Sri. S.v. Narasimha Raju

 IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: TIRUPATI.

Present: Sri S.V.NARASIMHA RAJU  III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Thursday, the fourteenth (14th) day of September, Two thousand Seventeen

A.S.No. 89 of 2011

(O.S.No. 613 of 2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati)

Between

S.Masthanamma @ Rokiyabee ...Appellant

And :

1. T.R.Babu Rao,

2. Patan Khasim Saheb(died)

3. Smt. Madar Bee,

4. S.Ghouse Basha,

5. Smt. Begum Bee,

6. S.Mahaboob Basha,

7. S.Dasthagiri ...Respondents 

On appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, dt.20­09­2010 made in 

O.S.No. 613 of 2000

Between

S.Masthanamma @ Rokiyabee .. Plaintiff.

And :

1. T.R.Babu Rao,

2. Patan Khasim Saheb(died)

3. Smt. Madar Bee,

4. S.Ghouse Basha,

5. Smt. Begum Bee,

6. S.Mahaboob Basha,

7. S.Dasthagiri .. Defendants 

This Appeal coming for final hearing on 11­9­2017

before me in the presence of Sri N.Ananda Kumar, Advocate for appellant

and Sri A.Keerthi Sekhar, Advocate for 1st Respondent, 2nd respondent died, The appeal against R3 is dismissed on 3­8­2015, the respondents 4 to 7 remained exparte and and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This appeal is preferred against the decree and Judgment,

dated 20­09­2010 passed by Principal Junior Civil Judge’s court, Tirupati in

O.S.No.613/200.

2The un­successful plaintiff is appellant herein. I shall refer the parties as they were arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience. 

3The plaintiff filed the above suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from ever interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff contended that the plaint schedule property is vacant site and originally belonged to one K.Raghava Reddy, who was an

Inamdar. The plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 30 years and when the original owner

K.Raghava Reddy questioned her and demanded money, she agreed to purchase the same for consideration of Rs.15,000­00 on 10­11­1990. After receiving sale consideration the said K.Raghava Reddy executed sale letter in her favour on the same day and also delivered possession of the property to her. Subsequently the said K.Raghava Reddy died. Thereafter the plaintiff got issued legal notice, dated 25­06­1999 to the legal heirs of

K.Raghava Reddy, but it was not served. 

4.The plaintiff got constructed a hut in the plaint schedule property about 20 years ago and living in that hut along with her family members by paying house tax to the Gram Panchayath, Tiruchanur. She was also issued ration card by the revenue officials and also photo identity card. Hence, she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property even by adverse possession also. 

3

5.The 1st defendant, who is her neighbour, with the help of 2nd defendant, who is her relative conspired together to knock away plaint schedule property. When they tried to interfere with her possession she gave report to Tiruchanur police, but in vain. Hence, the suit.

6.The 1st defendant filed his written statement contending the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.

The plaint schedule property and some other property, which is in possession and enjoyment of 1st defendant originally belonged to K.Raghava

Reddy. The 2nd defendant purchased 175 ankanams from the said Raghava

Reddy under a registered sale deed, dated 19­10­1979 for a consideration of Rs.14,000­00. The 2nd defendant got approved his plan from Gram

Panchayath, Tiruchanur on 02­01­1980 for construction of a hut thereon and subsequently the 2nd defendant got constructed a hut in South – West corner of plaint schedule property. After constructing hut and when he wanted to let out the same, the plaintiff who is no other than his sister­in­ law approached him and he let out the same to the plaintiff in the year 1980. Subsequently the 2nd defendant sold away 100 ankanams of site to

P.Srinivasulu Naidu on 03­12­1981. The said Srinivasulu Naidu sold away that site to T.Mangamma in the year 1982 and the said Mangamma has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by construction of three storied building and shopping complex. However in the sale deed survey number was wrongly mentioned as 242/1 instead of 240/1 and on 5.6.1996 a rectification deed was executed by wife of late P.Srinivasulu

Naidu. Wife of 1st defendant purchased 5.08 ankanams from the 2nd defendant for valid consideration under ac registered sale deed, dated 23.05.1988, since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of that 4 site. He got laid fencing around the site with barbed wire and stone pillars.

With a view to cause trouble to him the present suit is filed and it is devoid of merits and prayed to dismiss the same with costs.

7.During the pendency of the suit 2nd defendant died, as such her

LRs were brought on recorded as defendants 3 to 7 as per orders in IA 2813/07 dt. 17­11­2008. Accordingly the plaint was also amended para 4

(a) of the plaint was inserted stating that “ on 19­6­2007 2nd defendant died leaving behind him defendants 3 to 7 as his legal heirs, hence defendants 3 to 7 are necessary parties who are the estate of 2nd defendant”. Further the legal representatives of 2nd defendant were set exparte.

8To prove their respective contentions on behalf of the plaintiff,

Pws­1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A­1 to A­5 are marked. On behalf of the defendants Dws­1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B­1 to B­7 are marked in the trial court.

9After hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, the trial court has decreed the suit. 

10Aggrieved by the said Decree and Judgment the plaintiff preferred this appeal contending that the Judgment of the trial court is not in accordance with law and no opportunity was given to the plaintiff to prove her case. The un­registered sale letter executed in her favour by

Raghava Reddy was misplaced in the trial court. The trial court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The 1st defendant has admitted in his cross examination that the survey number of plaint schedule property and the survey number of the property covered by Exs.B­1 to B­7 are different and he is not making any 5 claim over plaint schedule property. But that aspect was not considered by the trial court and prayed to set aside the decree and Judgment of the trial court by allowing the appeal. 

11No additional evidence is adduced on either side. 

12Heard both sides and perused the record. 

13Now the points for determination in this appeal are:

1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of suit?

2. Whether the Judgment and decree of the trial court is liable to be set aside?

14 Points 1 :

The main contention of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule originally belonged to one K.Raghava Reddy. But the plaintiff occupied the same and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 30 years and when the said Raghava Reddy questioned her title, she paid Rs.15,000­00 to the said Raghava Reddy on 10­11­1980 and obtained sale letter from him. Raghava Reddy also acknowledged her possession over plaint schedule property. Subsequently Raghava Reddy died and she issued legal notice to the legal heirs of Raghava Reddy, but it was not served on them as their whereabouts are not known She had constructed a hut in the plaint schedule property and paying house tax to the Gram

Panchayath. The defendants have no manner of right over the plaint schedule property, but they are trying to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the same. She gave report to Tiruchanur police, but

Tiruchanur police did not take any action. Hence, the suit. 

6 15Learned counsel for respondents contended that the plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant purchased the plaint schedule property from one Raghava

Reddy and got constructed a hut and when he wanted to let out the same, the plaintiff requested him to let out the same to her on rent. Accordingly the 2nd defendant let out the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff, who is none other than his sister­in­law. With a view to knock away the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff filed this suit with all false allegations.

More so taking advantage of sale deed executed in his favour, wherein the survey Number was wrongly mentioned as 242/1 instead of 240/1, the plaintiff wanted to grab the plaint schedule property. Subsequently he obtained rectification deed from his vendor P.Srinivasulu Naidu on 5.6.1996. and as such there is no dispute with regard to above said extent, his wife also purchased 5.08 ankanams of site from 2nd defendant under regd. Sale deed date 23.5.1988. Subsequently on 13.8.1997 the 2nd defendant sold away 23.72 ankanams of site to him under regd. Sale deed which is situated on the western side of the above said existing building. It has been in possession and enjoyment of the said site and ever since the said date of purchase by fencing the same with barbed wire and stone pillars. Thus he and his wife are absolute owners of the 128.77 ankanams of site purchased under various regd. Sale deeds.

16.It is further contended that the plaint schedule property is not in S.No. shown in the plaint and wrong boundaries are shown with an ulterior motive of having wrongful gain. The plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of an extent of land situated in between his site and appellant’s hut. On the other hand, Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 clearly reveal his 7 title and possession over the plaint schedule property and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

17As this is a suit filed for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to prove her possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. To prove her possession the plaintiff got filed

Exs.A­1 to A­10. Ex.A­1 is a bunch of house tax demand notices issued in favour of the plaintiff by the Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Padmavathi

Puram, Tirupati rural. As per Ex.A­1 Door number of plaint schedule property is 13­63/1. Ex.A­1 consists of 4 demand notices for the year ending March, 1997, March, 1999, March, 1998, March 1998. In all receipt the Door number is shown as 13­63/1. But in the receipt the door number is shown as 13­64A. Ex.A­2 is water tax receipt dated 29­04­2002 issued by

Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Padmavathi Puram, Tirupati rural, wherein an amount of Rs.240­00 was collected from the plaintiff. In Ex.A­2 the address of the plaintiff was shown as Door No.3­98, Srinivasapuram. Ex.A­3 is photo identity card issued by Election Commission of India. In Ex.A­3 the address of plaintiff was shown as House bearing No.13­63, Tiruchanur.

Ex.A­4 is electricity bills. In all the bills the name of the plaintiff is shown as registered owner of the service connection bearing Consumer No.74795.

Ex.A­5 is two photographs of plaint schedule property. Ex.A­6 is legal notice, dated 14­06­2001 got issued by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff asking the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule property. Ex.A­7 is reply notice got issued by plaintiff to Ex.A­6 notice. Ex.A­8 is office copy of legal notice, dated 25­06­1999 got issued to the wife of late K.Raghava Reddy to execute regular sale deed in her favour in pursuance of sale letter executed by her husband. Ex.A­9 is copy of the complaint given to Superintendent of 8

Police, Chittoor, dated 22­04­2002. Ex.A­10 is returned postal cover addressed to K.Padmavathamma, wife of K.Raghava Reddy. 

18.Ex.A1 Tax receipt issued by Executive Officer, Grampanchayat

Chittoor rural clearly disclosed that the plaintiff has got house bearing

D.No.13­63/1 which has been paying tax to the grampanchayat. The defendant also did not deny that the plaintiff is having house bearing D.No.

13­63/A. According to both parties the house of the plaintiff is situated on the south – west corner of 700 square yards which belonged to K.Raghava

Reddy.

19.Ex.A2 is Water tax receipt dated 9­11­2002 issued by grampanchayat Padmavathipuram for the suit property. Ex.A3 is voter identity card issued to the plaintiff by election commission of India showing the address of the plaintiff’s house bearing No. 13­63/A Padmavathipuram.

Ex.A4 is electricity bills and notice issued by APSPDCL in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A5 is two photos showing the plaint schedule property. Thus Ex.A1,

Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 shows that house belong to the plaintiff.

20.Even according to the 2nd defendant, he got constructed the house and let­out the same to the plaintiff. He also issued Ex.A6 notice to the plaintiff on 14.6.2001. Though it is a suit document but the 2nd defendant has categorically admitted in Ex.A6 notice that the plaint schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The schedule is also given in Ex.A6 notice. The schedule given in Ex.A6 and plaint schedule property are one and the same. The 2nd defendant got issued notice directing the plaintiff to vacate and deliver the plaint schedule property within 15 days ie.,by 30­6­2001. As per Ex.A6 2nd defendant 9 determined the lease issued in favour of plaintiff forthwith. But to prove that the plaint schedule property was leased out to the plaintiff from the 2nd defendant he did not file any document to prove the same . On the other hand, Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 clearly reveal that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoying the plaint schedule property in her own right and not as lessee of 2nd defendant.

21.The 1st defendant elicited the boundaries of the plaint schedule property through the plaintiff during her cross examination. The plaintiff stated that the western boundary belongs to Subba Rao but as per the plaintiff it is in the name of Subba Reddy. But the plaintiff further elicited that the plaint schedule property is situated within the above boundaries.

No suggestion was given to the plaintiff that she is not residing within the above boundaries.

22.The learned counsel for the 1st defendant contended that the sale letter executed in favour of plaintiff is not filed into the court and the plaintiff has not filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale.

Since the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction, the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable even without filing the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. The plaintiff also filed the sale letter allegedly executed by K.Raghava reddy in her favour and the same was sent to Sub Registrar for impounding the document and the document was held up there. Hence the plaintiff cannot be found fault for nor filing of the said document.

23.Even otherwise in a suit for mere permanent injunction the only issue to be decided is whether the plaintiff was in possession and 10 enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and A6 are more particularly Ex.A6 legal notice got issued by 2nd defendant clearly reveal that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Since this is not a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff need not proved her title to the plaint schedule property and it is suffice to prove her possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit property. It is to be noted that the plaintiff got issued a complaint to Superintendent of police under Ex.A9 on 22.4.2002 wherein she stated that during pendency of the suit the 1st defendant anf his son attacked the plaintiff and tried to trespass into the property and also threatened to construct compound wall. Until and unless some interference is there, there is no need to the plaintiff to lodge a complaint to Superintendent of police, Tirupati.

24.The 1st defendant contended that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to K.Raghava reddy and an extent of 175 ankanams which is equal to 700 square yards measuring East – West 90 feet and

North – South 70 feet, later the 2nd defendant purchased the same from

Raghava Reddy under Ex.A1 sale deed dated 9­10­1979. Later 2nd defendant got constructed a hut after obtaining permission from grampanchayat, Tiruchanur on the south – west corner of the site by leaving 9 feet for the road on the southern side. After completing hut when the 2nd defendant was desirous of letting out the same . The plaintiff who is no other than his sister­in­law approached the 2nd defendant and got it let out in her favour in the year 1980. Later P.Srinivasulu Naidu purchased 100 ankanams ie., East – west 59 feet and North – South 61 feet under registered sale deed dated 3­12­1981 for a consideration of Rs.16,000/­ .

11

Later the said Srinivasulu Naidu sold away some an extent to T.Mangamma wife of 1st defendant under Ex.A3 sale deed dated 10­5­1982, After purchasing site T.Mangamma got constructed three storied RCC building facing towards Tirupathi – Tiruchanur road. As S.No. Was wrongly mentioned as 242/1 instead of 240/1 Mangamma obtained registered rectification deed on 5.6.1996 from the wife of P.Srinivasulu Naidu, Ex.B4 is rectification deed dated 5.6.1996. Later Mangamma purchased 5.08 ankanams of site East – West 3 feet, North – South 61 feet from 2nd defendant under registered sale deed dt. 23.5.1988 for consideration of Rs, 2,400/­ In order to meet the requirements of TUDA regulations. Ex.B7 is registered sale deed dt. 23.5.198, but in the judgment it was wrongly typed

as 23/5/1981 instead of 1988.

25.The 1st defendant further contended that subsequently on 13.8.1997 the 2nd defendant sold away 14 x 61 ie., 23.72 ankanams to him, the 2nd defendant did not explained. / Moreover it is not the case of the defendant that the plaintiff encroached a portion of his site plaintiff when the plaintiff did not encroach in to portion of 2nd defendant’s property then the defendant has no right to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Pw2 and 3

S.Narayana and P.Rajeswari deposed that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from Raghava Reddy and they were present at the time of sale transaction.

26.Though the learned counsel for the defendant contended that

Pw3 has admitted in her cross examination that there is vacant site in between the thatched hut and the house of 1st defendant’s wife and the said 12 vacant site is higher in level than that of thatched hut, but no suggestion was given to Pw3 that the plaintiff has occupied the same. He did not mention as to when he got fenced his land with stone pillars and barbed wires and when he got raised foundation. In the absence of proof as to when the stone pillars were raised around the property and also foundation is raised it cannot be said that it was there even prior to filing of suit. On the other hand, Ex.A9 complaint given to the police lend support to the case of plaintiff that during pendency of the suit 1st defendant high handedly tried to encroach into the land and raised fencing.

Perused the following decisions relied upon by the learned counsel

for the respondent that 

1) AIR 2009 NOC 2998 

2) AIR 2009 NOC 2993 P & H 

3) 2004(3) SCC page 141

4) AIR 1962 Madrs page 149

Perused the above decision carefully In the 1st decision was held by

P.& H that 

Concurrent finding of fact recorded that plaintiff failed to prove his ownership. He would not be entitled to permanent and mandatory injunction. In such case, suit for possession could be filed.

According to 2nd decision cited above it was held that 

When the sale deed in favour of defendant prior purchaser was proved. There were neither pleadings nor any evidence on record to show any act on part of subsequent purchaser which might have led to hold that it was subsequent purchasers who have an expression that vendors were ostensible owners with consent of true owner. Benefit of Sec.41 of TP Act could not be given as ingredients thereof were not pleaded.

13

The above two decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case. As the facts of present case are different from the facts of the above case 

The 3rd decision supra that …

It is settled law that no injunction could be granted against the true owner at the instance of persons in unlawful possession.

The proposition of law laid down in the above decision is true and binding.

Here the 2nd defendant failed to prove that he is owner of the hut and he let out the same to the plaintiff. He did not mention the monthly rent, similarly no rent receipt is filed and no document is filed to prove that the property stands in his name. In the absence of filing of any lease deed or receipt as the 2nd defendant is the owner of the property and cannot be stated that the 2nd defendant is the owner of the property. Hence the above decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. 

27.Since the plaintiff proved her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of suit ie Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and more particularly in view of admission made by 2nd defendant in Ex.A6 notice mentioning the schedule and boundaries the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. Even Ex.A8 office copy of legal notice

dated 25.6.1989 given by the plaintiff to K.Padmavathamma wife Raghava

reddy was sold away the property to the plaintiff.

28.The trial court has come to an erroneous conclusion that

Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 do not prove the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. As Ex.A1, Ex.A4, Ex.A6 and Ex.A8 prove possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property she is entitled for a decree as prayed 14 for and the decree and judgment of the trial court are liable to be set aside.

Accordingly I answer these points in favour of appellant against the respondent.

29.In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs, the decree and judgment passed by the trial court in OS No. 613 / 2000 dated 20­9­2010 is hereby set aside.

The suit in OS 613/2000 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Tirupathi is decreed with costs, the defendants, their men and agents are hereby perceptually restrained from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over plaint schedule property.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and

pronounced in open court this the 14th day of September, 2017.

III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Copy to:

The Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Tirupati 

Fair Judgment in 

A.S.No. 89 of 2011 

dt. 14­09­2017

1

In the court of the Judge, Family Court – cum­ V Additional District

Judge, Tirupati

Present: Sri S.V.Narasimha Raju,

Judge, Family Court–cum­V Addl. District Judge,

Tirupati.

Thursday, the Twenty First (21st) day of February,

Two thousand Nineteen

 F.C.O.P.NO. 27 of 2017

Between:

Dr. T.S.Chandrasekhar, S/o. Late Srirama Reddy, Hindu, 42 years, Thummalahalli village, Pedduru Post, Murugamalla Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka State. …Petitioner. And:

Mallimala Srisilpa, W/o. Dr. T.S.Chandrasekhar, D/o. M.Subbarami Reddy, Hindu, 39 years, Dependant, residing at D.No.1­5­555, Sai Srinivas,

1st Floor, Balaji Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..Respondent.

This petition coming on 14­02­2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Nagaraju, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri B.Narahari Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following: 

:: O R D E R ::

This is a petition filed under section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage

Act by the petitioner/husband to dissolve his marriage held with the respondent on 09­05­2007 at Tirupati.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 09­05­2007 at Hotel Bhimas residency, Tirupati as per Hindu rites, caste customs and usage. The marriage was consummated. No children are born to them out of wed­lock. The petitioner is a Doctor and working as

Associate Professor in Medical College in Malaysia since 2009. The respondent resided with him from the date of marriage till May, 2015. In order to save their future he got NRO Account in State Bank of Mysore,

Tirupati Branch. The respondent also opened another N.R.E.(Non Resident

External) Account in Andhra Bank, Balaji Colony, Tirupati Branch.

2

(i) After the marriage first they went to Nepal, where he was working at that time. The respondent pressurised him to apply for a job in overseas and did not want to stay at Nepal. In August, 2007 he left Europe for his higher studies and returned in August, 2008. Later in February, 2009 he joined in Melaka Manipal Medical College, Malaysia. The respondent joined him in March, 2009. But returned to India in May, 2009 to open N.R.E.Bank account. From March, 2009 to December, 2010 the respondent traveled many a time to India against his wish and at that time after consultation with gynecologist it was noticed that the respondent had

Tubal Obstruction and also poly­cystic ovarian syndrome. The Doctor insisted her to undergo in­vitro fertilization treatment. Though he joined

Medical College at Chennai, but the respondent did not co­operate with him and she used to spend time with her parents at Tirupati. Even when he came to Tirupati the respondent did not perform her marital obligations and she did not like to stay with the petitioner at Chennai. When he suggested to the respondent to undergo IVF treatment to beget children, she argued that labour class people will beget children soon after the marriage, but educated people will first earn money and then beget children. After long pursuations from 2011, the respondent accepted to undergo IVF treatment in Kaula Lumpur fertility Center in the month of

February, 2014 and it was successful with twin pregnancy. She had verbal confrontation with the petitioner’s colleagues on money issues. Because of her attitude the pregnancy was aborted in 7th month and both babies died

before reaching hospital. At that time the respondent abused him by

stating that the boy had a black complexion like him and the girl had fair complexion. Subsequently, again there was successful IVF treatment and despite his advise the respondent became aggressive, restless and pressurized him to apply for a job, which would yield higher amount in

Malaysia and due to her stress the second pregnancy also aborted in May, 2015.

(ii) In June, 2015 he returned to India and at that time the respondent treated him with utmost cruelty and picked up unnecessary quarrels with him for trivial issues in the presence of his friends and well wishers. She used to argue that money is most important thing for her. As they have no children, she demanded to purchase a house by spending 3 earnings of Rs.90,00,000­00. In order to avoid matrimonial disputes and to avoid rupture with the respondent he came to India to purchase a house, but it was not fructified. As he got trust on his wife, he used to transfer money from his account to her account. Subsequently he came to know that the respondent opened the bank account in her name and she has mis used to a tune of Rs.90,00,000­00, for which he filed O.S.No.552/1996 on the file of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tirupati. She hurted him by abusing, blackmailing and intimidating and did not agree to purchase a house. Then he came to India in the third week of May, 2015 to settle monitory issues with the respondent. But she did not turn up. Later he joined again in International Medical College at Malaysia in November, 2015 and there were no contacts between him and the respondent as she refused to return money transferred by him and blackmailing him. The respondent used to send E.mails and messages through whatsapp to his colleagues and friends informing the marital conflict between them. She further informed that she would not return money sent by him and also abused him that he is suffering from psychiatric problem and that she is going to initiate criminal cases against him, under Dowry Prohibition Act and Domestic Violence Act and other cases and send him to Jail. She also sent two E.mails to his Head of Department, Vice Chancellor and Dean by stating that she is going to file criminal cases against the petitioner and he will be arrested at Airport and his passport will be seized then and there and the petitioner cannot work anywhere. She also sent E.mails complaining against him to Indian High Commission, Kuala Lumpur on 15­12­2015 and on 16­01­2016. On enquiry he informed the high handed acts of the respondent and on that the Indian High Commission did not initiate any action. Later in February, 2016 the respondent came to

Malaysia on tourist visa and without his knowledge, she met the colleagues of petitioner and enquired about his whereabouts. She informed him over phone that she filed cases under Domestic Violence Act and she came to

Malaysia to take him to India and put him in jail. The respondent foisted false cases against him and with the help of Indian High Commission and

Local police she broke opened his flat and she stayed there for one week and propagated about marital disputes to his friends and colleagues.

4

(iii) During her stay with him there was no marital relationship. The respondent used to abuse him and his family members as “mee kulam yanadula kulam, yerukula kulam, nee chelli karrimunda, nalla munda, danikoduku kunti vadu………...”. The respondent developed negative attitude towards the petitioner and used to abuse him by stating that he hails from village and a poor background. She is more aggressive, adamant and dominant in her nature and she never tried to mend her ways to live with the petitioner. She wants to squeeze money and never compromised to lead marital life. Hence, the petition for divorce. 

3The respondent filed her counter admitting that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 09­ 05­2007 at Tirupati and marriage was consummated. She denied the other allegations made by the petitioner in his petition against her that she treated him cruelly and cheated him by defrauding funds. She contended that the petitioner treated her with cruelty. 

(i) In the month of May, 2014 she had undergone IVF treatment in K.L.Fertility Center at Kaula Lumpur and she became pregnant with double embryos, but her pregnancy was aborted in

September, 2014. Again she conceived with one more embryo and lost her pregnancy, after return to India she got removed the dead foetus at Fortis

Hospital, Bangalore. At that time she stayed in her sisters­in­law’s house at

Bangalore, where the real problem of harassment started for loosing baby.

The petitioner and his sister and brother­in­law and also mother harassed her for not bringing sufficient dowry. Unable to bear harassment she came to her parents house at Tirupati on 01­06­2015. Then the petitioner also came to Tirupati as his contact was completed in Malaysia. When they were living in Tirupati the petitioner continuously harassed her for loss of baby and some times for money. When she went to Bangalore to her sister­in­ law’s house, Rangappa assaulted him in the presence of her husband and demanded additional dowry. On 10­11­2015 the petitioner went to

Malaysia without informing her and without sending dependent VISA to her. When she tried to contact him over phone , he did not respond for the same. She waited for few months and thereafter she went to Kaula Lumpur by taking tourist VISA. When she called the petitioner several times over 5 phone, he did not lift the phone. As there was no response from the petitioner, she went to the college of petitioner and asked him keys, the respondent did not give keys to her. Then with the help of Indian High

Commission she stayed in the flat of petitioner for one week. Later she returned to India on 14­03­2016. she gave a complaint to Mahila Police,

Tirupati against the petitioner and his family members for harassment made by him. The police held counseling on 26­03­2016 with the petitioner and his family members. But there was no change in the attitude of the petitioner and his family members. Hence, police registered a case in

Crime No.6/2017 against the petitioner and others under section 498A IPC and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner has no cause of action to file this petition and he is not entitled for any relief and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4To prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the petitioner he was examined as PW­1 and got marked Exs.A­1 to A­3, which are marriage registration certificate, wedding photograph and identity card of petitioner issued by Election Commission of India respectively. He also examined one K.N.Maddi Reddy as PW­2. 

(i) The respondent herself was examined as RW­1 and also examined one R.Mani Reddy as RW­2 and she did not file any documents in support of her contention.

5 Heard both sides and perused the record.

6 Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce as prayed for?

7Point:

The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner is husband of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 09­05­2007 at Tirupati as per Hindu religious rites, caste customs and usage. The petitioner hails from Karnataka and the respondent hails from Tirupati, it is an arranged marriage. The petitioner was working as Assistant professor in

Medical College in Malaysia from 2009 onwards. Though the marriage was consummated no children were born to the couple during the course of their wed­lock. The respondent lived with the petitioner till May, 2015.

6

They opened NRE Account in Andhra Bank, Tirupati.

8It is also not in dispute that as the respondent did not conceive for quite a long time after solemnization of marriage. She took IVF treatment and after IVF treatment she conceived. But the pregnancy was terminated in 7th month and both babies died unborn. The respondent again conceived for second time also, the said pregnancy was also aborted and ultimately, they have no children.

9The petitioner filed this petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. As the petitioner is seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, the burden lies on him to prove that the respondent/wife subjected him to cruelty, which is of such a nature that he is unable to continue the marital tie with the petitioner due to apprehension of danger to his life or limb. 

10 Cruelty is not defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but it is an act of indifference to or delighting in another's pain. The Courts have described the cruelty in different cases differently depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Cruelty may be of infinite variety. It can be subtle or brutal. It may be physical or mental. It may be by words, gestures or by mere silence, violence or non­violence. To constitute cruelty the acts or omissions must be so serious to create reasonable apprehension in the mind of other spouse that it is unsafe to her to live with the other.

The legal concept of cruelty generally described as conduct of such character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental) or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger as was held by the Division Bench of our Hon’ble High Court in Challa Suryan Prabha

Vs. Challa Divakar Venkata Ram, reported in 2017(2) ALT 417(DB). 

11According to the petitioner, the respondent/wife swindled lot of amount i.e., nearly Rs.90,00,000­00 deposited in their N.R.E Account at

Tirupati without his knowledge and consent. On that he filed a suit against the respondent/wife vide O.S.No.552/2016 on the file of 1st Additional

Junior civil Judge’s Court, Tirupati, which was disposed of by negativing the claim of the petitioner. Though the petitioner admitted that the suit filed by him was dismissed, but he did not file certified copy of either plaint or Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.552/2016 to show for what relief 7 he has filed the suit and the Judgment passed by the trial court. Thus, except taking a bold plea that the respondent/wife swindled huge amount of Rs.90,00,000­00 from his N.R.E.Account, which he has sent with his hard earnings in foreign country, the petitioner did not file any documentary evidence to that effect. According to the petitioner, the respondent/wife opened another account and transferred funds to her account. Except his oral testimony there is no evidence on record to prove the same. Hence, the plea of the petitioner that the respondent cheated him financially is not proved and it can not be a ground to grant decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner. 

12The other contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondent left the company of the petitioner in the third week of May, 2015 from Malaysia and thereafter she did not return to his matrimonial company. In the second week of November, 2015 he joined in International

Medical University, Malaysia and from such time there were no contacts between them. Though he requested to refund the amount transferred by him, she blackmailed him on the ground that she would take coercive steps against him in the court of law. Though he joined in another University, the respondent began sending whatsapp messages and E.mails to his colleagues, friends and informed about the matrimonial disputes between them and further informed that she would not return money sent by him and abused that the petitioner was suffering from psychiatric problem and she is going to initiate criminal action against the petitioner and she would sent him to Jail. He further deposed that she sent E.mails to Head Of

Department, Vice Chancellor and Deen of University where the petitioner was working by stating that she is going to file criminal cases against the petitioner and and he would be arrested. He also contended that the petitioner also sent complaint to Indian High Commission, Kaula Lumpur through E.mail on 15­12­2015 and on 16­01­2016 and Indian High

Commission inturn enquired him about the dispute and on his explanation they kept quiet. 

13But the petitioner did not file any documentary evidence such as copies of E.mail allegedly sent by the respondent either to the petitioner or to his colleagues or to his employer. He did not examine even his 8 colleagues to prove that the respondent sent E.mails to them disclosing the marital disputes between them and intimidated that she would initiate criminal cases against the petitioner and that he would be kept behind bars.

Thus, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to prove that the respondent sent abusive and intimidating messages to the colleagues and employer of the petitioner. 

14The petitioner further contended that in February, 2016 the respondent came to Malaysia on tourist VISA and met his colleagues and friends and enquired about his whereabouts and also informed them that she had already filed a case against the respondent under domestic violence Act. Later she obtained a letter from Indian High Commission to the local police to break open doors of the Flat of petitioner and entered into the house.

15The respondent admitted that she went to Malaysia in

February, 2016 on tourist VISA and with the help of police she broke open the lock of the doors of the Flat and stayed in the flat of the petitioner for some time and later she returned to India. Though the petitioner contended that the petitioner sent E.mails by stating that the gas was leading from the cooking stove and if anything was happened the petitioner alone would be responsible and also tried to reach the working place, he failed to prove the same. As the petitioner was working at

Malaysia she went there to join matrimonial company of her husband and entering into the house by breaking open the lock of the door also does not amount to cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife. 

16The petitioner further contended that the respondent is more aggressive, adamant and dominant in her nature and she never tried to mend her ways to live with the petitioner and she wants to squeeze money and never compromised to lead marital life. But except self interested testimony of petitioner, who was examined as PW­1, there is no other evidence on record to prove the same. The evidence of PW­2 K.Maddi

Reddy, who is co­brother of the petitioner is not much helpful to prove that the respondent committed the acts of cruelty against the petitioner. In the cross­examination of PW­2 he admitted that he never visited the house 9 of respondent and he did not know when the disputes arose between the parties at the first time. 

17On the other hand, the respondent/wife who was examined as

RW­1 filed her affidavit in lieu of her chief examination denying that she cheated the petitioner by swindling huge amount of Rs.90,00,000­00 from the account of the petitioner without his knowledge. She also denied that she subjected the petitioner to cruelty or intimidated him to file criminal complaints against him to see that he would be kept behind bars. She further contended that when she approached Malaysian Police in February, 2016 they broke opened the lock of the flat of petitioner and she stayed for one week and thereafter she returned to India. Though she contended that the petitioner/husband threatening messages through E.mails to go back to

India as he cancelled the house tenancy agreement and the same is also not proved by any documentary evidence. She deposed that she filed complaint to Mahila Police against the petitioner, his mother, sister and brother­in­ law and Mahila Police registered a case in Crime No.6/2017 against the above referred persons for the offences punishable under section 498A IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, she did not file any copy of complaint given to police. The petitioner did not deny the same. Though, it was suggested to her by the petitioner’s counsel that the trouble started between them with regard to spending of money by her, she denied the same. She denied that she sent threatening E.mails to her husband, but she contended that her husband created her E.mail and password and got sent the messages, but the same is not denied by the petitioner. 

18RW­2 R.Mani Reddy, a resident of Cherlopalli village, Tirupati rural Mandal filed her affidavit in lieu of his chief examination stating that the respondent looked after the petitioner well and that during the second pregnancy the petitioner harassed the respondent and he was responsible for termination of second pregnancy. His evidence is also not helpful to either party, because he never lived in Tirupati.

19Though the petitioner contended that the respondent/wife abused him that he belongs to yanadula commuinity, yerukula community, and his sister is like a black­log and her son was handicapped person and his 10 brother is a beggar and the petitioner is a non­clinical Doctor, but the petitioner did not mention on which cause respondent uttered the said words and on the date of which they were uttered. Similarly the oral testimony of the petitioner is not corroborated by any other independent witnesses. Hence, the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent abused him as a person of mean caste and about complexion of his sister.

20Thus, none of the grounds taken by the petitioner are proved and the petitioner did not take any other plea as ground for divorce. Ex.A­1 marriage certificate issued by Registrar of Marriages, Tirupati, Ex.A­2 wedding photograph and Ex.A­3 Identity card issued by Election

Commission of India, are not helpful to the petitioner to prove his case. As the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent subjected him to cruelty, he is not entitled for the relief as prayed and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer this point.

21In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21 st day of February, 2019.

Judge,

Family Court –cum­V.Addl. District Judge,

Tirupati.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of 

Petitioner: Respondent:

PW­1: T.S.ChandrasekharRW­1: Mallimala Srisilpa PW­2: K.N.Maddi ReddyRW­2: R.Mani Reddy

 EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Petitioner: Ex.A­1 : Marriage certificate issued by Registrar of Marriages, Tirupati, Ex.A­2: Wedding photograph of the parties Ex.A­3 : Identity card issued by Election Commission of India

Respondent: NIL 

Judge

Family Court –cum­ V Addl D.J., TPT.

Fair order in FCOP No.27 of 2017

dt: 21­02­2019

11

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: TIRUPATI

PRESENT: SRI S.V.Narasimha Raju Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupati ­Cum­III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 

Friday, the Fifteenth (15th) day of September, Two Thousand Seventeen

M.V.O.P.No. 34 of 2011

Between

A.Munikrishna Reddy ...Petitioner

And

1. P.Madhusudhana

2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Tirupathi rep.by its Divisional Manager

3. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Tirupathi

rep.by its Branch Manager .. Respondents 

This petition is coming up before me on 5­9­2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Vellore G. Ganesh, Advocate for petitioner and Sri N. Yoganand Advocate for 1st respondent, Sri S.M.Jhan Advocate for 2nd respondent and Sri K.Parthasarathi, Advocate for 3rd respondent and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following: :­

:: A W A R D ::

1. This is a petition filed under Sec.166(1)(b) of the Motor

Vehicles Act to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000­00 towards damages, to the petitioner together with interest at 18% per annum and also to award costs.

2The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner is owner of Bajaj Pulsar­200 motor cycle bearing No. AP 03 AP 3016, the petitioner has got RC in his name. On 19­10­2010 M.M.Vinay Kumar and

P.Prasanth Babu friends of petitioner’s son while going on motor cycle on

Cherlopalli – Alipiri by­pass road one Innova Car bearing No. AP 09 BF 2 2025 belonging to 1st respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the fore­going motor cycle of the petitioner. As a result of which rider of motor cycle M.M.Vinay kumar and pillion rider R.Prasanth Babu fell on the road and sustained severe multiple injuries and died on the spot. Later a criminal case was registered by M.R.palli police against the driver of Innova car in Cr.

No.147/2010 u/s 304­A and 279 IPC and filed charge sheet and it is pending on the file of III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tirupathi.

Immediately after the accident the petitioner informed the same to the 3rd respondent and investigator also filed his detailed report.

3.The motor cycle of the petitioner was badly damaged and the same was given to Sri Ram Enterprises who is authorised dealer of Bajaj

Vehicles for repair and they gave an estimation for repairing the said vehicle at Rs.1,08,005/­. The petitioner restricted his claim only

Rs.90,000/­ and also sought damages of Rs. 10,000/­

4.The accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s Innova car. The 1st respondent insured his vehicle with the 2nd respondent. Hence 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner along with 1st respondent.

The petitioner insured his vehicle with the 3rd respondent which is shown as formal party. Hence the petition.

5.The 1st respondent filed his counter contending that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in 3 limini. He contended that there is no negligence on the part of its driver and there is no negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle who drove the same and caused accident. The rider of the motorcycle who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost his control over two wheeler and as a result the accident occurred. The rider of the motorcycle did not possess valid driving licence. He came at high speed nearly 120 kilo meter per hour and came on extreme right side by overtaking another vehicle going ahead. Hence 1st respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The claim made by the petitioner is excessive. 1st respondent's vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent and policy is in force and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.The 2nd respondent filed Written statement contending that the petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of 1st respondent and it occurred due to rash and negligent driving of rider of motorcycle who is not having valid and effective driving licence. The rider is gong in a zig zag manner and contributed negligence to cause the accident. He denied that Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle was badly damaged and the same was given Sri Ram Enterprises for repair and they estimated to repairs at Rs.1,08,005/­ . The petitioner did not make survey of the damaged vehicle through this respondent company recognised surveyor cum loss assessor and the estimation made by Sri

Ram Enterprises is abnormal and the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. The petitioner is entitled to 4 receive compensation towards damages from the 3rd respondent who insured the vehicle for damages. When the petitioner gets damage from 3rd respondent the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation once again.

7.The inspector of police who registered the case filed charge sheet against the driver of 1st respondent u/s 304­A IPC alone and they have not shown anything about the damages caused to the motorcycle and prayed to dismiss the petition.

8.The 3rd respondent filed Written statement contending that the petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. The averments made in the petition are not true and correct and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The petitioner insured his vehicle with this respondent . The 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner as he did not submit the required materials like Driving licence of the person at the time of accident, original RC etc. to the insurance company, though sufficient time was granted to him. The 3rd respondent also sent a reminder on 24­1­2011 to the petitioner to submit particulars but it was returned.

9.The person driving the motorcycle at the time of accident did not possesses valid driving licence to drive the two wheeler and knowing fully well the petitioner allowed the person to drive the vehicle which is against the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus the petitioner violated the condition of the policy. Hence 3rd respondent is not liable to 5 pay compensation to the petitioner. It is only a formal party and prayed to dismiss the petition.

10. Based on the above said pleadings, my learned predecessor in office settled the following issues for trial:­

1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent of the driver of Innova car bearing No. AP 09 BG 2025 and that resulted in causing damage to the petitioner’s vehicle Pulsar DTS 220 CC motor cycle bearing No. AP 03 3016? 2Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount ? 3To what relief? 

11.To prove their respective contentions on behalf of the petitioner,

Pw1 and Pw2 are examined and Exs.A­1 to A­6 are marked. On behalf of the respondents none are examined and no documents are exhibited.

12.Heard both sides and perused the record. 

13. ISSUE NO.1:

 The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 03 AP 3016

Registeration Certificate is also in his name. On 19­10­2010 he gave his motorcycle to M.M.Vinay and Prasanth babu when they were going on the motorcycle from Cherlopalli to Alipiri one Innova Car bearing No.

AP 09 BF 2025 came in a rash and negligent manner behind the motor cycle and hit on the back side as a result the rider and pillion rider fell on the ground and died on the spot and motorcycle was also badly damaged. Later M.R.Palli police registered a case against the driver of

Innnova car u/s 304­A and 279 IPC in Cr.No. 147/10 and filed charge sheet and it is pending before III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Tirupathi. Immediately after the accident the petitioner informed the 6 same to the 3rd respondent who filed his detailed report. He gave his vehicle to Sri Ram Enterprises who is authorised dealer of Bajaj Pulsar for repairs and estimated repair costs at Rs.1,08,005/­. Hence the petition. Though estimated costs was higher, the petitioner restricted his claim only to Rs.90,000/­ and also claiming damages of Rs.10,000/­. 

14.The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Innova car as such 2nd respondent who is insurer of the vehicle of 1st respondent (who is owner) is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and prayed to answer this issue accordingly.

15.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of 1st respondent and the deceased rider of motor cycle drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle as a result the accident occurred. Though the police registered a case against the driver of 1st respondent it was not mentioned in the charge sheet that the vehicle was damaged. The rider of the motorcycle had no valid driving licence. Thus the petitioner has violated the the terms and conditions of the policy as such he is not entitled for any damages and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

16.The petitioner was examined as Pw1 filed his chief affidavit reiterating the petition averments and through him Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked. Ex.A1 is Certified copy of FIR in Cr. No. 147/10 of M.R.Palli 7 Police station. Ex.A2 is Certified copy of charge sheet filed for the above said fact. Ex.A3 is Tax invoice issued by Sri Ram Enterprises, Ex.A4 is

Inspection report dt. 7.12.2010, Ex.A5 is attested copy of estimation issued by Sri Ram Enterprise issued in the name of petitioner. Ex.A6 is copy of RC of the petitioner.

17.As per RC the petitioner is owner of the vehicle bearing No. A P 03 AP 3016. The respondent also did not deny that the petitioner is the owner of vehicle. Though the petitioner contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of 1st respondent but he is not an eye witness to the accident. So his evidence is that the accident occurred due to negligent act of driver of 1st respondent cannot be taken into consideration.

18.Pw2­ K. Ram Mohan who is a resident of Perumal palli village stated in his affidavit that on 19­10­2010 about 5.30 p.m while he was returning from Tirumala on his motorcycle, the motor cycle was going towards Science Center and behind that vehicle one Innova car came and hit the motorcycle from its backside as a result of which the persons traveling in the motorcycle sustained injuries and the two wheeler was totally damaged and the total negligence was on the part of the driver of car.

19.Though Pw2 deposed that he saw the accident but he did not give any report to the police or shifted the injured to the hospital. He did not even produce driving licence of rider and pillion rider of motorcycle who died on the spot. Similarly he was not cited as witness in criminal case 8 filed against the driver of car. Pw2 witnessed the accident is not proved by cogent evidence. It appears that he is a chance witness. He did not mentioned even Number of car of Innova car, or the motorcycle belonging to the petitioner. Hence testimony of Pw2 is not helpfule to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of 1st respondent.

20.Coming to the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner.

Ex.A1 is Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No. 147/10 registered u/s 304­A 279

IPC of M.R.Palli Police station. R.V.Ramana who gave Ex.A1 report to the police is also not an eye witness to the accident and he came to know about the accident through somebody. The person who informed the accident and who witnessed the accident is not examined by the petitioner.

21Ex.A2 is Certified copy of Charge sheet in Cr.No. 147/10. As per

Ex./A2 M.M.Vinaykumar rider of motorcycle was going towards

Cherlopalli near Vidyanikethan on Cherlopalli Bye pass road tried to over­take the pulsar going ahead of the car dashed on the backside of

Pulsar motorcycle and as a result Vinaykumar pillion rider died on the spot due to multiple injuries. There is no contra evidence on record to prove that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of 1st respondent. Similarly respondents 1 to 3 did not adduce any evidence to show that there was contribute the negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle. Thus in view of Ex.A2 charge sheet it is clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of 1st 9 respondent who is owner cum driver of Innova car. Accordingly I answer this issue. 

22.ISSUE No.2

The contention of the petitioner is that the motorcycle was badly damaged in the accident and as per the invoice given by Sri Ram

Enterprises the spare parts costs of rs. 77,152/­ . Ex.A3 is estimation given by Sri Ram Enterprise. According to Ex.A3 value of new vehicle is

Rs. 67,381/­ including VAT @ 14.5% total value comes to Rs.77,152/­.

Though the petitioner claimed Rs.12,348/­ towards labour charges but he did not file any document to that effect. But on the other hand, the petitioner filed Ex.A4 which is 3rd party Inspection report issued by Sri

Ram Enterprises surveyor loss assessor dt. 7.12.2010. He inspected the vehicle on 1.12.2010 ie., 1½ months after the accident. According to him the actual loss is assessed Rs.82,983/­. As per Ex.A3 value of new vehicle is Rs.63,087/­ when such is the case, valuation issued by Sridhar under Ex.A4 cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover the petitioner did not examine the said Sridhar who issued Ex.A4 Ex.A5 is another estimation issued by Sri Ram Enterprise for Rs.1,08,005/­. As I already pointed out by me as per Ex.A3 invoice dated 16.9.2010 the value of the new vehicle is Rs.67,381/­ but the estimation is given for Rs.1,08,005/­.

The petitioner also did not examine any person who issued valuation under Ex.A5. Hence Ex.A5 also cannot be taken into consideration.

Since the value of new vehicle Rs.67,381/­ and Rs.7,381/­ is deducts towards depreciation, the value of Vehicle is Rs.60,000/­ .

10

23.Since it is found that the value of motorcycle is Rs.60,000/­ the petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs.60,000/­ only. Since the vehicle of the 1st respondent dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner and 2nd respondent is insurer of the 1st respondent both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is joined as proposed party as no relief is claimed against him. Hence it cannot be mulcted with any liability.

Accordingly I answer this point.

24. In the result, this petition is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) to the petitioner with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% p.a, from the date of petition till the date of deposit into court.

The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit entire compensation amount in to court within three weeks from the date of this order.

On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw Rs.60,000/-.

Rest of the petitioner’s claim is dismissed.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2000/-.

The claim against 3rd respondent is dismissed.

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

me in open court, this the 15th day of September, 2017.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­Cum­ III Additional District 

Judge,Tirupati.

11

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of 

Petitioner :­ Respondents:­ PW­1 : A.Munikrishna reddy PW2 : K.Ram mohan Exhibits marked on behalf of Petitioner :­ Sl.Exhibit markedDescription of document No.

1Ex.A­1Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.147/2010 2Ex.A­2Certified copy of charge sheet 3Ex.A­3Tax invoice issued by Sriram Enterprises Tirupathi 4Ex.A­4Inspection report 5Ex.A­5Attested copy of estimation issued by Sriram Enterprises 6Ex.A­6Attested copy of RC of petitioner’s vehicle.

For Respondents:­ NIL

Chairman, MACT­cum­ III A.D.J., Tirupati.

12

 Fair Order in

M.V.O P No. 34 of 2011, 

Dt. 15­09­2017 

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ::

TIRUPATI

PRESENT: SRI S.V.Narasimha Raju Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupati -Cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Thursday, the Fourteenth(14th ) day of September, Two Thousand Seventeen

M.V.O.P.No. 172 of 2014

Between 1.Gudla Venkatramana

2. Gudla Ramalakshmu ...Petitioners

And

APSRTC rep.by its Managing Director,

Hyderabad. .. Respondent

This petition is coming up before me on 01-09-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.S.N.Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri G.Srinivasulu, Advocate for respondent, and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following :- :: A W A R D ::

1. This is a petition filed under Sec.166(1)(c) of the

Motor Vehicles Act to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000-00 together with costs and subsequent interest for the death of

Yogeswara who died in a motor accident that occurred on 9.8.2013 near Bandapalli village, Ramapuram mandal, Chittoor district.

2The brief averments of the petition are that: on 9-8-2013 at about 1.30 AM the deceased Yogeswara along with his neighbor was going on a tractor bearing No. AP03 AG 6329 with trailer No.

AP03 AG 6330 as a cooli to Chinthakommala Dinne village of Kadapa district. After loading groundnut leaves, they were returning to their village and when they reached near Bandapalli village they observed one stationed tractor with trailer. Then the driver cum owner

P.Subramanyam stopped his tractor and came to know that the stationed tractor belonging to their village which stopped under repair, but the deceased Yogeswara was sitting on the tractor. At that time the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 1320 belonging to the respondent came at high speed and dashed on the backside of the tractor and trailer due to that the deceased fell on the ground and received fatal injuries. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Government hospital, Rayachoty. While undergoing treatment he died. The accident occurred purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent.

3.The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was aged about 30 years. He was doing silk weaving work and earing a sum of Rs.400/→ per day and he contributing his earnings to the welfare of his family. The deceased was also doing agricultural operations as his family got Ac.5.00 of wet and dry lands. On that the deceased was earning Rs. One lakh per annum.

After the death of deceased the entire landed properties are keptfallow.

4.The driver of the APSRTC bus while discharging his duty committed the accident. Hence the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Subsequently the petitioner shifted his family to Arepalli Rangampeta of Chandragiri mandal for doing cooli work. Hence this tribunal has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The SHO Ramapuram police registered a case in Cr.No.98/2013 u/s 304-A IPC against the driver of respondent.

Thus the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5.The respondent filed a counter contending that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limini. The allegations mentioned in the columns of petition are not true and correct. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of respondent is not true and correct and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the allegations that the deceased was earning Rs. 400/- per day and also doing agricultural work and he was getting One lakh per annum. He denied the manner of occurrence of the accident and he contended that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of respondent.

6.On 9-8-2013 at about 1 or 1-30 AM the bus was coming from

Kadapa to Bangalore and two tractors and trailers going one by one from Chinthakomma Dinne village, near Kadapa to Piler side and suddenly the front going tractor lock was removed and suddenly trailer of the first going tractor stopped and due to which 2nd going tractor dashed the trailer which is ahead and the deceased

Yogeswara who sat behind the driver on engine fell down on the road and received injuries. On seeing the above said acts the back coming driver of the bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 1320 stopped his bus and summoned 108 ambulance and sent the injured person to the Rayachoti government hospital to save the lives of poor coolies.

Subsequently the driver cum owner of the tractor who has no valid driving licence, insurance to the tractor and trailer and another vehicle with the assistance of some other persons intelligently given a report through one G.Hemadri who is younger brother of the deceased before Ramapuram police, though he was not at all present and he did not see anything with regard to manner of accident and falsely implicated the driver of the bus to get benefits in future. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of respondent. The deceased is not entitled to travel on the tractor and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7.Based on the above said pleadings, my learned predecessor in office settled the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC bus bearing Reg. No.AP-29-Z-1320 of the respondent on 9-8-2013 and whether G.Yogeswar died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident.? 2What was the age and income of the deceased as on the date of the accident? 3Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount? 4To what relief?

8To prove their respective contentions on behalf of the petitioners Pws-1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 are marked. On behalf of the respondent the driver of respondent is examined as RW1 and no documents are exhibited.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10 ISSUE NO.1

The main contention of the petitioners is that on 9.8.2013 when the petitioners along with one P.Subramanyam were coming on tractor bearing No. AP 03 AG 6329 with trailer bearing

No. AP 03 AG 6330 from Chinthakommadinne village in Kadapa district and when they reached near Bandapalli village they found stationed tractor belonging to their villager ahead tractor trailer stopped due to some repair. But the deceased Yogeswar still sat on the tractor. In the meanwhile APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 1320 came from backside with high speed and dashed against the tractor and trailer and as a result of which Yogeswar fell on the road and received injuries all over his body. Thus there is negligence on the part of the driver of RTC bus. Later the injured was shifted to Rayachoti Govt. Hospital. While undergoing treatment he died. Ramapuram police registered a case in cr. No.

98/13 for the offence u/s 304-A IPC .

11.The plea of respondent is that there is no rash and negligence on the part of its driver of the bus and in fact on seeing stationed tractor the driver of bus found the deceased fell down on the ground and received injuries, when the tractor hit stationed trailer. Immediately the driver of RTC bus sent for 108 ambulance and shifted him to the hospital. By managing the police the brother of the deceased got registered the case against the driver of RTC bus, and prayed to disbelieve the evidence of Pw1 and 2.

12.PW1-G.Venkataramana who is father of deceased filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination stating that on 8-8-2013 in the evening his son along with Subramanyam started to go to

Chinthakommala Dinne of Kadapa district to work as a cooli in the tractor bearing NO. AP 03 AG 6329 with trailer No. 6330. When they were returning to their native village and when they reached near Bandapalli village they observed stationed tractor and trailer ahead of them. Then the driver stopped the tractor and get down, but Yogeswar sat on the tractor. In the meanwhile the driver of

RTC bus came and hit the tractor as a result of which his son fell on the road and sustained injuries and he was shifted to Rayachoti hospital, there he died while under going treatment. Ex.A1 is CC of FIR in Cr. No.98/13 registered against driver of respondent.

Ex.A2 is CC of Inquest report, Ex.A3 is Postmortem certificate and

Ex.A4 is CC of charge sheet.

13.In the cross examination of Pw1 it was elicited that he did not see the accident. Hence the evidence of Pw1 that the driver of respondent was negligent driving the bus and caused accident cannot be taken in to consideration.

14.Pw2 B.Brahmaiah who is a resident of Kona village of

Kalakada mandal deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of respondent who hit the tractor as a result Yogeswar who sat on the tractor fell down on the road and received injuries. Though it was suggested to Pw2 that their tractor hit the stationed tractor he denied the same. He also denied that

RTC bus was not involved in the accident.

15.RW1 S. Venkatesh who was the drivr of RTC bus as on the date of accident deposed that there is no negligence on his part the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of front going tractor and tailer who had no valid driving licence and the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party. He further stated that Yogeswar fell on the road and received injuries and one of the person gathered there informed to 108 Ambulance and shifted the injured to the Government hospital Rayachoti.

16.In the cross examination of RW1 it was elicited that the police registered a criminal case against him and they did not register a case against the tractor owner and its driver. Ex.A1 is

CC of FIR in Cr. No. 98/13 based on the complaint filed by

G.Hemadri brother of deceased. As per FIR the complainant

Hemadri is not an eye witness to the incident and he came to know about the accident. He further stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC bus but his evidence cannot be taken into consideration as he is not an eye witness. Ex.A4 is charge sheet filed in Cr. NO. 98/13 against

RW1 who is driver of RTC bus.

17.It is mentioned in the charge sheet that the accused caused accident and Pw2 said to be an eye witness deposed that the accused the driver of RTC bus caused the accident. As there is no contra evidence. I answer this issue in favour of the petitioenr and against the respondents.

18.Issue No.2:According to the petitioners the age of the deceased Yogeswar was 30 years by the date of accident and he was earning Rs.400/- per day as by working in Silk Weavering.

The respondent contended that the petitioner are put to strict proof the age and income of the deceased. To proof of age and income of the deceased the petitioner did not file any document. However in view of decision “Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 (4) SCJ 91”, it is held that the age mentioned in the inquest report can be taken to consideration. As per Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 inquest report and

Postmortem report, the deceased was aged about 33 years, hence the age of the deceased is taken as 33 years. So far the income of the deceased is concerned the petitioner did not file any document.

Pw1 and Pw2 deposed that the deceased was getting Rs.400/- per day in Silk Weaving. But the petitioner did not examine the employer who paid Rs.400/→ per day to the deceased. Since the income of the deceased was not proved by the documentary evidence, his income has to be taken only at Rs.4,500-00 per month. Though the petitioner contended that their son was also getting income of Rs,One lakh on agriculture but they did not file any document to that effect and they did not examine any one to prove the same. Accordingly, I answer this issue.

19.ISSUE No.3

The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under different heads.

SPECIAL DAMAGES

The petitioner claimed Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of earnings. The petitioner claimed Rs.5,000/- towards transport to hospital The petitioner claimed Rs.5,000/-towards extra nourishment The petitioner claimed Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses.

Thus in all they claimed Rs.1,80,000/- Since the deceased died within 4 hours of the accident, the question of extra nourishment does not arise. Similarly loss of earnings also does not arise as he died on the same day. So far as transportation to the hospital is concerned, though the petitioner did not say anything. According to the respondent the petitioner shifted to Government hospital through 108 ambulance. The petitioner did not deny the same. He did not mention the type of vehicle or registration number of vehicle which they have engaged.

Similarly they did not file any receipt, it shows that they paid Rs.5000/- towards transportion charges..

The petitioners claimed Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses.

The amount claimed by the petitioner is very minimum, the same is awarded to them.

The petitioners claimed Rs.3,00,000/- towards of loss of earnings, and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.

Annual income of the deceased is Rs.4500 x 12 = 54000/-

Since the deceased was having two dependents, 1/3 of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses.

54,000 – 18,000 = 36,000.

20.As per decision in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 (4) SCJ 91, the relevant multiplier applicable to this case is “16”,

Loss of dependency is Rs.36,000 x 16 = 5,76,000/-

The total amount awarded to the petitioners is Rs.5,76,000/- + 10,000 = 5,86,000/-. Since the petitioners claimed only

Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation, they are entitled for the same and the respondent is liable to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioners.

Accordingly I answer this issue.

21In the result, this petition is allowed granting compensation of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) to the petitioners with costs and interest @ 6% p.a, from the date of petition till the date of deposit into court.

The respondent is directed to deposit entire compensation amount in to court within a month from the date of this order.

On such deposit, the t petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to share equaly.

The petitioners 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw half of their share. Remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of 2 years.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3000/-.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th day of September, 2017.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- III Additional District

Judge,Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of

Petitioner :- Respondents:-

PW-1 : .G.Venkataramana RW-1 S.Venkatesh PW-2 : B.Brahmaiah

Exhibits marked on behalf of Petitioner :- Sl. Exhibit markedDescription of document No. 1Ex.A-1Certified copy of F.I.R. 2Ex.A-2Certified copy of Inquest report of the deceased. 3Ex.A-3Certified copy of Postmortem of the deceased 4Ex.A-4Certified copy of charge sheet

For Respondents:- NIL .

Chairman, MACT-cum- III A.D.J., Tirupati.

Fair Order in M.V.O P No. 172 of 2014,

Dt. 14-9-2017

 IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: TIRUPATI.

Present: Sri S.V.NARASIMHA RAJU  III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Thursday, the fourteenth (14th) day of September, Two thousand Seventeen

A.S.No. 204 of 2010

(O.S.No. 58 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi)

Between

Poli Srinivasulu ...Appellant

And :

Yachamaneni Venkataramana ...Respondent

On appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned

Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, dt.20­10­2008 made in 

O.S.No. 58 of 2007

Between

Poli Srinivasulu .. Plaintiff.

And :

Yachamaneni Venkataramana.. Defendants 

This Appeal coming for final hearing on 12­9­2017 before me in the presence of Sri M.Vijayasekar, Advocate for appellant and Sri P.S.Gopalakrishna Dass, Advocate for Respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The un­successful plaintiff is appellant herein. I shall refer the parties as they are arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience.

2The back ground of this appeal is that the plaintiff filed suit

OS 58 / 2007 on the file of Senior civil Judge, Srikalahasthi for recovery of

Rs.1,52,000/­ together with costs and subsequent interest based on the suit pronote dated 1.11.2004.

2

3.It is averred in the plaint that the defendant borrowed Rs, One Lakh from the plaintiff on 1.11.2004 for his business needs and executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% pa. Later inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff including legal notice dated 24­11­2006 got issued by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the amount. Hence the suit.

4.The defendant filed his written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. He denied execution of the suit pronore and also consideration thereunder. The suit pronote is an out and out forged one and fabricated and pressed into service by the plaintiff with a view to have wrongful gain . The defendant had no necessity to borrow the said amount of Rs.One lakh from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a total stranger to the defendant.

5.Earlier the plaintiff’s brother­in­law by name Dandu

Chiranjeevi got issued several notices to the defendant including a notice on 19.9.2005 demanding him to pay Rs.70,000/­ on the basis of a forged and fabricated pronote dated 15.3.2004. The defendant gave suitable reply denying execution of the pronote. Thereafter Chiranjeevi set up the plaintiff who is his brother­in­law and got issued a notice to this defendant on 28­11­2006 with similar allegations, with a view to black­mail the defendant and to extract money from him. The said Chiranjeevi is a close friend of the defendant and also his class­mate. In the month of November 2002 Chiranjeevi approached him for loan as he was not having money he requested his father­in­law M.Ramanaiah Naidu to lent a sum of

Rs.95,000/­ to Chiranjeevi. Accordingly his father­in­law lent Rs, 95,000/­ 3 to Chiranjeevi on 25.11.2002 on the foot of a promissory note.

Subsequently the borrower has not discharged the debt. Therefore his father­in­law filed a suit in OS 101/2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s court, Srikalahasthi for recovery of amount and it was pending. In order to take revenge against the defendant the said Chiranjeevi set up the plaintiff and filed this suit. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and suit pronote is fabricated with convenience of D.Chiranjeevi, The 2nd attestor is a close friend of D.Chiranjeevi as well as plaintiff and scribe of pronote. They all colluded together and brought into existence the suit pronote and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

6.Based on the above pleadings, the trial court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff gave the amount of Rs. One lakh to the defendant and that whether the defendant had really executed the suit pronote on the same day in favour of plaintiff whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

7.To prove their respective contentions on behalf of the plaintiff,

Pws­1 to 4 are examined and Exs.A­1 to A­6 are marked. On behalf of the defendants Dw­1 is examined and Exs.B­1 to B­4 are marked in the trial court.

8.After hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, the trial court has dismissed the suit. 

9Aggrieved by the said Dismissal of the suit the plaintiff preferred this appeal challenging the decree and judgment.

4

11.The plea of the appellant is that the trial court has misinterpreted the documentary and oral evidence on record and came to erroneous conclusion based upon its own surmises and conjunctions.

The lower court came to wrong conclusion that suit pronote was not executed by the defendant based on the evidence of Pws 2 to 4 who deposed that there is a difference of signature of the respondent / defendant in Ex.A1 on his vakalat and written statement which is totally wrong basis.

The lower court failed to appreciate that the evidence of Pw2 to 4 on the aspect of variance of signature in Ex.A1 and vakalat and written statement is only an individual opinion of the witness and not a statement of fact. 

Pws 2 to 4 cannot take place of hand­writing expert, who is authenticated under law to express his opinion on the signatures.

There is every possibility for the defendant to feign or disguise his signatures in the vakalat and written statement intentionally to show that there is difference in the signatures and written statement and vakalat with that of Ex.A1. 

The lower court erred in coming to conclusion that the signature in the written statement and vakalat are admitted signatures. By no sketch of imagination, they can be called as admitted signatures.

When once the plaintiff has discharged his burden, the burden shifts on to the defendant and it is for the defendant to establish that Ex.A1 is forged.

The lower court failed to appreciate that the suit transaction had no nexus with the suit OS 101/2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s court,

Srikalahasthi and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the lower court. 

5

The learned counsel for the respondent / defendant vehemently contended that the trial court came to correct conclusion , after properly assessing oral and documentary evidence available on record and there is no need to interfere with the finding of the trial court and prayed to dismiss the appeal with costs. 

12No additional evidence is adduced on either side. 

13Heard both sides and perused the record. 

14Now the points for determination in this appeal are:

1. Whether the suit pronote dated 1.11.2004 was duly executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and is it supported by consideration?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

3. Whether the Judgment and decree of the trial court is liable to be set aside?

15 Points 1 & 2:

The main contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.One lakh from him on 1.11.2004 for his business needs and executed suit pronote under Ex.A1 in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% pa, Ex.A1 is the pronote

dated 1.11.2004 executed by the defendant. Later inspite of several

demands made by the plaintiff including issuance of legal notice under

Ex.A2 on 24.11.2006. the defendant failed to repay the same and issued

Ex.A3 reply notice with all false allegations. Ex.A4 is postal acknowledgement of the defendant, Ex.A5 is Slip containing signature of defendant Ex.A6 is postal acknowledgement. 

6

16.The defendant denied execution of the suit pronote and also consideration thereunder and he contended that the plaintiff is a stranger to him. He never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor executed suit pronote. 

17.As the defendant denied execution of the suit pronte and also consideration thereunder, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove an execution of suit pronote and also consideration thereunder.

18.To prove the same the plaintiff himself examined as Pw1 besides examining its scribe V.V.Subba rao as Pw2 and attestors D.Chiranjeevi and

N..Sankar reddy as Pw3 and Pw4 respectively. No doubt Pw1 to 4 categorically deposed that the defendant borrowed Rs,One lakh from the plaintiff on 1.11.2004 and executed Ex.A1 suit pronote in favour of plaintiff in their presence and it was scribed by Pw2 and attested by Pw3 and Pw4.

Pw1 to 4 in one voice stated that the defendant borrowed amount and executed suit pronote in their presence. But in the cross examination Pw2 to 4 admitted that the signatures of defendant found on Vakalat, written statement varies with his signatures found on Ex.A1 promissory note.

19.The defendant took a specific plea in his written statement that the plaintiff is an utter stranger to him. Moreover the plaintiff and defendant do not belong to same village and they belong to different villages and different district. When such is the case how the defendant approached the plaintiff and through whom is not explained by the plaintiff. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he is a money lendor. When he is not doing money lending business what made the defendant to approach the plaintiff.

Moreover the suit transaction also did not take place at Naidupet, Nellore 7 district where the plaintiff is residing. But it took place at the house of Pw3

Chiranjeevi who is brother­in­law of plaintiff situated at A.M.Puttur. The scribe of Ex.A1 pronote is a resident of Srikalahasthi, whereas 2nd attestor of

Ex.A1 Sankar reddy who is a resident of Gundella village. Then how all of them gathered at the house of Pw3 is not explained by the plaintiff.

According to Pw1 he do not know Pw4. When a person does not know another person he would not request an unknown person to attest the promissory note. No doubt there is no enmity between Pw2 to 4 on one side and the defendant on the other hand. But a close perusal of Ex.A1 and on scrutiniy of the signature of defendant on Ex.A1 with that of his signatures found on suit summons, vakalat and written statement are distinct and different that necked eye. On Ex.A1 the signature was not made with a free hand, whereas on vakalat and written statement and summons the signature was made with free movement of hand. Admittedly

Pw3 Chirangeevi is the brother in law of plaintiff and Pw2 to 4 are friends of Chiranjeevi. When such is the case it appears that Chiranjeevi in collusion of with the plaintiff and Pw2 to 4 got fabricated the suit pronote.

The defendant contended that the signatures found on Ex.A1 is not that his signature and his signature found on suit summons, vakalat and written statement are distinct and different. The same was admitted by Pw2 to 4.

Hence in the above suit the trial court has came to correct conclusion.

20.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that with a view to deceive the plaintiff the defendant disguised his signatures on his vakalat,and written statement. But the same cannot be believed and in view of the free movement of hand while making signatures on Ex.A1 suit summons, vakalat and written statement.

8

21.The trial court has elaborately discussed the issue and came to correct findings. I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court. Since the appeal is devoid of merits it is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly I answer these points in favour of appellant and against the respondent.

22.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Confirming the decree and Judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge’s court,

Srikalahasthi in O.S. No. 58 of 2007, dt.20.10.2008. In the circumstances both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and

pronounced in open court this the 14th day of September, 2017.

III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Copy to:

The Senior Civil Judge's Court, Srikalahasthi

 Fair Judgment in 

A.S.No. 204 of 2010 

dt. 14­09­2017