A2 is

Reply legal notice got issued by the defendant dt.09.07.2021 to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the sole defendant himself was examined as DW1 but no documents are marked on his behalf.

07. Heard the arguments on both the side counsels. Perused the material and evidence on record.

08.ISSUES No.1 AND 2 :

In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the GPA holder of the plaintiff by name Ch.Vijaya Rao examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are marked. As seen from the evidence of PW1, the plaintiff by name R.Swapna Sri is the original owner of the plaint schedule property i.e. Flat No.301, 2nd floor along with Car parking in

O.S.No.500/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 4 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

“PUJARI DALAPPA TOWERS” in Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. PW1 further deposed that as the plaintiff is residing at USA, he was appointed as GPA holder by the plaintiff vide dt.18.01.2019 and he has been looking after the affairs of the schedule property. PW1 further deposed that the defendant approached him and requested to lease out the schedule property during the month of March, 2017 and accordingly, he let out the schedule flat to the defendant on lease at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month, which can be increased Rs.500/- per month every year w.e.f. 01.04.2017.

PW1 further deposed that from 01.04.2020, the rent will be of Rs.10,500/- per month. PW1 further deposed that after 01.04.2020, the defendant paid only

Rs.10,000/- in stead of Rs.10,500/- and also irregular in payment of rent. PW1 further deposed that during February, 2019, he requested the defendant to vacate and hand over the schedule property as the parents -in-law of the plaintiff are coming to Visakhapatnam for treatment, but the defendant failed to vacate and hand over the schedule property. As such, he represented several times, but the defendant did not vacate the schedule property. PW1 further deposed that on 22.12.2020, the defendant got issued a legal notice with all false allegations claiming that he threatened him with Goondas, for which, he also got issued a reply notice on 01.02.2021 by denying all the false allegations and demanding him to vacate and hand over the schedule property. PW1 further deposed that subsequently also, the defendant did not pay the rent regularly and also did not pay the enhance the rent Rs.11,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and thereby, he got issued a legal notice on 25.06.2021, by demanding the defendant to vacate the schedule property and to pay the arrears of rent, but the defendant gave a reply notice with all false allegations. Ex.A1 is office copy of legal notice dt.25.06.2021 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A2 is reply notice dt. 09.07.2021 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. PW1 further deposed that as the defendant committed default in payment of rent and did not vacate the schedule property in spite of his repeated demands and legal notice, he constrained to file this suit for eviction of the defendant and prays to decree the suit.

09.The learned counsel for the defendant cross examined PW1 at length, but nothing useful was elicited to discard the chief examination of PW1. In the cross examination, PW1 admitted that the original owner/ plaintiff herein is his daughter

O.S.No.500/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 5 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

and he is the GPA holder on her behalf. PW1 admitted in the cross examination that in the year 2020, the defendant requested him to get repairs to the cupboards and they were damaged due to pest. But, PW1 voluntarily deposed that he did not affect the said repairs as by that time, he already demanded the defendant to vacate the schedule property as it requires their personal use. PW1 further denied the suggestion that the defendant got repairs to the cup boards by spending his own money. In addition to the above cross examination, the defendant himself also examined as DW1 and categorically admitted in his chief examination itself that the plaintiff is the owner and he is the tenant in the schedule property, as such, there is no dispute about the jural relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant.

DW1 also deposed that pest was affected to the cup boards and windows of the schedule property, but the plaintiff did not get repairs and thereby, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief of eviction. DW1 further deposed that the plaintiff sent rowdies to evict him by force and the defendant himself got repaired the cup boards and purchased almyrahs by spending one lakhs including CC cameras. Thus, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit. Whereas, in the cross examination of DW1, he denied the suggestion that he did not spent any amount for installation of CC cameras and repairs as alleged in his chief examination.

10.Having considered the evidence on both sides, this court is of the opinion that the evidence of DW1 that he affected the repairs and spent one lakh is not at all tenable. Why because, PW1 has vehemently denied the alleged repairs and also

DW1 did not produce any receipt or any proof about the spending of one lakh for getting repairs to the schedule property. Moreover admittedly, the plaintiff did not grant any permission to the defendant to affect any such repairs, as by the date itself he demanded the defendant to vacate the schedule property. Therefore, even if, for argument sake, the defendant has affected any repairs and installed CC cameras without any permission from the plaintiff, the defendant is not entitled to seek the said amount from the plaintiff. Moreover, affecting of repairs by the defendant is not at all a ground under the law not to vacate the schedule property by a tenant. Therefore, the evidence of DW1 is no way helpful to disbelieve the suit claim and also nothing was elicited in the cross examination of PW1 to disbelieve his case.

O.S.No.500/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 6 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

11.Further more, the plaintiff sought the relief of recovery of Rs.15,000/- being the arrears of rent along with subsequent interest from the plaintiff and in this regard issue no.2 was also framed by this court. As seen from the evidence of PW1, he deposed in the chief examination that, the defendant is irregular in payment of rent and fell due of Rs.15,000/- of arrears as on the date of filing of this suit, but, surprisingly, in the cross examination of PW1, he categorically admitted that as on today i.e. 04.09.2023, there are no arrears of rents from the defendant to the plaintiff. In view of the said admission of the PW1, the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of recovery of Rs.15,000/- from the defendant towards arrears of the rent and in that regard, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, issue no.2 is answered in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.

12.Apart from the above, the very contention of the plaintiff through the evidence of PW1 is that the defendant did not vacate and hand over the schedule property in spite of their repeated oral demands and issuance of legal notice vide

Ex.A1. Further as per the evidence of PW1, the defendant has also got issued reply notice vide Ex.A2 with all false allegations. Moreover, in the paragraph no. (t) of the written statement of defendant, he categorically admitted that he is ready to vacate the premises if the Hon’ble Court permits the defendant to stay in the premises for few months. On perusal of the material on record and also cross examination of

PW1, it is an admitted fact that the lease between the parties is oral lease only. So, as per Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, the oral lease in respect of a house hold property can be terminated by the landlord or tenant by issuing a prior notice of 15 days is sufficient. In the instant caste, on perusal of Ex./A1/legal notice, the plaintiff has complied all the ingredients of section 106 of T.P. Act and issued the said notice demanding the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Ex.A1 is dt. 25.06.2021. Further more, the same was also duly served on the defendant through post, for which, the defendant also got issued a reply notice vide Ex.A2/09.07.2021 claiming that the defendant is ready to vacate the schedule property if six months time is granted to him. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2/notices, it is crystal clear that the

O.S.No.500/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 7 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

plaintiff has complied the provisions of under section 106 of T.P. Act and also the defendant did

O.S.No.500/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 8 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

not vacate and hand over the schedule property in spite of lapse of statutory period of 15 days and also even after lapse of the period of six months as requested by the defendant. Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that the defendant is intentionally deposing falsehood and trying to continue in the schedule property without having any right or authority in spite of demand of the plaintiff to vacate the same. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that as per the above discussion the plaintiff is able to prove his case that the defendant being the tenant- at-sufferance has not been vacating the schedule property without any valid ground and thereby, the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant and for delivery of the vacant possession of the schedule property in his favour. As such, the issue no.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

13. ISSUE No.3:

3) If so, to what relief?

As issue no.2 was holds in favour of the defendant against the plaintiff by holding that the defendant has no arrears of rent as admitted by the PW1 and thereby, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover an amount of Rs.15,000/- being arrears of rent from the defendant and in this regard, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Whereas, the issue no.1 was answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by holding that the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant and for delivery of the vacant possession of the schedule property in his favour and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed in part in this regard.

14. In the result, the suit is decreed in part with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by directing the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same through process of law.

Further, it is made clear that the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the remaining reliefs is hereby dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Sd/- S. Siva Sankar Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

O.S.No.500/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 9 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW1 : Chapara Vijaya Rao DW1: Dharmapuri Thirumala Venkata Narasimha Swamy

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Office copy of registered legal notice got issued by the GPA holder of the plaintiff to the defendant dt.25.06.2021.

Ex.A2 : Reply legal notice got issued by the defendant dt.09.07.2021 to the plaintiff.

For Defendant:

--NIL--

Sd/- S. Siva Sankar Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

O.S.No.500/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 10 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

Date of Presentation : 30.03.2022; Date of Filing :18.04.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL J`UDGE CUM METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : SRI S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam Tuesday, this the 21st day of November, 2023

Original Suit No.500 of 2022 Between: Chapara Swapnasri, W/o. R.Durga Prasad, Residing at 124, Brisa-bend-way, Round Rock, Texas – 78681, represented by her Power of Attorney Holder Sri Chapara Vijaya Rao, S/o. Late Appa Rao, aged 66 years, Residing at D.No.39-33-77/1/4, Nimish Vihar, Madhavara, VUDA Layout, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintiff.

And: Dharmapuri Thirumala Venkata Narasimha Swamy, S/o. Dharmapuri Ramanujacharyulu, Hindu, aged 56 years, Residing at D.No.39-14-18/SF, Ward No.39, Zone V, Flat no.301, Pujari Dalappa Towers, Besides ICICI Bank, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam – 530007. … Defendant

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant to direct him to vacate the schedule premises within a time to be fixed by the Hon’ble Court and to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff and on his failure to do so grant liberty to the plaintiff to take possession through court and for recovery of Rs.15,000/- towards rental arrears with subsequent interest at 18% per annum and for future damages as per section 23 of Andhra Pradesh Residential and non Residential premises Tenancy Act and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for eviction is Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.11,000/-x12) and a court fee is Rs.3,826/- is paid thereon u/sec.40 Sch. I Art. 1 (b & c) of APCF and SV Act. Value of the suit for arrears of rent is Rs.15,000/- and a court fee of Rs.1,086/- is paid thereon u/sec.20 sch.I Art. (b& c) of APCF and SV Act. Total Value of the suit is Rs.1,47,000/- Total CF paid is Rs.4,912/-.

This Suit is coming on 20.11.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Srinivas, the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri B.K.Satyanarayana, the learned Advocate for the Defendant; upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows::-

1)that the suit be and same is hereby decreed in part with costs.

O.S.No.500/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 11 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

2)that the defendant be and the same is hereby directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same through process of law; and

3)that the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the remaining reliefs is hereby dismissed; and

4)that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.11,325-00 (Rupees Eleven Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Five Only) towards costs of the suit. (The plaint schedule copy is hereby attached to the Decree)

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Sd/- S. Siva Sankar Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: No costs memo filed Stamp on Vakalat: Rs. 2-00 C.F. on Plaint: Rs. 4,912-00 Stamp on Petition: Rs. 1-00 Process fee: Rs. 300-00 Advocate fee : Rs. 6,110-00 --------------------- Costs Allowed : Rs. 11,325-00 --------------------

Sd/- S. Siva Sankar Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits, which they may wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

O.S.No.695/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 1 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : SRI S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

Tuesday this the 21st day of November, 2023 Original Suit No.695 of 2022 Between: Pakala Naga Satyaveni, W/o. P.Pothuraju, Hindu, aged 47 years, Residing at D.No.18- 42-6, Kotha Salipeta, Near Community Hall, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam – 530002. .…Plaintiff.

And: Mondeti Krishnaveni, W/o. M.Ramesh, Hindu, aged 39 years, Residing at D.No.18-34- 26, Thadi Veedhi, K.G.H. Down, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam – 530002.

...Defendant.

This Suit is coming on 17.11.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.P.Mohanty, the learned Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri V.Santosh Kumar, the learned Advocate for the Defendant; upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

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

01.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant to pass a Judgment and decree for the recovery of the suit amount of Rs.13,60,800-00 (Rupees Thirteen

Lakhs Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred Only) from the defendant being the principal and interest due under promissory note for Rs.12,00,000/- dated:27.10.2021 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., on the principal amount from the date of suit, till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

02.The brief plaint averments of the plaintiff are that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.10.2021 and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum. The plaintiff further averred that subsequently, in spite of repeated demands and requests, the defendant did not pay either principal or interest due under the suit promissory note and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. As such, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount.

O.S.No.695/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 2 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

03.On the other hand, the defendant filed his written statement denying most of plaint contents and further averred that, she never borrowed the amount of

Rs.12,00,000/- and attestors and scribe are not known to the defendant. The defendant further averred that he borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff nearly 8 years ago and at that time, the plaintiff had taken a blank promissory note and the said debt was already cleared to the plaintiff. The defendant further averred that he requested to return the blank promissory note but the plaintiff used postponed the same. The defendant further averred that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend huge amount. The defendant therefore, prays the

Honourable Court to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues are settled for trial :-

1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 27.10.2021 for Rs.12,00,000/- is a rank forged document as pleaded by the defendant ?

2) Whether the suit promissory note dt.27.10.2021 for Rs.12,00,000/- is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for ?

4) if so, to what relief?

05.During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is Original Promissory note dt.27.10.2021 for an amount of

Rs.12,00,000/- executed by the sole defendant in favour of the plaintiff so also examined the attestor of suit promissory note as PW2 to support her case. On the other hand, the defendant herself was examined as DW1 and no documents are marked on behalf of defendant and also examined her husband as DW2 to support the case of the defendant.

06. Heard the arguments on both the sides. Perused the material available on record.

07.ISSUES No.1 and 2:

1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 27.10.2021 for Rs.12,00,000/- is a rank forged document as pleaded by the defendant ?

2) Whether the suit promissory note dt.27.10.2021 for Rs.12,00,000/- is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

O.S.No.695/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 3 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself was examined as PW1 and reiterating her plaint contents in her chief examination affidavit and also got marked the suit promissory note as Ex.A1. The plaintiff also examined the sole attestor of suit promissory note as PW2 to support her case. PWs. 1 and 2 in one voice deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.10.2021 and executed the suit promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum. Ex.A1 is original promissory note dt.27.10.2021 for Rs.12,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. PW2 further deposed that as he witnessed the transaction, he attested Ex.A1/promissory note and one Mantri Sankar Rao was acted as scribe.

PW1 further deposed that subsequently, in spite of her repeated demands and requests, the defendant did not pay the debt due under Ex.A1/promissory note and thereby, she constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the suit claim and prays to decree the suit with costs.

08.The learned counsel for defendant cross examined Pws.1 and 2 at length, but nothing material was elicited to discard their chief examinations. In the cross examination, Pws.1 and 2 denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend the amount under Ex.A1/promissory note. Pws.1 and 2 also denied the suggestion that Ex.A1/promissory note was forged and fabricated in collusion with the scribe and attestor. PW1 further specifically denied the suggestion that about eight years back, the defendant borrowed and discharged some amount and at that time, the plaintiff obtained blank pronote and did not return the same to the defendant. On consideration of the cross examination of Pws.1 and 2, it is full of denial suggestions only. It is settled principal of law that mere denial suggestions does not amount evidence and the same were no way helpful to qthe case of the parties. Apart from that, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is unshaken in spite of thorough cross examination and the same are supports and corroborates the case of the plaintiff. Further more, in the cross examination itself PW1 deposed that he lent the amount covered under Ex.A1/promissory note to the defendant out of her savings in the business and by pledging the gold ornaments. In addition to that,

PW2 who is the an independent witness/attestor categorically deposed in the cross

O.S.No.695/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 4 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

examination also that the consideration under Ex.A1/promissory note was passed by way of cash of Rs.500/- currency notes denomination in his presence to the defendant. Thus, the evidence of PW1 categorically supported and corroborated by the independent evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A1/promissory note clinchingly proves the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed and executed

Ex.A1/promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

09.As the defendant took a specific plea of defence in her written statement that

Ex.A1/suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the defendant as per Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act by adducing cogent evidence to prove the same. In this regard, the defendant examined herself as DW1 and also examined her husband as DW2 but no documents are marked on behalf of the defendant. As seen from the evidence of

Dws.1 and 2, she never borrowed Rs.12,00,000/- and never executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff. D.Ws.1 and 2 further deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff nearly eight years back and at that time, the plaintiff obtained a blank signed promissory note from the defendant, but did not return the same in spite of discharge of the said

Rs.2,00,000/-. DW1 further deposed that the said blank signed pronote of the defendant was fabricated as Ex.A1 and filed this suit for wrongful gain. Whereas in the cross examination of DW2, he categorically admitted that DW1 is his wife and they never gave any notice to the plaintiff demanding for return of their blank signed promissory note. Dws.1 and 2 further admitted in their cross examination that they never gave any police report against the plaintiff for non return of their blank signed promissory note in spite of discharging of the alleged debt of

Rs.2,00,000/- as mentioned in their chief affidavits. The said admissions of Dws.1 and 2 that they never gave any police report and they never issued any legal notice to the plaintiff for return of the alleged blank signed pronote from the plaintiff clearly goes to prove that they are not speaking the truth and they have taken a sham and nominal plea of defence only to over come the suit claim. Why because, it is a common prudence that no prudent man will kept quite without taking back his blank signed pronote after discharging of the alleged debt. Further, it is a prudent

O.S.No.695/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 5 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

anticipation by a common man that atleast an acknowledgment or receipt has to be obtained from the plaintiff after the alleged discharge of debt. Moreover, Dws.1 and 2 did not whisper on what date they took the alleged debt and on what date, they discharged the same to the plaintiff about eight years back. In the absence of any such such specific dates and proof of discharge, the version of the defendant cannot be believed.

10.Further more, the defendant has also took a specific plea that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend the amount due under Ex.A1/promissory note.

Whereas, the plaintiff by examining herself as PW1 and also examining the independent witness/attestor of suit promissory note as PW2 categorically proved that after passing the consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant by way of Rs.500/- currency notes denomination, Ex.A1/promissory note was executed by the defendant. Apart from that, in the cross examination of DW1, she categorically admitted that the signature shown to her across the revenue stamp and also the left thumb impression on Ex.A1/promissory note are belongs to her. Therefore, the defendant has categorically admitted her signature and thumb mark on Ex.A1/promissory note. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled for statutory mandatory presumption under section 118 (a) of N.I. Act in her favour. As per

Sec. 118(a) of N.I. Act, unless contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the negotiable instrument/ suit promissory note is supported by consideration.

However, the said presumption is rebuttable in nature with the standard of proof of preponderance of probability. Moreover, the plaintiff rebut the same either by her in evidence or through the admissions of the plaintiff witnesses also. In the instant case, on perusal of the cross examination of PW1 and PW2, the defendant could not get elicit anything material to support her defence. Apart from that, the own admissions of DW1 and DW2 in their cross examination categorically take away their entire evidence and thereby, the evidence of DW1 and DW2 are not at all trustworthy. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the defendant has failed to rebut the presumption drawn u/sec. 118 (a) of N.I.Act is in favour of the plaintiff and the same is holds good in favour of the plaintiff and thus, Ex.A1/Suit promissory note is supported by consideration.

O.S.No.695/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 6 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

11.For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff by examining herself as PW1 and by examining the sole attestor of the suit promissory note as PW2 and by marking the documentary evidence i.e. suit promissory note/Ex.A1 on behalf of plaintiff categorically proved her case that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from her and executed Ex.A1/promissory note in her favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @24 % per annum. Though, the defendant has took the plea of fabrication of Ex.A1/Promissory note, but failed to prove the same in spite of examining as DW1 and DW2 and also failed to send the Ex.A1/Promissory note to the hand writing expert to prove her plea. Thus, the un-proved allegations of forgery and fabrication does not effect the un-shaken testimony of PW1 in any manner. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that Ex.A1/Suit Promissory Note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, issues No. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12.ISSUE No.3:

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for ?

As per the findings of this court in Issues No.1 and 2, it was held that Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Furthermore, the evidence of PW1 is that the defendant has failed to discharge the debt due under

Ex.A1 promissory note. Furthermore, it is also not the case of the defendant either in the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 or in the evidence as DW1 and DW2 that the defendant discharged the debt due under Ex.A1 promissory note. Apart from that, on perusal of the plaint coupled with Ex.A1 promissory note clearly goes to show that the plaintiff has claimed the interest at the agreed rate on the principal amount and also paid the requisite court fee. When Ex.A1 promissory note is binding on the defendant, it is for the defendant to discharge the same. As such, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant due under Ex.A1 promissory note. Accordingly, this Issue

No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

O.S.No.695/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 7 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

13. ISSUE No.4:

4) If so, To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.13,60,800-00 (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs

Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred Only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

on the principal amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Sd/- S. Siva Sankar Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff For Defendant: PW1: Palaka Naga Satyaveni DW1: Mondeti Krishnaveni

PW2: Chapa Raja DW2: Mondeti Ramesh

Documents Marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original Promissory Note dt.27.10.2021 for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- executed by the sole defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

For Defendant: --NIL--

Sd/- S. Siva Sankar Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

O.S.No.695/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 8 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

Date of Presentation : 19.05.2022; Date of Filing :19.05.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : SRI S. SIVA SANKAR REDDY Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam Tuesday this the 21st day of November, 2023 Original Suit No.695 of 2022 Between: Pakala Naga Satyaveni, W/o. P.Pothuraju, Hindu, aged 47 years, Residing at D.No.18- 42-6, Kotha Salipeta, Near Community Hall, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam – 530002. .…Plaintiff.

And: Mondeti Krishnaveni, W/o. M.Ramesh, Hindu, aged 39 years, Residing at D.No.18-34- 26, Thadi Veedhi, K.G.H. Down, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam – 530002.

...Defendant.

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant to pass a Judgment and decree for the recovery of the suit amount of Rs.13,60,800-00 (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred Only) from the defendant being the principal and interest due under promissory note for Rs.12,00,000/- dated:27.10.2021 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., on the principal amount from the date of suit, till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit is Rs.13,60,800-00 and a Court Fee of Rs.16,126-00 is paid thereon U/Sec.20, Schedule-I Article-1(b&c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

This Suit is coming on 17.11.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.P.Mohanty, the learned Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri V.Santosh Kumar, the learned Advocate for the Defendant; and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows::-

1)that the suit be and same is hereby decreed with costs.

2)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.13,60,800-00 (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred Only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 6 % p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization; and

O.S.No.695/2022 Dt.21.11.2023 9 PJCJ CUM MMC, VSP

3)that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.72,925-00 (Rupees Seventy Two Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Five Only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Sd/- S. Siva Sankar Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: No costs memo filed

C.F. on Plaint: Rs. 16,126-00 Process fee: Rs. 100-00 Advocate fee : Rs. 42,524-00 Jr. Advocate fee: Rs. 14,175-00 --------------------- Costs Allowed : Rs. 72,925-00 --------------------

Sd/- S. Siva Sankar Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits, which they may wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

In the Court of :PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

Case No. :EP/0000237/2023 SHAIK MAHAMMADALI Vs SHAIK RAHIMAN SAHEB

Date  : 23-11-2023

Business: D.Hr counsel present. Sole J.Dr remained exparte. Heard. Perused. The counsel for D.Hr submitted that R-48 attachment warrant was already served on the garnishee of J.Dr and salary is also deducting and prays to allow the EP. As seen from the docket orders and material on record, as fairly submitted by the D.Hr counsel R-48 attachment was already served and J.Dr is remained exparte. Hence, this EP is liable to allowed. Accordingly, this EP is allowed in exparte and R-48 attachment against the salary of J.Dr dt. 20-07-2023, which was affected on 02-08-2023 is hereby made absolute. Hence, EP is closed. Nature of Disposal: CLOSED Disposal Date: 23-11-2023

In the Court of :PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

Case No. :EP/0000534/2022 THADALA NAGA SAIBABU Vs NAIDU SRINIVASA RAO

Date  : 21-11-2023

Business: D.Hr counsel present and submitted that attached amounts as per order dt.16-08-2023 is received to the Court. Accordingly, this EP is closed. Nature of Disposal: CLOSED Disposal Date: 21-11-2023