Sri S. Srinivasu

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS CUM ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PILER

Present: Sri S.SRINIVASU,

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

Wednesday, this the Thirteenth (13th) day of April, 2022.

M.C.No. 5 of 2018

Between :

1. Manike Venkatalakshmi, aged 37 years, W/o Sahadevaiah,

2. Manike Divya, aged 20 years, D/o Sahadevaiah,

Both are residing at D.No.2-1051, B.C. Colony, Bhakarapeta Village and Post, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District.

....Petitioners.

And :

M. Sahadevaiah, aged 40 years, S/o Manike Yarraiah, residing at Krishnapuram, T.S. Palem Post, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District.

....Respondent.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 08/04/2022 in the presence of Sri B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy,T.Mohan,B.Seshadri learned counsels for petitioner and of Sri B.Yella Reddy, learned counsel for respondent upon perusing the material papers on record, having, stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

This petition is filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

praying to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each.

2. The brief averments contained in the petition are as follows:-

(a) The marriage of the first petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 08/10/1997 at Gandhi Nagar, Bhakarapeta Village as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. The parents of the first petitioner presented two sovereign of gold, cloths worth of Rs 10,000/- to the first Petitioner. After the marriage, the 1st petitioner joined with the respondent and lead marital life happily for three months only. Out of their wedlock, second petitioner was born to them.

(b)It is further averred in the petition is that the respondent started harassing the 1st petitioner physically and mentally and demanded to get minor gold chain and gold ring to him from her parents and respondent used to beat the 1st petitioner

AJCJ,PILER2 M.C.No.5/2018 indiscriminately,the respondent’s parents also supported him without caring the 1st petitioner.

(c)It is the further averred in the petition is that in 1998 year, the 1st petitioner gave birth to 2nd petitioner, but the respondent,his parents never visited the petitioners and the respondent neglected the petitioners and left them to their fate.

The mediations convened by one Reddeppa Reddy,Ramesh Reddy became futile. In the 2nd month of 2nd petitioner,the respondent came to house of 1st petitioner’s parents and forcibly taken away the marriage thread and openly proclaimed that the respondent would kill the first petitioner,if she rejoin in his conjugal life.

(d)It is further averred in the petition is that the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Bhakarapeta P.S. held mediation between the petitioner and the Respondent,but the

Respondent failed to take back the both the petitioners and neglected their welfare and maintenance by deserting them totally. Hence, the first petitioner along with second petitioner having no other go took the shelter of her parents house with great difficulty.

(e)It is further averred in the petition is that the 1st petitioner got information that the respondent again married and leading marital life by blessed with one child by suppressing the subsistence of his first marriage with her,which is illegal as per law.

The respondent never paid single rupee for their maintenance in these hard days, though the respondent is bound to maintain the petitioners.

(f)It is further averred in the petition is that the respondent has been working as

Driver and getting a daily income of Rs.1,000/- per day and also own agricultural land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents and getting agricultural income of Rs.2,50,000/- p.a. and bound to pay Rs.5,000/- every month to the petitioners for their maintenance. The respondent is getting monthly income Rs.30,000/-.getting agricultural income

Rs.2,50,000/- p.a, and having capacity to maintain the petitioners,but willfully refused to maintain the petitioners. Hence the petitioners prays to grant maintenance of

AJCJ,PILER3 M.C.No.5/2018

Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioners each till the life time of 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner get married .

3.(a) The respondent filed counter admitting his marriage with the first petitioner and his parentage over his daughter. The respondent categorically denied the rest of the allegations leveled against him. It is contended that the respondent is a law abiding person and living by daily cooly as agriculture labour and used to get only

Rs.150/- per day with average of 15 days in a month. The respondent’s family is having only Ac.0.50 cents in the respondent’s father name viz. M. Yerraiah and he got four sons and wife by name Garadamma and they all are entitled to share in the joint family properties and the respondent will get only less than Ac.0.12 cents towards his share. The respondent is living in the village and to cook food, one lady is staying along with him as live in relationship.

(b) It is further contended that the 1st petitioner is having landed property Ac.1.50 cents at Bhakarapet Village and two houses for her. One house is let out at the rate of

Rs.2,000/- p.m. as rent and she is working as sweeper in SVIMS Hospital for the past 15 years and used to get Rs.25,000/- as salary per month. The 1st petitioner also fixed marriage to 2nd petitioner two days back and spent considerable amount for function.

The 2nd petitioner is working as employee in Celkon shop at Chennai and get good salary and both are living happily and only to harass the respondent, the petitioners filed the present petition. Hence, he prays the Court to dismiss the above petition with costs.

4. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1,2 were examined and Ex.Ps.1, 2 are got marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined. No documents are marked on behalf of Respondent.

5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel

for the respondent. Perused the record.

AJCJ,PILER4 M.C.No.5/2018

6. Point for consideration is whether the first, second Petitioners are entitled for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month or not as prayed for?

7. Coming to the oral evidence adduced by the parties, the first petitioner herself enter into the witness box as P.w.1 and her chief-examination is by and large replica of the contents of the Petition. The father of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.2. He deposed in the similar lines of P.W.1.The respondent himself enter into the witness box as Rw..1 and his chief- examination is by and large replica of the contents of the counter.

8. In order to get maintenance, the petitioner has to prove the following aspects/points ?

1) Whether the frist petitioner is the legally wife of the respondent or not?

2) Whether the first petitioner has sufficient reason to live separately and to claim maintenance and whether there is any refusal or neglect on the part of respondent in maintaining the frist petitioner or not?

3) Whether the respondent has sufficient means to provide maintenance as prayed for?

4) Whether the frist petitioner has sufficient means to maintain herself ?

5) Whether the second Petitioner is entitiled the relief as claimed for ?

6) To what relief ?

9. POINT No.1: Whether the first petitioner is the wife of the respondent or not?

In this case it is admitted fact that the first petitioner is wife of the respondent.

The respondent as RW.1 also admitted the said fact. Since, there is no denial, it can safely be held that, the frist Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent.

Point is answered accordingly.

10.Point No.2: Whether the first petitioner has sufficient reason to live separately and to claim maintenance and whether there is refusal or neglect on the part of the respondent in maintaining the first petitioner or not ?

(a) The evidence of petitioner as P.W.1 is that her marriage with the respondent was taken place on 08-10-1997 and at the time of marriage,her parents presented two sovereign of gold jewellery and cloths worth about dowry of Rs.10,000/- and she lead happy married life for three months only, the respondent started harassing her both

AJCJ,PILER5 M.C.No.5/2018 physically and mentally, demanding her to bring minor gold chain,gold ring from her parents house and the respondent used to beat the first petitioner indiscrimintely,the parents of the respondent also supported the demands of the respondent.

(b) The main allegation pleaded by the first petitioner in her petition is that the

Respondent again got married and blessed with one male child,since then the respondent neglected them and did not look after their welfare, she has been depending on her parents for their livelihood. The respondent categorically admitted in his counter that one lady has been staying with him as Live in relation ship.

Therefore,the case of the first petitioner proved as per the admission made by the respondent in his counter. It is relevant to mention the Explanation of section 125

Cr.P.C., i.e., If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress,it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.

Thus, the evidence of the first petitioner is that she has reasonable ground to live separately to claim the maintenance. The learned counsel for the respondent cross examined the P.W.1 at length in depth touching various points but absolutely nothing was elicited to show that the petitioner has no reason to live separately to claim maintenance.

(c) The Honble Supreme Court in between Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan, reported in 1999 (6) SCC, 326 held that “Where the husband was living with another woman,it would entitle the wife to live separately and would amount to neglect or refusal to maintain her. In such circumstances,her statement that she is unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for he husband to prove otherwise.,burden lies on the husband to prove that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation or he did not neglect or refuse to maintain her.”

(d) Further, the evidence of P.W.1 categorically showing that she is having reasonable ground to live separately to claim maintenance and there is no material evidence adduced by respondent to show that the first petitioner herself left the company of the respondent with out any reason and living separately. Further, no

AJCJ,PILER6 M.C.No.5/2018 prudent woman would desert her husband and live separately and thereby became burden to her parents. Therefore, it can be safely held that the first petitioner has sufficient reason to live separately and to claim maintenance. Further, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Case of Sunitha Kachwaha Vs. Anil Kachwaha reported in AIR

(SC)-2015-0-554/AIR(SCW)-2014-0-6834/JT-2014-12-107, was pleased to held that

the proceeding under section 125 of Cr.P.C is summary in nature and taht in a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. However, the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of respondent as R.W.1 categorically establishing that the first petitioner has sufficient ground to live separately. Point is answered accordingly.

11.Point No.3:- Whether the respondent has sufficient means to provide maintenance as prayed for?

The evidence of petitioner as P.W.1 is that the respondent has been working as

Driver and he is getting daily income of Rs 1000/- per day and that the respondent has own agricultural land for an extent of Ac 5.00 cents and getting Agricultural income of

Rs 2.25 lakhs per annum as such, the respondent has sufficient means to maintain her.

On the other hand, the respondent in his cross examination catergricoally admitted that he has been earning Rs 250/-per day by doing coolie work.Therefore, the above admission of the respondent is clear that he is abled bodied person and doing

Agricultural coolie work and thereby getting sufficient income.Therefore, in view of the above discussion for the reasons stated above this court holds that the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner.Point is answered accordingly.

12. Point No.4:- Now it is to be seen whether the first petitioner has sufficient means to maintain herself or not?

(a) It is the contention of the respondent that the first petitioner has landed property Ac.1.50 cents at Bhakarapeta village,two own houses.she is getting Rs

AJCJ,PILER7 M.C.No.5/2018 2,000/- per month towards Rent of one house portion.It is further contention of the

Respondent is that the first petitioner has been working as sweeper in SVMIS hospital for 15 years,getting monthly salary Rs 25,000/-. But, during his cross examination, the respondent categorically admitted that he has no documentary proof to show that the first petitioner has been working as sweeper at SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati thereby earning Rs 40,000/- oper month,he did not file any documentary proof to show that the first petitioner has immovable properties thereby getting Rs 30,000/- per annum.In the cross examination of first petititioner as P.W1 catergorically admitted that she has been working as sweeper in SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi since two years and earning Rs 150/- per day.

(b) The learned counsel for the Resopondent vehemnetly argued that on the said admission of the P.W.1 is clear that the frist petitioner has been earning some thing as the first petitioner is not entitiled to get mainteance from the Respondent.This court is unable accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

Respondent bearing in the mind of settled principle of law that meager income of the petitioner would not disentitle her to get maintenance from the respondent.

(C)Further, in case of Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai reported in 2008 AIR 530, the

Hon'ble supre court was pleased held that:

“t he object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 1807) and falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2005 (2) Supreme 503). Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant case there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. It is has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent-wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent-wife was able

AJCJ,PILER8 M.C.No.5/2018 to maintain herself. In an illustrative case where wife was surviving by begging, would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC 83) it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”

(d)The law settled by above citation of Hon'ble Surpeme court is that, the meager income of the petitioner would not dis entitle her to claim maintenance. However, as already discussed, the respondent failed to establish that the first petitioner is having any means sufficient for her maintenance. Therefore, in view of the above discussion further reasons stated above the petitioner is not having sufficient means to maintain herself. Point is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.5:- Whether the second Petitioner is entitiled the relief as claimed for ?

It is the evidence of the first petitioner is that the respondent is liable to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 5,000/- to the second petitioner till the second petitioner get married. In the cross examination of P.W1,she categorically admitted that the second petitioner got married one year after filing of this petition. It is well settled law is that daughter turning major,will not be entitled to maintenance from father.

The second petitioner is not entitled for the maintenance as claimed for in the petition. Accordingly ,this Point is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.6:- To what relief:- In view of findings on Point Nos. 1 to 5, this court holds that the first Petitioner is entitled for maintenance,the second petitioner is not entitiled for maintenane.Point is answered accordingly. Therefore, considering the personal status of both parties and present cost of living and other mitigating facts,this court is of the considered opinion that awarding an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month to the first petitioner will meet the ends of justice from the date of petition.Point is answered accordingly.

AJCJ,PILER9 M.C.No.5/2018

15. In the result, this petition is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand only) per month to the first petitioner from the date of the petition i.e. 02/06/2017. The claim of maintenance to the 2nd petitioner is be and hereby dismissed.The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance amount on or before 5th day of every succeeding month.The arrears of maintenance from the date of petition, till this date is ordered to be paid within four months from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- S. Srinivasu

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Piler. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for

Petitioners: Respondent:

P.W.1: Manike Venkatalakshmi R.W.1: M. Sahadevaiah P.W.2: D. Venkatramaiah Documents marked for Petitioners:

Ex.P1: Office copy of legal notice dt.27.12.2016 issued by petitioners to respondent. Ex.P2: Served acknowledgement of the respondent.

Respondent : Nil

Sd/- S.Srinivasu

AJMFC, Piler.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS CUM ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PILER

Present: Sri S.SRINIVASU,

Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

Wednesday, this the Thirteenth (13th) day of April, 2022.

M.C.No. 5 of 2018

Between :

1. Manike Venkatalakshmi, aged 37 years, W/o Sahadevaiah,

2. Manike Divya, aged 20 years, D/o Sahadevaiah,

Both are residing at D.No.2-1051, B.C. Colony, Bhakarapeta Village and Post, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District.

....Petitioners.

And :

M. Sahadevaiah, aged 40 years, S/o Manike Yarraiah, residing at Krishnapuram, T.S. Palem Post, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District.

....Respondent.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 08/04/2022 in the presence of Sri B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy,T.Mohan,B.Seshadri learned counsels for petitioner and of Sri B.Yella Reddy, learned counsel for respondent upon perusing the material papers on record, having, stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

This petition is filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

praying to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each.

2. The brief averments contained in the petition are as follows:-

(a) The marriage of the first petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 08/10/1997 at Gandhi Nagar, Bhakarapeta Village as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. The parents of the first petitioner presented two sovereign of gold, cloths worth of Rs 10,000/- to the first Petitioner. After the marriage, the 1st petitioner joined with the respondent and lead marital life happily for three months only. Out of their wedlock, second petitioner was born to them.

(b)It is further averred in the petition is that the respondent started harassing the 1st petitioner physically and mentally and demanded to get minor gold chain and gold ring to him from her parents and respondent used to beat the 1st petitioner

AJCJ,PILER2 M.C.No.5/2018 indiscriminately,the respondent’s parents also supported him without caring the 1st petitioner.

(c)It is the further averred in the petition is that in 1998 year, the 1st petitioner gave birth to 2nd petitioner, but the respondent,his parents never visited the petitioners and the respondent neglected the petitioners and left them to their fate.

The mediations convened by one Reddeppa Reddy,Ramesh Reddy became futile. In the 2nd month of 2nd petitioner,the respondent came to house of 1st petitioner’s parents and forcibly taken away the marriage thread and openly proclaimed that the respondent would kill the first petitioner,if she rejoin in his conjugal life.

(d)It is further averred in the petition is that the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Bhakarapeta P.S. held mediation between the petitioner and the Respondent,but the

Respondent failed to take back the both the petitioners and neglected their welfare and maintenance by deserting them totally. Hence, the first petitioner along with second petitioner having no other go took the shelter of her parents house with great difficulty.

(e)It is further averred in the petition is that the 1st petitioner got information that the respondent again married and leading marital life by blessed with one child by suppressing the subsistence of his first marriage with her,which is illegal as per law.

The respondent never paid single rupee for their maintenance in these hard days, though the respondent is bound to maintain the petitioners.

(f)It is further averred in the petition is that the respondent has been working as

Driver and getting a daily income of Rs.1,000/- per day and also own agricultural land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents and getting agricultural income of Rs.2,50,000/- p.a. and bound to pay Rs.5,000/- every month to the petitioners for their maintenance. The respondent is getting monthly income Rs.30,000/-.getting agricultural income

Rs.2,50,000/- p.a, and having capacity to maintain the petitioners,but willfully refused to maintain the petitioners. Hence the petitioners prays to grant maintenance of

AJCJ,PILER3 M.C.No.5/2018

Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioners each till the life time of 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner get married .

3.(a) The respondent filed counter admitting his marriage with the first petitioner and his parentage over his daughter. The respondent categorically denied the rest of the allegations leveled against him. It is contended that the respondent is a law abiding person and living by daily cooly as agriculture labour and used to get only

Rs.150/- per day with average of 15 days in a month. The respondent’s family is having only Ac.0.50 cents in the respondent’s father name viz. M. Yerraiah and he got four sons and wife by name Garadamma and they all are entitled to share in the joint family properties and the respondent will get only less than Ac.0.12 cents towards his share. The respondent is living in the village and to cook food, one lady is staying along with him as live in relationship.

(b) It is further contended that the 1st petitioner is having landed property Ac.1.50 cents at Bhakarapet Village and two houses for her. One house is let out at the rate of

Rs.2,000/- p.m. as rent and she is working as sweeper in SVIMS Hospital for the past 15 years and used to get Rs.25,000/- as salary per month. The 1st petitioner also fixed marriage to 2nd petitioner two days back and spent considerable amount for function.

The 2nd petitioner is working as employee in Celkon shop at Chennai and get good salary and both are living happily and only to harass the respondent, the petitioners filed the present petition. Hence, he prays the Court to dismiss the above petition with costs.

4. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1,2 were examined and Ex.Ps.1, 2 are got marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined. No documents are marked on behalf of Respondent.

5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel

for the respondent. Perused the record.

AJCJ,PILER4 M.C.No.5/2018

6. Point for consideration is whether the first, second Petitioners are entitled for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month or not as prayed for?

7. Coming to the oral evidence adduced by the parties, the first petitioner herself enter into the witness box as P.w.1 and her chief-examination is by and large replica of the contents of the Petition. The father of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.2. He deposed in the similar lines of P.W.1.The respondent himself enter into the witness box as Rw..1 and his chief- examination is by and large replica of the contents of the counter.

8. In order to get maintenance, the petitioner has to prove the following aspects/points ?

1) Whether the frist petitioner is the legally wife of the respondent or not?

2) Whether the first petitioner has sufficient reason to live separately and to claim maintenance and whether there is any refusal or neglect on the part of respondent in maintaining the frist petitioner or not?

3) Whether the respondent has sufficient means to provide maintenance as prayed for?

4) Whether the frist petitioner has sufficient means to maintain herself ?

5) Whether the second Petitioner is entitiled the relief as claimed for ?

6) To what relief ?

9. POINT No.1: Whether the first petitioner is the wife of the respondent or not?

In this case it is admitted fact that the first petitioner is wife of the respondent.

The respondent as RW.1 also admitted the said fact. Since, there is no denial, it can safely be held that, the frist Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent.

Point is answered accordingly.

10.Point No.2: Whether the first petitioner has sufficient reason to live separately and to claim maintenance and whether there is refusal or neglect on the part of the respondent in maintaining the first petitioner or not ?

(a) The evidence of petitioner as P.W.1 is that her marriage with the respondent was taken place on 08-10-1997 and at the time of marriage,her parents presented two sovereign of gold jewellery and cloths worth about dowry of Rs.10,000/- and she lead happy married life for three months only, the respondent started harassing her both

AJCJ,PILER5 M.C.No.5/2018 physically and mentally, demanding her to bring minor gold chain,gold ring from her parents house and the respondent used to beat the first petitioner indiscrimintely,the parents of the respondent also supported the demands of the respondent.

(b) The main allegation pleaded by the first petitioner in her petition is that the

Respondent again got married and blessed with one male child,since then the respondent neglected them and did not look after their welfare, she has been depending on her parents for their livelihood. The respondent categorically admitted in his counter that one lady has been staying with him as Live in relation ship.

Therefore,the case of the first petitioner proved as per the admission made by the respondent in his counter. It is relevant to mention the Explanation of section 125

Cr.P.C., i.e., If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress,it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.

Thus, the evidence of the first petitioner is that she has reasonable ground to live separately to claim the maintenance. The learned counsel for the respondent cross examined the P.W.1 at length in depth touching various points but absolutely nothing was elicited to show that the petitioner has no reason to live separately to claim maintenance.

(c) The Honble Supreme Court in between Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan, reported in 1999 (6) SCC, 326 held that “Where the husband was living with another woman,it would entitle the wife to live separately and would amount to neglect or refusal to maintain her. In such circumstances,her statement that she is unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for he husband to prove otherwise.,burden lies on the husband to prove that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation or he did not neglect or refuse to maintain her.”

(d) Further, the evidence of P.W.1 categorically showing that she is having reasonable ground to live separately to claim maintenance and there is no material evidence adduced by respondent to show that the first petitioner herself left the company of the respondent with out any reason and living separately. Further, no

AJCJ,PILER6 M.C.No.5/2018 prudent woman would desert her husband and live separately and thereby became burden to her parents. Therefore, it can be safely held that the first petitioner has sufficient reason to live separately and to claim maintenance. Further, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Case of Sunitha Kachwaha Vs. Anil Kachwaha reported in AIR

(SC)-2015-0-554/AIR(SCW)-2014-0-6834/JT-2014-12-107, was pleased to held that

the proceeding under section 125 of Cr.P.C is summary in nature and taht in a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. However, the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of respondent as R.W.1 categorically establishing that the first petitioner has sufficient ground to live separately. Point is answered accordingly.

11.Point No.3:- Whether the respondent has sufficient means to provide maintenance as prayed for?

The evidence of petitioner as P.W.1 is that the respondent has been working as

Driver and he is getting daily income of Rs 1000/- per day and that the respondent has own agricultural land for an extent of Ac 5.00 cents and getting Agricultural income of

Rs 2.25 lakhs per annum as such, the respondent has sufficient means to maintain her.

On the other hand, the respondent in his cross examination catergricoally admitted that he has been earning Rs 250/-per day by doing coolie work.Therefore, the above admission of the respondent is clear that he is abled bodied person and doing

Agricultural coolie work and thereby getting sufficient income.Therefore, in view of the above discussion for the reasons stated above this court holds that the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner.Point is answered accordingly.

12. Point No.4:- Now it is to be seen whether the first petitioner has sufficient means to maintain herself or not?

(a) It is the contention of the respondent that the first petitioner has landed property Ac.1.50 cents at Bhakarapeta village,two own houses.she is getting Rs

AJCJ,PILER7 M.C.No.5/2018 2,000/- per month towards Rent of one house portion.It is further contention of the

Respondent is that the first petitioner has been working as sweeper in SVMIS hospital for 15 years,getting monthly salary Rs 25,000/-. But, during his cross examination, the respondent categorically admitted that he has no documentary proof to show that the first petitioner has been working as sweeper at SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati thereby earning Rs 40,000/- oper month,he did not file any documentary proof to show that the first petitioner has immovable properties thereby getting Rs 30,000/- per annum.In the cross examination of first petititioner as P.W1 catergorically admitted that she has been working as sweeper in SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi since two years and earning Rs 150/- per day.

(b) The learned counsel for the Resopondent vehemnetly argued that on the said admission of the P.W.1 is clear that the frist petitioner has been earning some thing as the first petitioner is not entitiled to get mainteance from the Respondent.This court is unable accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

Respondent bearing in the mind of settled principle of law that meager income of the petitioner would not disentitle her to get maintenance from the respondent.

(C)Further, in case of Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai reported in 2008 AIR 530, the

Hon'ble supre court was pleased held that:

“t he object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 1807) and falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2005 (2) Supreme 503). Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant case there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. It is has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent-wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent-wife was able

AJCJ,PILER8 M.C.No.5/2018 to maintain herself. In an illustrative case where wife was surviving by begging, would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC 83) it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”

(d)The law settled by above citation of Hon'ble Surpeme court is that, the meager income of the petitioner would not dis entitle her to claim maintenance. However, as already discussed, the respondent failed to establish that the first petitioner is having any means sufficient for her maintenance. Therefore, in view of the above discussion further reasons stated above the petitioner is not having sufficient means to maintain herself. Point is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.5:- Whether the second Petitioner is entitiled the relief as claimed for ?

It is the evidence of the first petitioner is that the respondent is liable to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 5,000/- to the second petitioner till the second petitioner get married. In the cross examination of P.W1,she categorically admitted that the second petitioner got married one year after filing of this petition. It is well settled law is that daughter turning major,will not be entitled to maintenance from father.

The second petitioner is not entitled for the maintenance as claimed for in the petition. Accordingly ,this Point is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.6:- To what relief:- In view of findings on Point Nos. 1 to 5, this court holds that the first Petitioner is entitled for maintenance,the second petitioner is not entitiled for maintenane.Point is answered accordingly. Therefore, considering the personal status of both parties and present cost of living and other mitigating facts,this court is of the considered opinion that awarding an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month to the first petitioner will meet the ends of justice from the date of petition.Point is answered accordingly.

AJCJ,PILER9 M.C.No.5/2018

15. In the result, this petition is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand only) per month to the first petitioner from the date of the petition i.e. 02/06/2017. The claim of maintenance to the 2nd petitioner is be and hereby dismissed.The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance amount on or before 5th day of every succeeding month.The arrears of maintenance from the date of petition, till this date is ordered to be paid within four months from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- S. Srinivasu

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Piler. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for

Petitioners: Respondent:

P.W.1: Manike Venkatalakshmi R.W.1: M. Sahadevaiah P.W.2: D. Venkatramaiah Documents marked for Petitioners:

Ex.P1: Office copy of legal notice dt.27.12.2016 issued by petitioners to respondent. Ex.P2: Served acknowledgement of the respondent.

Respondent : Nil

Sd/- S.Srinivasu

AJMFC, Piler.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PILER.

PRESENT: Sri S. SRINIVASU,

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Piler.

FAC- Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Piler.

Thursday, this the Twenty Fourth (24th ) day of July, 2025.

O.S.No.248 of 2024

Between:

Yandapalli Subbaiah, S/o Subbanna, age 59 years, R/at Old D.No.2-32, New No.2-51 Tirupati Road, Piler Village, post and Mandal, Annamayya District. … Plaintiff

And:

1. Smt G. Jayamma, W/o Late Yarraiah, aged about 77 years

2. G. Kumar Swamy, S/o Late Yarraiah, aged about 46 years

3. G. Ravindra, S/o Late Yarraiah, aged about 36 years

D.1 to D.3 are R/at Yarraguntlapalli, Bandakindapalli Post, Piler Mandal, Annamayya District. … Defendants

This suit came up before me on 23-07-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.Nagaraja, Advocate for Plaintiff and defendants are remained exparte; and after hearing the arguments of the plaintiff and this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and for costs.

2

02.The averments of the plaint are that, The plaint schedule property is situated in Sy.No.762 to an extent of 2212 Square Yards in Yarraguntlapalli

Revenue Village, Piler Mandal. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to 1.Sayed Chemma Saheb, 2) Sayed Pyaru Saheb, 3) Sayed Musthafa Saheb and 4) Shamsheer Saheb who were residents of Piler Mandal were in possession and enjoyment for their family and legal necessities have been sold to the 4 sons of one Krishnamurthy by names 1) V. Bala Raj, 2) Babu Raj, 3)

Sundara Raj, 4) Ramesh Babu for a valid consideration amount of Rs.44,300/- through a Regd. Sale deed dt:13-08-1993 vide document No.1629/1993 and on the same day itself delivered the possession of the same and since then the four sons of Krishnamurty were in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights.

2(a). While so the said the 4 brothers who are presently residing at Indira

Gandhi Road, Sundupalli village and Mandal were in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, for their family and legal necessities sold to the properties to other four persons namely1) Kalavala Pakash, 2) Loka Chalapathi, 3)Yandapalli Ramadevi, 4)Pagadala Sayamma for a Valid consideration amount of Rs.2,20,500/- on 19-01-2005 through a Regd. Sale deed vide document

No.76/2005 and the same day itself delivered possession of the same and since the date of purchase of the said property the above said four persons

1) K.Pakash, 2) Loka Chalapathi, 3) Yandapalli Ramadevi, 4) Pagadala 3

Sayamma were in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights.

2(b). The one of the sons of Krishnamurth by name Venkateswara Bhat

Sundara Raju, S/o Krishnamurthy had filed IP No. 4/2002 on the file of Hon’ble

Senior Civil judge’s Court, Rayachoty to declare him as insolvent and I.P.No.

19/2004 on the file official Receiver’s court, Kadapa, and the Official Receiver's

Court had conducted auction on 09-10-2006 over the 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property of the said Sundara Raju. In the said auction one Loka

Sanjeevaiah of Piler was the highest bidder and as a highest bidders, he has obtained Regd. Sale deed dt:09-11-2006 by paying total sale consideration amount of Rs.1,88,000/- from the Official Receiver’s Court and took possession of 1/4 th share i.e., 553 square yards out of the total plaint schedule property i.e., 2212 square yards.

2 (c). Since the date of taken over possession from the official Receiver, the

Loka Sanjeevaiah is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Loka

Sanjeevaiah having love and affection without any consideration executed a

Regd. Gift settlement deed on in favour of one Y. Ramadevi on 18-11-2006 Vide document No.2553 /2006 and she was accepted the gift deed is acted upon.

Since the date of gift deed the said Y. Ramadevi has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so the Kalavala Prakash, Loka Chalapathi and

Pagadala Sayamma, were in possession and enjoyment of their 3/4 th share in the plaint schedule property, they had been executed a Regd. Relinquishment 4 deed dt:29-08-2005 vide document No.1912/2005 in favour of Y. Ramadevi, by relinquishing their right and since the date of the said relinquishment deed the said Y. Ramadevi is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since then the said Y. Ramadevi is in possession and enjoyment of the total plaint schedule property with absolute right of ownership/

The said Y. Ramadevi who is none other than the wife of the plaintiff herein and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, while so with love and affection and without any consideration had been executed a Regd. Gift settlement deed dt:18-08-2023 vide document No.

3780/2023 in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff accepted the same and hence the gift deed is acted upon. Since the date of gift settlement deed the plaintiff is in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with any kind of interruption from anybody including the defendants to the knowledge of whole villagers. Except the plaintiff none other have any iota of right and title over the plaint schedule property.

2(d) In the total plaint schedule property i.e., ABCD in the rough sketch the plaintiff have constructed two sheds in some portions i.e., EFGH is the first shed and FBHD is the second shed. The plaintiff had obtained a door numbers to the both sheds as 10-91 and 10-2 from the Gram Panchayath. The defendants are nothing to do with the same, who ae utter strangers to the plaint schedule mentioned property and without having any right, title and possession over the plaint “B” schedule mentioned property aggrieved for the development 5 of the plaintiff about two days back the defendants along with their henchmen came to the plaint “B” schedule property illegally and high highhandedly tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property and also tried to encroach into the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff with the help of his family members and neighbouring land owners, village elders resisted the high handed acts of the defendants and while leaving the place the defendants thrown challenges that they will come again and will not allow the plaintiff to enjoy the plaint “B” schedule property peacefully and by hook or crook in a short period. The plaintiff being a law abiding citizen afraid of the defendants that defendants are powerful persons and political influential persons. The plaintiff is retired solder and law abiding citizen afraid of the defendant that he is capable person of putting his threats into action at any point of time and whereas the plaintiff is not match to the defendant in resisting his high handed acts and hence, the plaintiff filed this suit seeking grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from in any way interfering from the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

03.Though summons served, the defendants failed to file written statement within statutory period of 90 days, hence the defendants are set exparte.

04.Chief affidavit of the Plaintiff is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff.

05.Arguments Heard.

06.Now the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent

6 injunction against the Defendants, their men etc., as prayed?

07. POINT:- In order to support his case, the plaintiff himself was examined as

PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A7.

08.This is the suit filed by plaintiff against defendants for permanent injunction.

In this nature of suit the plaintiff must able to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The contention of the plaintiff is that defendants are adjacent land owners to the suit schedule property and they developed common intention to create troubles to the plaintiff in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

09. In evidence, the plaintiff was examined as PW-1, he reiterated plaint pleadings and he placed Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of the Regd.

Sale deed dt:13.08.1993 Vide document No.1629/1993 executed by 1.Sayed

Chemma Saheb, 2) Sayed Pyaru Saheb, 3) Sayed Musthafa Saheb and 4)

Shamsheer Saheb in favour of 1.V. Bala Raj, 2) Babu Raj, 3) Sundara Raj and

4) Ramesh Babu. Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of the Regd. Sale deed

dt:19.01.2005 vide document No.76/2005 executed by 1) V. Balaraj, 2) Babu

Raj, 3) Sundara Raj, and 4) Ramesh Babu in favour of 1) K.Prakash, 2) Loka

Chalapathi, 3) Y. Ramadevi and 4) Pagadala Sayamma. Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of relinquishment deed dt:29-08-2005 vide document No.1912/2005 executed by 1) K.Prakash, 2) Loka Chalapathi, 3) Y. Ramadevi and 4)

Pagadala Sayamma.

7

Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of Regd. Sale deed dt: 09.11.2006 vide doc. No.

2516/2006 executed by Official Receiver’s Court, Kadapa in favour of Loka-

Sanjeevaiah. Ex.A5 is the Certified copy of the Regd. Gift settlement deed dt:

18.11.2006 Vide document No. 2553/2006 executed by Loka Sanjeevaiah in favour of Y. Ramadevi. Ex.A6 is the Certified copy of the Regd. Gift settlement deed dt: 18.08.2023 Vide document No.3780/2023 executed by Y. Ramadevi in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A7 is the Original Panchayath Tax receipts paid by the plaintiff to the Grama Panchayath, Yarraguntlapalli village for the year-2024.

The defendants did not challenge the version of plaintiff and they remained ex- parte. A perusal of evidence of P.W.1coupled with Exs.A1 to A7, it appears plaintiff has been in possession of the plaint schedule property,hence plaintiff is entitled relief as sought.

10.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24 th day of July, 2025.

Sd/- S. Srinivasu

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Piler.

FAC- Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)

Piler.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For PLAINTIFF: For DEFENDANTS:

PW.1: Y. Subbaiah -None -( Ex-parte )

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 Certified copy of the Regd. Sale deed dt: 13.08.1993 Vide document No.1629/1993 executed by 1. Sayed Chemma Saheb, 2) Sayed Pyaru Saheb, 3) Sayed Musthafa Saheb and 4) Shamsheer Saheb in favour of 1. V. Bala Raj, 2) Babu Raj, 3) Sundara Raj and 4) Ramesh Babu.

Ex.A.2 Certified copy of the Regd. Sale deed dt:19.01.2005 vide document No.76/2005 executed by 1) V. Balaraj, 2) Babu Raj, 3) Sundara Raj, and 4) Ramesh Babu in favour of 1) K.Prakash, 2) Loka Chalapathi, 3) Y. Ramadevi and 4) Pagadala Sayamma.

Ex.A.3 Certified copy of relinquishment deed dt:29-08-2005 vide document No.1912/2005 executed by 1) K.Prakash, 2) Loka Chalapathi, 3) Y. Ramadevi and 4) Pagadala Sayamma.

Ex.A.4 Certified copy of Regd. Sale deed dt: 09.11.2006 vide doc. No. 2516/2006 executed by Official Receiver’s Court, Kadapa in favour of Loka-Sanjeevaiah.

Ex.A.5 Certified copy of the Regd. Gift settlement deed dt: 18.11.2006 Vide document No. 2553/2006 executed by Loka Sanjeevaiah in favour of Y. Ramadevi.

Ex.A.6 Certified copy of the Regd. Gift settlement deed dt: 18.08.2023 Vide document No.3780/2023 executed by Y. Ramadevi in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A.7 Original Panchayath Tax receipts paid by the plaintiff to the Grama Panchayath, Yarraguntlapalli village for the year-2024.

9

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT: - NIL - ( Exparte )

Sd/- S. Srinivasu

PCJ (J.D.),

FAC- ACJ (JD

Piler.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PILER

PRESENT: S.SRINIVASU,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER,

FAC PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER.

Tuesday this the 12th day of April, 2022.

O.S.No. 63 /2017

Between:

D. Venkatramana Reddy … Plaintif And:

R. Sujatha … Defendant

This case is coming on 08-04-2022 for final hearing and in the presence of Sri S. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri M. Chandra Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and upon considering the material on record and having stood over this day for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The present suit was filed by the Plaintif praying this Court to grant a decree in his favour and against the defendant for the suit amount of Rs.2,57,900/- for future interest thereon for the prl.amount Rs.1,50,000/- at 24% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization and costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

(a) On 04.04.2014 the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintif for her family necessities and in consideration thereof, she executed a suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintif or to his order on demand.

(b) In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant did not choose to repay the said amount of the suit promissory note dt.04.04.2014 and postponing discharging the loan amount on some pretext or the other. The plaintif has sent a legal notice dt.21.03.2017 demanding the defendant to discharge the loan amount, the said notice was returned with an endorsement that “addressee door locked, hence returned to sender”. Hence, the suit.

3. (a) The defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that she never seen the face of plaintif and borrowed the alleged amount under the suit promissory note from plaintif. After the filing of suit and receipt of

P.J.C.J.Court, Piler 2 O.S.No. 63 /2017 summons, the defendant enquired about the plaintif and came to know that he is the brother-in-law of one N. Ranemma from whom the defendant borrowed amount at exorbitant rate of interest under a blank signed promissory note. She further contended that she was doing saree business and other cloths and running chits business. For the said business and to purchase a house site, she borrowed amounts from so many persons including from one N. Ranemma, W/o Vijay Kumar Reddy of Piler Village on exorbitant rates of interest. Due to loss sustained in cloth and chit business, the defendant was unable to discharge the debts to her creditors. As the defendant failed to discharge the debts borrowed from them, the creditors of defendant threatened the defendant that they file criminal cases, civil suits and execution petitions against her for recovery of money and sent the defendant to jail. As the pressure of her creditors became unbearable, the defendant filed I.P.No.11 of 2015 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Piler praying to adjudge her as an insolvent and the same is pending

enquiry.

(b)The defendant further contended that she borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from one N.

Ranemma who was shown as 13th respondent in I.P.No.11 of 2015 and she obtained signatures of defendant in blank promissory notes. As the defendant filed the I.P.

against her also, she bore grudge against the defendant and fabricated the suit promissory note with the active support of scribe and attestors who are his henchmen and got filed the suit in the name of plaintif to harass her for wrongful gain. The suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and it is a fabricated one and further she committed an act of insolvency and became bankrupt and shown her property in insolvency proceedings. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

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

Issues:-

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration?

3. Whether the plaintif is entitled for suit amount?

4. To what relief?

P.J.C.J.Court, Piler 3 O.S.No. 63 /2017

5. On behalf of the plaintif, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 got marked. On behalf of the defendant, no evidence was adduced and no documents are marked.

6.The Learned counsel for the plaintif has argued that the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 established that the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintif, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant failed to pay the amount and except stating, the plaintif created Ex.A1, nothing is elicited to prove the same and submitted that the plaintif has established Ex.A1 is true and valid document and the plaintif is entitled to recover the amount. Therefore, the suit may be decreed with costs.

7.The learned counsel for defendant argued that the defendant has borrowed

Rs.3,00,000/- from one N. Ranemma who was shown as 13th respondent in I.P.No.11 of 2015 and she obtained signatures of defendant in blank promissory notes,the defendant filed the I.P. against her also, she bore grudge against the defendant and fabricated the suit promissory note with the active support of scribe and attestors who are his henchmen and got filed the suit in the name of plaintif to harass her for wrongful gain.He further argued that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and she has no necessity to borrow amount from others, the plaintif is not entitled to recover the amount under Ex-A1. Therefore, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

8.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintif and the learned counsel for the defendant.

9. Issue Nos.1 to 3 :-

(a) Admittedly, the plaintif filed the above suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,57,900/- on the foot of a promissory note. As already referred above, the defendant in her written statement denied the execution of promissory note and passing of consideration and therefore the initial burden lies upon the plaintif to prove that Ex.A1 promissory note was duly executed by the defendant and then only a presumption under Section 118 (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would comes into operation.

P.J.C.J.Court, Piler 4 O.S.No. 63 /2017

(b) To discharge his initial burden, the plaintif himself entered into witness box as P.W.1 and his chief-examination affidavit is nothing but replica of contents of the plaint. Through P.W.1, Exs.A1 to A3 are got marked.

(c) To substantiate his case, he adduced the evidence of P.W.2, who is second attestor of the Ex-A1 and his evidence is filed by way of chief-affidavit in lieu of chief- examination and his chief affidavit was eschewed and posted for further evidence of plaintif.

(d) The plaintif further adduced the evidence of P.W.3, who is the first attestor of the Ex-A1 and his evidence is filed by way of chief-affidavit in lieu of chief- examination, the learned counsel for the defendant cross examined the P.Ws1,3 at length but nothing was elicited in favour of the defendant and this Court posted for defendant evidence .

(c) To disprove the case of plaintif, the defendant did not adduce any evidence and no documents are marked.

10.As already stated above, the plaintif filed the above suit against the defendant for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note. The defendant while filing written statement, denied the execution of suit promissory note and also contended that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated one. Though the defendant has taken a specific defence in the written statement that the plaintif is stranger to her, there is no passing of consideration under Ex-A1 and she has no necessity to borrow amounts from others,but While P.W.s 1 and 3 were in the witness box, the defendant failed to cross-examine P.W.s 1 and 3 touching the above said facts. The entire cross- examination of P.W.1 and 3 are nothing but hurling suggestions, which are denied by them. The defendant also did not enter into witness box and did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence to prove her contentions. It is a settled principle of law that whether a party to the suit does not enter into the witness box and states his/her own case on oath and does not ofer himself/herself to be cross-examined by other side, a presumption can be drawn under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the case set up by him/ them is ‘false’. In view of the above principle laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar Vs.Manikrao and others reported in AIR 1999 Supreme

P.J.C.J.Court, Piler 5 O.S.No. 63 /2017

Court page 1441, this court safely holds that the case set up by the defendant in the written statement as false since she neither elicited the positive answers from the cross- examine Pw.1 and 3 nor adduced any oral and documentary evidence to substantiate her contention.

11. From the evidence of P.W.1 and 3 coupled with Ex.A1 this court opines that plaintif established his case by preponderance of probabilities and thereby this court holds that suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and plaintif is entitle to the relief claimed for. Issues No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of plaintif.

12.ISSUE No.4:-

IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintif directing the defendant to pay suit amount of Rs.2,57,900/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty seven thousand nine hundred only), with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. to till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- S. SRINIVASU

Addl Junior Civil Judge, Piler, FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Piler.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintif: For Defendant: P.W.1:- D. Venkatramana Reddy None P.W.2:- S. Sreenivasulu Reddy(Eschwed) P.W.3:- K. Syamprasad Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintif:- Ex.A1 is the original promissory note dt.4.4.2014 of Rs.1,50,000/-. Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dt.21.03.2017. Ex.A3 is returned cover with acknowledgment.

For Defendant:- Nil

Sd/- SSV

AJCJ, Piler, FAC PJCJ, Piler.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PILER.

PRESENT: Sri S. SRINIVASU,

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Piler.

FAC-Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Piler.

Thursday, this the Twenty Fourth ( 24th ) day of July, 2025.

O.S.No.12 of 2025

Between:

Kota Venkatramana, S/o Late Kota Mallaiah, aged about 58 years, Cultivation, R/o Pathakuravapalli, Bommaiahgaripalli Village, Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. … Plaintiff

And:

V. Sada Siva Reddy, S/o V. Krishna Reddy, aged about 61 years, Cultivation, R/o Avulavaripalli, Bommaiahgaripalli Village, Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. …. Defendant

This suit came up before me on 21-07-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Thota Praveen Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and defendant is remained exparte; and after hearing the arguments of the plaintiff and this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his henchmen from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs.

2

02.The averments of the plaint are that, the plaint schedule property i.e., the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents in the Sy.No.1774/7A of Bommaiahgaripalli

Revenue Village accounts, Rompicherla mandal is originally belonged to

Government land and Government is the paramount owner of the same. The plaint schedule property originally covered with bushes, boulders, un-even and not fit for cultivation. About 20 years back the plaintiff made it fit for cultivation by removing bushes, boulders in plaint schedule property and leveled the same by spending huge amounts apart from manual labour. Like wise the plaintiff has owned the plaint schedule property as self acquired property and enjoying the same with absolute rights.

(a)By recognizing the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the property, the then Tahsildar of Rompicherla Mandal after due enquiry taking fact of reclamation of the land by the plaintiff issued Pattadar pass book vide patta No.163 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property and other properties. Prior to the date of issuance of Pattadar pass book and after issue of pattadar pass book to the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same with specific boundaries by raising seasonal crops like Ground nut, Horse gram, Maize and

Ragi etc., in the plaint schedule property openly peacefully and uninterruptedly to the knowledge of all the Villagers. The Tahsildar, Rompicherla Mandal has also issued 1-B Namoona, Adangal / Pahani vide Khata No.163. Since then the plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the same without 3 anybody interruption to the knowledge of the whole Villagers including the defendant.

(b)The defendant is nothing to do with the same and without having any right, title and possession over the plaint schedule mentioned property while So, on 05-01-2025 at about 9.30 AM when the plaintiff was ploughing the plaint schedule land to raise horsegram crop, the defendant who has no manner of right or title over the plaint schedule property tried to obstruct the plaintiff from ploughing the plaint schedule land and the plaintiff could resist the interference, high handed acts of the defendant and his henchmen. while going, the defendant stated that within short period, he will dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff being aged person and law abiding citizen afraid of the defendant that he is capable person of putting his threats into action at any point of time and whereas the plaintiff is not match to the defendant in resisting his high handed acts and hence, the plaintiff filed this suit seeking grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from in any way interfering from the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3. Though Summons served but the defendant did not appear hence the defendant remained set exparte.

04.Proof affidavit of the Plaintiff filed on behalf of the Plaintiff.

05.Arguments Heard.

4

06.Now the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent

injunction against the Defendant, his men etc., as prayed?

07. POINT:- In order to support his case, the plaintiff himself was examined as

PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A.4. Neither oral nor documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of defendant.

08.This is the suit filed by plaintiff against defendant for permanent injunction.

In this nature of suit the plaintiff must able to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The contention of the plaintiff is that defendant is adjacent land owner to the suit schedule property and he developed common intention to create troubles to the plaintiff in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

09. In evidence, the plaintiff was examined as PW-1, he reiterated plaint pleadings and he placed Exs.A1 to A.4. Ex.A1 is the Original pass book issued by Tahsildar, Rompicherla Mandal in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.2 is the

Certified copy of the 1-B Namoona issued by the Tahsildar, Rompicherla

Mandal in favour of the plaintiff obtained from Grama Ward Sachivalayam

Sakha, dt:23.12.2024. Ex.A.3 is the Certified copy of the Adangal, Pahani issued by the Tahsildar, Rompicherla Mandal in favour of the plaintiff obtained from Grama ward Sachivalayam Sakha, dt:02.08.2024. Ex.A.4 is the Original

Enjoyment certificate along with sketch issued by the Tahsildar, Rompicherla

Mandal in favour of the plaintiff, dt: 25.06.2018. The defendant did not challenge 5 the version of plaintiff and he remained ex-parte. A perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A.4, it appears the plaintiff has been in possession of the plaint schedule property, hence plaintiff is entitled relief as sought.

10.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his henchmen from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24 th day of July, 2025.

Sd/- S. Srinivasu,

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

FAC- Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

Piler.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For PLAINTIFF: For DEFENDANT:

PW.1: K.Venkatramana -None -( Ex-parte )

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original pass book issued by Tahsildar, Rompicherla Mandal in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A.2: Certified copy of the 1-B Namoona issued by the Tahsildar, Rompicherla Mandal in favour of the plaintiff obtained from Grama Ward Sachivalayam Sakha, dt:23.12.2024.

Ex.A.3: Certified copy of the Adangal, Pahani issued by the Tahsildar, 6

Rompicherla Mandal in favour of the plaintiff obtained from Grama ward Sachivalayam Sakha, dt: 02.08.2024.

Ex.A.4: Original Enjoyment certificate along with sketch issued by the Tahsildar, Rompicherla Mandal in favour of the plaintiff, dt: 25.06.2018.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT: - NIL - ( Exparte )

Sd/- S. Srinivasu,

PCJ (J.D.),

Piler.

7