S.Vasu Dev

PJCJ, GZL 1 of 4 O.S.No.161/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA.

PRESENT: SRI S. VASU DEV,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

THURSDAY, THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.161/2019

Between:

Iragadindla Ramana … Plaintif

Vs

1. Upputholla Yalamanda

2. Upputholla Srinu … Defendants

This suit coming on 24-12-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y. Srihari Rao, Advocate for the Plaintif and the defendants having remained exparte and after hearing the Counsel for

Plaintif, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This suit is filed by the plaintif for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their men, agents, relatives and successors not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over suit schedule property in any manner, in the interests of justice.

02. The brief averments of the plaint in nutshell are as follows:

Originally, the suit schedule property belongs to the father of plaintif. The parents of plaintif were look after by this plaintif. The parents of plaintif died and the suit schedule property was inherited to her. Subsequently, the revenue authorities recognized her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and her name was also mutated in pattadar pass book-cum-title deed. The defendants 1 and 2 are the plaintif’s paternal uncle and cousin by courtesy. After the demise of parents of plaintif, the defendants tried to grab the suit

PJCJ, GZL 2 of 4 O.S.No.161/2019

schedule property and proclaiming in the village that the plaintif settled the property in their favour and trying to dispossess the plaintif in a high handed manner. At about 10 days back, the defendants in a high handed manner tried to remove the bunds with a view to grab the suit schedule property and creating lot of obstruction to the plaintif’s possession and enjoyment. The defendants had temporarily abstained their attitude due to the fear of Police authorities. The plaintif persuaded the matter through village elders, but the defendants carelessly and reckless manner put a deaf ear for the reasons best known to them. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the present suit seeking permanent injunction.

03. The defendants 1 and 2 appeared after receipt of summons

before this Hon’ble Court through their counsel but, failed to file their

written statement within stipulated time and as such, this Hon’ble

Court had forfeited their right to file written statement on 22-11-2019.

04. On behalf of plaintif, she herself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A4 and the supporting witness was examined as PW2.

05. Heard the counsel for the plaintif.

06. Now the point for consideration is; “ Whether the plaintif

is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed

for?”

07. POINT:

[a] To prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif herself examined as PW1 and she reiterated the contents of the plaint, in her chief affidavit. As the defendants failed to file written statement within stipulated time inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, the right to file written statement of defendants 1 and 2 was forfeited on 22-11-2019. As the defendants had failed to file written statement and

PJCJ, GZL 3 of 4 O.S.No.161/2019

their right was forfeited, it can be said that the evidence of PW1 has remained undiscredited and unchallenged. In support of PW1, she examined the neighbouring land owner of the suit schedule property as PW2. PW2 also supported the version of PW1 in his chief affidavit in all aspects. Now it would be relevant to refer the documents relied upon by the plaintif under Exhibits A1 to A4. Exhibit A1 is adangal/pahani for the fasli 1428 pertaining to survey No.672-A1/4A1 an extent of Ac.0-30 cents obtained from mee seva, dated:17-04-2019,

Exhibit A2 is 1B Namuna pertaining to survey No.672-A1/4A1 obtained from mee seva, Exhibit A3 is pattadar pass book and title deed stands in the name of plaintif and Exhibit A4 is the tax receipt, dated:

26-03-2019.

[b] By virtue of the unchallenged evidence of PW1 and PW2, and the recitals in Exhibits A1 to A4, it can be said that the Plaintif had established her possession and enjoyment over the Plaint Schedule

Property; and the Defendants and their men are trying to interfere with plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and threatening to dispossess her from the suit schedule property. The circumstances stated by the Plaintif shows that there is prima-facie case and the balance of convenience in favour of Plaintif; and that the Plaintif will be put to irreparable loss and injury; if injunction is not granted the Defendants may take advantage of the same and dispossess the Plaintif from suit Schedule Property. Thus, from the above discussion, this Court concludes that the Plaintif had established all the required ingredients for grant of Permanent

Injunction in her favour, and she is entitled for the same. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the plaintif.

PJCJ, GZL 4 of 4 O.S.No.161/2019

08. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintif and against the

Defendants, restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, relatives and successors from interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property in any manner.

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

open court, on this the 31 st day of December, 2020.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintif:

PW1: Iragadindla Ramana

PW2: Mididoddi Srinivasa Rao

For Defendants: None

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintif:

Exhibit A1 : Adangal/Pahani for the fasli 1428 pertaining to survey

No.672-A1/4A1 an extent of Ac.0-30 cents obtained from mee seva, dated: 17-04-2019.

Exhibit A2 : 1B Namuna pertaining to survey No.672-A1/4A1 obtained from mee seva.

Exhibit A3 : Pattadar pass book-cum-title deed stands in the name of plaintif.

Exhibit A4 : The tax receipt, dated: 26-03-2019

For Defendants: Nil

P.J.C.J. GZL.

PJCJ, GZL 1 of 3 O.S.No.78/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA.

PRESENT: SRI S. VASU DEV,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

THURSDAY, THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.78/2020

Mekala Rosaiah … Plaintif

Vs

Marri Chowdaiah … Defendant

This suit coming on 29-12-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch. Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintif and the defendant having remained exparte and after hearing the Counsel for plaintif, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of Rs.3,41,200/- (Rs.1,70,600/- + Rs.1,70,600/-) being the

principals and interest due under “A” and “B” marked suit promissory

notes dated: 19-03-2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a, for subsequent interest and for costs, in the interests of justice.

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

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif on 19-03-2017 for his family expenses and executed demand promissory notes in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The suit promissory notes were executed at Gottimukkala Village, Gurazala

Mandal. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the

PJCJ, GZL 2 of 3 O.S.No.78/2020

defendant failed to repay the same either principals or interests due under the above said promissory notes. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the present suit seeking recovery of suit debt.

3. Inspite of service of summons, the defendant did not appear

before the Court. Hence, on 23-12-2020, he was called absent and set

exparte.

4. In support of his claim, the plaintif examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 and A2.

5. Heard the Plaintif.

6. Now, the point for consideration is "whether the plaintiff is

entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as

prayed for?”

7. POINT:

[a] In order to establish the case of plaintif, the plaintif himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 and A2. As the

Defendant has remained ex-parte, it can be said that the evidence of

PW1 has remained undiscredited and unchallenged. It would be relevant to refer to the documents relied upon by the Plaintif under

Exhibits A1 and A2. Exhibit A1 is the A-marked suit promissory note,

dated: 19-03-2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif

for Rs.1,00,000/- and Exhibit A2 is the B-marked suit promissory note,

dated: 19-03-2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif

for Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the Defendant had remained ex-parte in the suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the

Defendant to the efect that he had admitted the case of the Plaintif.

[b] Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and undiscredited evidence of PW1, coupled with Exhibits A1 and A2, this Court

PJCJ, GZL 3 of 3 O.S.No.78/2020

concludes that the Plaintif had established his case under the suit

Promissory notes and the failure of the Defendant to discharge the same, and as such, the Plaintif is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintif.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay the Plaintif a sum of Rs.3,41,200/- (Rs.1,70,600/- + Rs.1,70,600/-) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-).

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 31 st day of December, 2020.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintif: For Defendant:

PW1: Mekala Rosaiah-None-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintif:

Exhibit A1A-marked Suit Promissory note dated: 19-03-2017 executed by defendant in favour of Plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/-. B-marked Suit Promissory note dated: 19-03-2017 Exhibit A2 executed by defendant in favour of Plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/-.

For Defendant: Nil

P.J.C.J. GZL.

PJCJ, GZL 1 of 3 O.S.No.78/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA.

PRESENT: SRI S. VASU DEV,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

THURSDAY, THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.78/2020

Mekala Rosaiah … Plaintif

Vs

Marri Chowdaiah … Defendant

This suit coming on 29-12-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch. Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintif and the defendant having remained exparte and after hearing the Counsel for plaintif, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of Rs.3,41,200/- (Rs.1,70,600/- + Rs.1,70,600/-) being the

principals and interest due under “A” and “B” marked suit promissory

notes dated: 19-03-2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a, for subsequent interest and for costs, in the interests of justice.

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

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif on 19-03-2017 for his family expenses and executed demand promissory notes in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The suit promissory notes were executed at Gottimukkala Village, Gurazala

Mandal. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the

PJCJ, GZL 2 of 3 O.S.No.78/2020

defendant failed to repay the same either principals or interests due under the above said promissory notes. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the present suit seeking recovery of suit debt.

3. Inspite of service of summons, the defendant did not appear

before the Court. Hence, on 23-12-2020, he was called absent and set

exparte.

4. In support of his claim, the plaintif examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 and A2.

5. Heard the Plaintif.

6. Now, the point for consideration is "whether the plaintiff is

entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as

prayed for?”

7. POINT:

[a] In order to establish the case of plaintif, the plaintif himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 and A2. As the

Defendant has remained ex-parte, it can be said that the evidence of

PW1 has remained undiscredited and unchallenged. It would be relevant to refer to the documents relied upon by the Plaintif under

Exhibits A1 and A2. Exhibit A1 is the A-marked suit promissory note,

dated: 19-03-2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif

for Rs.1,00,000/- and Exhibit A2 is the B-marked suit promissory note,

dated: 19-03-2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif

for Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the Defendant had remained ex-parte in the suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the

Defendant to the efect that he had admitted the case of the Plaintif.

[b] Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and undiscredited evidence of PW1, coupled with Exhibits A1 and A2, this Court

PJCJ, GZL 3 of 3 O.S.No.78/2020

concludes that the Plaintif had established his case under the suit

Promissory notes and the failure of the Defendant to discharge the same, and as such, the Plaintif is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintif.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay the Plaintif a sum of Rs.3,41,200/- (Rs.1,70,600/- + Rs.1,70,600/-) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-).

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 31 st day of December, 2020.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintif: For Defendant:

PW1: Mekala Rosaiah-None-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintif:

Exhibit A1A-marked Suit Promissory note dated: 19-03-2017 executed by defendant in favour of Plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/-. B-marked Suit Promissory note dated: 19-03-2017 Exhibit A2 executed by defendant in favour of Plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/-.

For Defendant: Nil

P.J.C.J. GZL.