Smt. S. Venkata Kavitha

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::NELLORE

PRESENT: A.RAMESH, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. FAC III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 13 th day of March, 2020.

O.S. No.53 of 2017

Between

Chithathuru Lalithamma. … Plaintiff.

Vs.

1. Sada Eswaramma.

2. V.Siva Kumar. … Defendants.

This suit came up before this Court for arguments on 2.3.2020 in the presence of Sri D.Venkata Ramaiah, advocate for the plaintiff and Sri S.Peddaiah, advocate for defendants, upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and its bata to reach the road situated on southern side.

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

a) The husband of plaintiff by name Chinthathuru Srinivasulu purchased va- cant site in an extent of 15 ankanams from one Sada Venkateswarlu in 1997 and he constructed an RCC building in an extent of 6 ½ ankanams in 1998 and 1999 by paying property tax and electricity bills to concerned authorities. Thereafter, the said Chinthathuru Srinivasulu executed a Registered Settlement Deed in favour of his wife ie., plaintiff on 21.3.2014 and since then she has been in possession and 2 enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by paying property taxes and electricity bills to the concerned authorities. While so, D1 who is neighbouring house owner is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property with the support of D2, who is her son-in-law.

Further the defendants are trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property and also tried to obstruct the plaintiff and her family members to reach the road from her house. The plaintiff is unable to resist the highhanded acts of the defendants.

Hence, this suit.

3. On receipt of summons from this Court, defendants made their ap- pearance and filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the husband of D1 by name Sada Venkateswarlu got agricul- tural land ie., Ac.0.70 cents in Sy.No.362 and Ac.0.32 cents in Sy.No.359/3, which is now used for house sites. Out of Ac.0.70 cents, Ac.0.55 cents was sold and in

Ac.0.32 cents, Ac.0.25 cents was sold out in the year 2005 under Registered Sale

Deed Nos.1204/2005 and 1205/2005 and the remaining extent of Ac.0.14 ¼ cents in Sy.No.362 and Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.359/3, in total Ac.0.21 ¼ cents are in pos- session and enjoyment of D1 and her daughter after the death of husband of D1.

Hence, the houses and house sites of defendants are in Sy.No.362 and 359/3, but the plaint schedule property was shown as if it is in S.No.356/1/2B and 356/1/2A.

Hence, the plaint schedule property is totally different. About 20 years back, the plaintiff was given in marriage to Chithathuru Srinivasulu, but the plaintiff was necked out by her mother-in-law alleging that plaintiff got illegal intimacy with her father-in-law. Later the husband of plaintiff joined her in the house of D1 and they 3 lived there for eight years and later about 10 years back, the plaintiff purchased a house bearing D.No.20-7-202 near Municipal Employees Quarters, Kukkalagunta,

Nellore and since then the plaintiff along with his family members have been resid- ing there. In January, 2017 the plaintiff along with Real Estate Broker came to the house of defendants and offered them to sell their house to the plaintiff, for which the defendants refused the same……. On that the plaintiff foisted a police case against the defendants that as if she got right over the house of defendants and the defendants obstructed her sale proposal. At the intervention of elders, the plaintiff demanded the defendants to pay Rs.10,00,000/- and when defendants did not agree for it, the plaintiff filed this suit by creating documents. Hence, the survey num- bers of the property mentioned in the plaint schedule and the extent is different from the property of defendants, hence the granting of permanent injunction against defendants is not enforceable and prayed to dismiss this suit.

4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial.

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

5. To prove her case, the plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and she examined one Veluru Lakshmi and Vemuru Subhashini as P.Ws.2 & 3. Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.7 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. To disprove the case of the plain- tiff, the defendants themselves were examined as D.Ws.1 & 2 and they examined

V.Uma, G.Deva Raj and S.Venkateswarlu as D.Ws.3 to 5 respectively. Ex.B.1 to

Ex.B.8 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

6. Heard both sides, besides perusing the material available on record.

4 7. Issue No.1 :

a) It is the case of the plaintiff that the husband of plaintiff by name

Chinthathuru Srinivasulu purchased vacant site in an extent of 15 ankanams from one Sada Venkateswarlu in 1997 and thereafter, the said Chinthathuru Srinivasulu executed a Registered Settlement Deed in favour of his wife ie., plaintiff on 21.3.2014 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Later, the D1 who is neighbourer to plaintiff, trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property with the support of D2. So, the plaintiff is unable to resist the highhanded acts of the defendants.

b) Per contra, it is the contention of the defendants that the husband of D1 by name Sada Venkateswarlu got agricultural land ie., Ac.0.70 cents in Sy.No.362 and

Ac.0.32 cents in Sy.No.359/3, in which he sold Ac.0.55 cents and Ac.0.25 cents re- spectively in the year 2005 under Registered Sale Deed Nos.1204/2005 and 1205/2005 and the remaining extent of Ac.0.14 ¼ cents in Sy.No.362 and Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.359/3, in total Ac.0.21 ¼ cents are in possession and enjoyment of

D1 and her daughter being legal heirs of D1. Therefore, the houses and house sites of defendants are in Sy.No.362 and 359/3, but the plaint schedule property was shown as if it is in S.No.356/1/2B and 356/1/2A. Hence, the plaint schedule prop- erty is totally different. In January, 2017 the plaintiff offered the defendants to sell their house to her, but the defendants refused the same. On that the plaintiff foisted a police case against the defendants and demanded the defendants to pay

Rs.10,00,000/-. When the defendants did not agree for it, the plaintiff filed this 5 suit by creating false documents. Further, the survey numbers of the property men- tioned in the plaint schedule and the extent are different from the property of de- fendants.

c) It is relevant to mention here that in a suit for grant of permanent injunc- tion, issue of possession alone is paramount consideration to decide whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction or not. However, that posses- sion must be lawful. Now it is to be seen whether the plaintiff is able to establish her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit.

d) To prove her case, the plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and she reiterated the contents of the plaint in her chief-examination. She is relying on

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7. Ex.A.1 is the Agreement of Sale dated 28.8.1997 executed by

Sada Venkateswarlu S/o.Sada Rangaiah in favour of Chithathuru Srinivasulu S/o

Subrahmanyam. Ex.A.1 shows that the husband of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from the husband of 1st defendant by way of Agreement of Sale for consideration along with delivery of possession. Ex.A.2 is the Registered Set- tlement Deed dated 21.3.2014 executed by Chithathuru Srinivasulu in favour of

Chithathuru Lalithamma, who is plaintiff herein. Ex.A.2 shows that the husband of the plaintiff conveyed the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff by way of Regis- tered Settlement Deed. Ex.A.3 is bunch of electricity bills stands in the name of husband of the plaintiff. Ex.A.4 is the bunch of property tax receipts, which stands in the name of husband of plaintiff. It shows that the plaintiff paying property tax to the Municipal Corporation, Nellore from 2003 to 2017 ie., till filing of this suit.

Ex.A.5 is property tax receipt for the assessment No.1031065277 from 1.10.2016 6 to 31.3.2019. Ex.A.6 is bunch of electricity demand notices, which are also stands in the name of husband of the plaintiff. Ex.A.7 is bunch of electricity payment re- ceipts in respect of Service No.3321105078807, which are also stands in the name of the husband of the plaintiff.

e) To prove the case of the defendants, they marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.8.

Ex.B.1 is the Title Deed, which stands in the name of husband of 1st defendant.

Ex.B.2 is the original Ryoth Passbook stands in the name of husband of 1st defen- dant. Both Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2, which were obtained in the year 2010 reveals that the husband of the 1st defendant owned Ac.1.02 cents of land in Sy.No.362 and 359/3 respectively. Ex.B.3 is the Death Certificate of husband of 1st defendant

dated 23.9.2003, which shows that the husband of the 1st defendant died on

20.9.2003. Ex.B.4 is the adangal dated 29.11.2016 stands in the name of Sad

Venkateswarlu S/o.Venkataiah. Ex.B.5 is the original Membership Form of Coop- erative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, Nellore. It reveals the extent of land possessed by the husband of 1st defendant, but it does not reveals that he ob- tained loan under Ex.B.5. Ex.B.6 is the house tax receipt for the period from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2019 issued in the name of Venkateswarlu. Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.8 are the bunch of electricity demand notices and payment receipts. A perusal of Ex.A.1, it reveals that the husband of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property in his name under Agreement of Sale and the same was conveyed under Ex.A.2 in favour of his wife ie., plaintiff. As per the contention of the defendants, Ex.A.1 is a fabricated one and plaintiff is permitted by the defendants to stay in their house. In order to prove the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as 7

P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 & 3. The plaintiff examined P.W.2, who in her cross-examination stated that to reach the road from the suit schedule house, one has to cross the house of D1 from the front side of the house of D1. She further stated that plaintiff is residing along with her two children in a house in Kukkala- gunta, Nellore since 6 months. The plaintiff purchased the site from the husband of

D1 for Rs.20,000/-. One Muslim person drafted the Agreement of Sale and her husband also attested the same, at the husband of D1. Her husband signs in Tel- ugu. In this case, the plaintiff examined P.W.2, who got acquaintance with the sig- nature of the attestor. D.W.2, who is D2 herein also stated in his evidence that the signature affixed in Ex.A.1 is belongs to him. The evidence of P.W.2 and D.W.2 it- self proves that Ex.A.1 was executed by the husband of 1st defendant in favour of husband of plaintiff. P.W.3 in her evidence stated that the plaintiff constructed a house in the suit schedule site in 1997 or 1998. To reach the main road, the plain- tiff has to cross the house of defendant from her house. D.W.1 in her evidence stated that to reach the main road, one has to cross their house from the suit sched- ule house. As per the municipal records also, the suit schedule house is in the name of plaintiff only. The statement of D.W.1 itself proves that the plaintiff con- structed house in the plaint schedule property and paying municipal taxes and elec- tricity charges in the name of her husband. In the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3, they stated that they are not obstructing the plaintiff from ingress and egress of the plaintiff into the plaint schedule property. Though D.Ws.1 to 3 categorically stated that they are not obstructing the plaintiff from proceeding to the plaint schedule property, it reveals that the plaintiff is having ingress and egress into the plaint 8 schedule property. The statement itself is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The documents filed by the defendants ie., Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 appears that they were obtained in the year 2010. As per the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.B.3, the husband of 1st defendant died in the year 2003. Ex.B.3 manifest that, Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 were obtained by the defendants in the name of the husband of the 1st defendant after the death of hus- band of 1st defendant, only for the purpose of filing of this suit. As per the evi- dence of D.W.1, there are several persons with surname ‘Sada’. As seen from

Ex.B.4, though it stands in the name of husband of 1st defendant, the name of the father of husband of 1st defendant is not correct. D.W.3, who is daughter of 1st de- fendant stated in her evidence that an electricity service connection was obtained in the name of plaintiff in the suit schedule house and she has been paying electricity consumption charges to the concerned authorities. She further stated that on the eastern side of the suit schedule house, there is a way to reach the main gate and there is only one way to the suit schedule house and also to their house. The state- ment of D.W.3 reveals that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and she is using ‘Bata’ as claimed by her. Further D.W.1 also stated that she has no documentary proof to show that she is the owner of the suit schedule property. The evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 reveals that Ex.B.6 to Ex.B.8 per- taining to the house residing by them, but not to the suit schedule property. There- fore this court come to conclusion that Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.8 are no way related to the suit schedule property. The documents filed by the defendants and the oral evi- dence of defendants are not sufficient to prove their contention that Ex.A.1 is fabri- 9 cated one and they permitted the plaintiff to stay in the plaint schedule property for sometime. The plaintiff proved that her husband purchased the suit schedule prop- erty by way of Agreement of Sale from the husband of 1st defendant and Ex.A.3 to

Ex.A.7 reveals that she is paying municipal taxes and electricity charges in respect of the suit schedule property. When the genuineness of Ex.A1 is proved, it leads to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in view of my above discussion it is clear that the husband of the plaintiff pur- chased the suit schedule property from the husband of the 1st defendant and since then they are in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and us- ing bata. The defendants obstructing the plaintiff from using suit schedule property and its bata. But the defendants did not file any relevant document to prove their contention.

f) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7, clearly established that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the is- sue No. 1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

8 Issue No.3

In view of discussion in issue No.1, and since it is answered in favour of the plaintiff, this suit is liable to be decreed.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the 10 plaint schedule property, and its bata to reach the road situated on southern side, by means of permanent injunction.

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

pronounced by me in the open court this the 13 th day of March, 2020.

FAC I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NELLORE

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NELLORE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFFDEFENDANTS

PW1 Chithathuru Lalithamma. D.W.1: Sada Eswaramma.

PW2Veluru Lakshmi.D.W.2: V.Siva Kumar.

PW3 Vemuru Subhashini.D.W.3: V.Uma.

D.W.4: G.Deva Raj.

D.W.5: S.Venkateswarlu.

Exhibits marked

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A.1Unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 28.8.1997 executed by Sada Venkateswarlu S/o.Rangaiah in favour of Ch.Srinivasulu, the husband of the plaintiff.

Ex.A.2Registered Settlement Deed dated 21.3.2014 executed by Chithathuru Sreenivasulu in favour of P.W.1.

Ex.A.3Bunch of Electricity Bills.

Ex.A.4Bunch of Property Tax receipts.

Ex.A.5Property Tax receipt dated 19.3.2019 for the assessment No.1031065277 for the period from 1.1.2016 to 31.3.2018 issued in the name of C.Srinivasulu.

Ex.A.6Bunch of Electricity demand notices in respect of SC No.3321105078887, which is in the suit schedule property, issued in the 11 name of C.Srinivasulu.

Ex.A.7Bunch of Electricity payment receipts in respect of

SC.No.3321105078887, which is in the suit schedule property, issued in

the name of C.Srinivasulu.

DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B.1Original Title Deed passbook of Sada Venkateswarlu.

Ex.B.2Original Ryoth Passbook issued in the name of S.Venkateswarlu.

Ex.B.3Original Death Certificate of S.Venkateswarlu.

Ex.B.4Adangal dated 29.11.2016 issued by Mee Seva.

Ex.B.5Original Membership form of Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, Nellore.

Ex.B.6House tax receipt for the period from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2019 issued in the name of S.Venkateswarlu.

Ex.B.7Bunch of electricity demand notices for the months of September, 2013, October, 2014, October, 2015, June, 2016, October, 2017, November, 2018 issued in the name of S.Venkateswarlu.

Ex.B.8Bunch of electricity payment receipts dated 5.10.2013, 12.11.2014, 19.11.2015, 7.7.2016, 28.10.2017, 22.11.2018 issued in the name of S.Venkateswarlu.

I AJCJ, Nellore FAC III AJCJ, Nellore 12

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : NELLORE

PRESENT : A.RAMESH, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. FAC III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 12 th day of March, 2020.

O.S. No.701 of 2019

Between:

M/s.Corporation Bank, a body corporate Constituted Under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of Undertakings Act, 1980 having its Head Office at Mangalore, Karnataka and Branch office amongst other places at Nellore Branch, Rep., by its Chief-Manager Sultan Mohamed Nazaruddin Adil, S/o.Mhd. Mohamood, residing at Brinda- vanam, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. … Plaintif

Vs.

1. Yenati Salomi.

2. P.Subbulu. ... Defendants.

This suit came up on 11.3.2020 before this Court for consideration in the presence of Sri D.Subhashini, Advocate for plaintif and the defendants were set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.3,65,129/- due under a Domestic Loan

Agreement dated 29.8.2001 and other necessary documents executed by defendants in favour of plaintif-bank, with interest at 12.25% per annum and for costs.

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

a) The 1st defendant approached the plaintif-bank and submitted a loan application for domestic expenses. The plaintif-bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.25,000/- on 29.8.2001 to D1, who is a principal borrower under loan account

No.565631000075606 and D2 stood as co-obligant/surety/guarantor to D1, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 20.25% per annum being 8% over and above the applicable MCLR, which is 12.25% per annum. D2 was agreed to stand as guarantor for the debt transaction of D1 and also executed Guarantee Agreement on the same day in favour of plaintif-bank. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreements executed by the defendants, all of them have jointly and severally liable to repay the loan. The defendants have to discharge the said debt within 24 EMIs and they have executed Domestic Loan Agreement and other necessary documents in favour of plaintif-bank on 29.8.2001. The rate of interest is subjected to variation as per the guidelines of R.B.I. D1 has not paid some of the installments of the above said loan amount in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif bank. Therefore, the defendants executed Acknowledgments of Debts on 7.8.2007, 2.8.2010, 20.7.2013 and 19.7.2016 respectively acknowledging the debt in the above referred loan transaction. The defendants had paid the last instalment on 28.9.2011 and committed default in payment of remaining instalments. As per the statement of account, the defendants fell due in a sum of Rs.3,65,129/- as on 29.5.2019. The defendants did not choose to pay the amount due as agreed under the above refereed loan transaction in spite of several requests made by the officials of plaintif-bank, through its messengers and also issuance of several letters to the defendants. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons issued to D1 & D2 were returned unserved. On 31.1.2020 on filing a petition by learned counsel for defendants, this Court issued summons to defendants by way of substitute service for publishing the same in ‘Prajasakthi Telugu

Daily Newspaper, Nellore District Edition’. On 3.3.2020 the copy of publication was filed before this Court and on that day defendants were called absent and there was no representation on their behalf. Hence, the defendants were set exparte.

4. To prove the case of plaintif-bank, its Manager was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A.10.

5. Heard the plaintif. Perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is

“Whether the plaintiff-bank is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for”?

7. POINT: The Manager of plaintif-bank, as PW1 in his evidence, deposed that

D1 submitted a loan application under Ex.A.1 for personal loan to meet his domestic expenses. Then the plaintif-bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.25,000/- on 29.8.2001 under

Ex.A.2 & Ex.A.4 to D1, who is a principal borrower under loan account

No.565631000075606 and D2 was stood as co-obligant/surety/guarantor to D1, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12.25% per annum. The defendants have executed Guarantee Agreement, Demand Promissory note and Take Delivery Letter to

DPN dated 29.8.2001 under Ex.A.2 & Ex.A.4 and also other necessary documents in favour of the plaintif bank on 29.8.2001. Later, D1 has not paid some of the installments of the above said loan amount in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif bank. As per the statement of account under Ex.A.5, the defendants fell due in a sum of Rs.3,65,129/- as on 29.5.2019. Further, D1 had executed Acknowledgments of debt under Ex.A.6 to Ex.A.9 acknowledging the debts in the above referred loan transaction. Thus, the defendants have committed default in payment of loan instalments. Ex.A.10 is attested copy of Power of Attorney by General Manager,

M/s.Corporation Bank in favour of B.Venkateswara Rao.

8. The recitals of Ex.A1 to Ex.A.10 and the evidence of PW1 manifestly proved that D1 availed loan from the plaintif-bank and did not choose to repay the said loan amount due under Ex.A1, Ex.A.3 & Ex.A.4 Ex.A.5 is statement of account of D1 showing that D1 fell due a sum of Rs.3,65,129/- as on 29.5.2019. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreements executed by the defendants, both of them have jointly and severally liable to repay the loan. Therefore, the unchallenged evidence of

PW1 proved that the defendants availed loan under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A4 from the plaintif- bank. As the defendants did not pay the loan amount due under Ex.A1 & Ex.A.4, the plaintif-bank is entitled for suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintif-bank and against the defendant.

9. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to

pay a sum of Rs.3,65,129/- to the plaintiff-bank with subsequent interest @ 12%

p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest @ 6%

p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of

Rs.25,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 12th day of March, 2020.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

FAC III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff:- Defendants:

PW1: B.Venkateswara Rao. -None- (Exparte).

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1Application for personal loan dated 29.8.2001.

Ex.A.2Guarantee Agreement dated 29.8.2001.

Ex.A.3Demand Promissory note dated 29.8.2001.

Ex.A.4Take Delivery letter to DPN dated 29.8.2001.

Ex.A.5Statement of Account.

Ex.A.6Acknowledgment of Debt dated 7.8.2007.

Ex.A.7 Acknowledgment of Debt dated 2.8.2010.

Ex.A.8Acknowledgment of Debt dated 20.7.2013.

Ex.A.9Acknowledgment of Debt dated 19.7.2016.

Ex.A.10Attested copy of Power of Attorney by General Manager, M/s.Corporation Bank in favour of B.Venkateswara Rao.

Exhibits marked for defendants: -NIL-

I A.J.C.J., NLR.

`FAC III A.J.C.J., NLR.

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : NELLORE

PRESENT : A.RAMESH, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. FAC III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 12 th day of March, 2020.

O.S. No.701 of 2019

Between:

M/s.Corporation Bank, a body corporate Constituted Under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of Undertakings Act, 1980 having its Head Office at Mangalore, Karnataka and Branch office amongst other places at Nellore Branch, Rep., by its Chief-Manager Sultan Mohamed Nazaruddin Adil, S/o.Mhd. Mohamood, residing at Brinda- vanam, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Yenati Salomi W/o.Somala Bhaskar, aged 55 years, Junior Assistant, Accounts Section, Municipal Office, Nellore city, SPSR Nellore District.

2. P.Subbulu S/o.P.Chinnaiah, Driver, Health Section,

Municipal Office, Nellore city, SPSR Nellore District. ... Defendants.

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.3,65,129/- due under a Domestic Loan Agreement

dated 29.8.2001 and other necessary documents executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff-

bank, with interest at 12.25% per annum and for costs.

Plaint presented on 27.6.2019.

Plaint numbered on 17.7.2019.

The suit is valued at Rs.3,65,129/- and a Court Fee of Rs.6,026/- is paid u/Sec.20 of A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This suit came up on 11.3.2020 before this Court for consideration in the presence of Sri D.Subhashini, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants were set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE :--

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2. that the defendants be and hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,65,129/- to the plaintiff-bank with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.25,000/-.

3. that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff-bank a sum of Rs.12,428/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 12th day of March, 2020.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

FAC III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore. .

Memo of Costs

For Plaintiff : For Defendants:

Stamp on plaint : Rs.6,026-00 Stamp on vakalath: Rs. 2-00 Costs memo is not filed. Stamp on process : Rs. 150-00 Publication charges: Rs.1,200-00 Typing charges : Rs. 50-00 Advocate Fees : Rs.5,000-00 (As claimed). ------------------- Total : Rs.12,428-00 -------------------

I A.J.C.J., NLR.

FAC III A.J.C.J., NLR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Present:-Sri A.RAMESH,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. FAC III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 4 th day of March, 2020.

O.S. No.1274 of 2019

Between:

Ramireddy Madhu Kiran Rep., by its General Power of Attorney Holder Ramireddy Venkatrami Reddy, S/o.Ramachandra Reddy, aged 60 years, Business, R/o.D.No.26-1-1720, Vanamthopu 2nd Street, Kondayapalem, Nellore city. . . . Plaintiff.

Vs.

Sangasani Ramanarasa Reddy S/o.Achi Reddy, Main Road, Near Mosque, Indukiurupeta Town & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. . . . Defendant.

This suit came up on this day ie., 4.3.2020 before me for consideration in the presence of Sri S.Gangi Rededy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant was set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

::JUDGMENT::

This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for costs.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The suit schedule property is self acquired property of defendant, as he purchased the same from one Gunnapaneni Mallaiah under a Registered Sale

Deed dated 15.9.1997 vide Doc.No.5968/1997 of S.R.O., Nellore Town. Since then the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till he sold the same to the plaintiff. Thereafter, in need of money, the defendant sold away the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for Rs.26,68,000/- under

Registered Sale Deed dated 17.2.2018 vide Doc.No.644/2018 and took possession over the same. The name of the plaintiff was mutated in revenue 2 records and electricity charges are also paid by him. Except the plaintiff, no other persons including the defendant has no right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. Now the plaintiff was temporarily residing at

United States of America and he was unable to supervise the suit schedule property personally, to safe-guard the property from third parties and also collect the rents and to act as agent on his behalf, the plaintiff executed a

Registered Power of Attorney in favour of his father by name Ramireddy

Venaktarami Reddy. The defendant though sold away the property situated with the boundaries mentioned in the Registered Sale Deed dated 17.2.2019, he was falsely claiming the portion of land within the plaint schedule boundaries. The defendant unnecessarily trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and causing obstruction to the persons, who are residing in the plaint schedule property for rents. The plaintiff is law abiding citizen and not in a position to resist the highhanded acts of the defendant. Hence, this suit.

3. Summons was served to defendant. On 27.2.2020 the defendant was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf. Hence, the defendant was set exparte.

4. To prove the case of the plaintiff, his father-cum-G.P.A. holder was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A.6.

5. Heard the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent

injunction against the defendant in respect of suit schedule site as prayed?

POINT:

7. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is self acquired property of defendant, as he purchased the same from one 3

Gunnapaneni Mallaiah under Ex.A.1 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till he sold the same to the plaintiff under Ex.A.2.

The plaintiff paid the property taxes and electricity charges to the concerned authorities under Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6. As the plaintiff was temporarily residing at United States of America, he was unable to supervise the suit schedule property personally, to safe-guard the property from third parties and also collect the rents and to act as agent on his behalf, the plaintiff executed a

Registered Power of Attorney in favour of his father by name Ramireddy

Venaktarami Reddy under Ex.A.3. The defendant though sold away the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff, he is unnecessarily trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and causing obstruction to the tenants, who are residing in the plaint schedule property.

8. The plaintiff, to substantiate his contention, got examined his father- cum-G.P.A. as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6. Ex.A.1 is the original

Registered Sale Deed dated 15.9.1997 executed by one Gannapaneni Mallaiah in favour of the defendant in respect of plaint schedule property. Ex.A.2 is the original Registered Sale Deed dated 17.2.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property. Ex.A.3 is original

Registered General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of his agent-cum-father by name Ramireddy Venkatrami Reddy to act as agent on his behalf. Ex.A.4 is the Proceedings of the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal

Corporation in respect of the title transfer relating to plaint schedule property from the defendant to the plaintiff dated 26.11.2019. Ex.A.5 is property tax receipt stands in the name of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property.

Ex.A.6 is two electricity bills stands in the name of plaintiff in respect of the houses situated in the plaint schedule property. By virtue of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6, 4 coupled with unchallenged evidence of P.W.1, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs, restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by means of permanent injunction.

Typed to my dictation , corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of March, 2020.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Nellore

FAC III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1 : Ramireddy Venkatrami Reddy. None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:-- Ex.A.1Original Registered Sale Deed dated 15.9.1997 executed by one Gannapaneni Mallaiah in favour of the defendant in respect of plaint schedule property. Ex.A.2Original Registered Sale Deed dated 17.2.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property. Ex.A.3 Original Registered General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of his agent-cum-father by name Ramireddy Venkatrami Reddy to act as agent on his behalf. Ex.A.4Proceedings of the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation in respect of the title transfer relating to plaint schedule property from the defendant to the plaintiff dated 26.11.2019. Ex.A.5Property tax receipt stands in the name of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property. Ex.A.6Two electricity bills stands in the name of plaintiff in respect of the houses situated in the plaint schedule property.

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Nellore

FAC III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Nellore

5

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Present:-Sri A.RAMESH,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. FAC III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 4 th day of March, 2020.

O.S. No.1274 of 2019

Between:

Ramireddy Madhu Kiran Rep., by its General Power of Attorney Holder Ramireddy Venkatrami Reddy, S/o.Ramachandra Reddy, aged 60 years, Business, R/o.D.No.26-1-1720, Vanamthopu 2nd Street, Kondayapalem, Nellore city. . . . Plaintiff.

Vs.

Sangasani Ramanarasa Reddy S/o.Achi Reddy, Main Road, Near Mosque, Indukurupeta Town & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. . . . Defendant.

This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for costs.

Plaint presented on 29.11.2019. Plaint numbered on 29.11.2019.

The relief of permanent injunction is valued at Rs.30,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.1,786/- is paid under section 26© of APCF and S.V.Act.

This suit came up on this day ie., 4.3.2020 before me for consideration in the presence of Sri S.Gangi Rededy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant was set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE :--

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2. that the defendant, his men and agents be and hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by means of permanent injunction.

3. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,393/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 4th day of March, 2019.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, Nellore

FAC III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Nellore

6

Memo of Costs

Particulars of CostsFor Plaintiff Defendant. Rs.Rs.

Stamp on Plaint 1,786-00 Stamp on vakalath 2-00Costs memo is not filed. Stamp on process105-00 Advocate fees 1,500-00 Total Rs. 3,393-00

III ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NELLORE

7

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : NELLORE

PRESENT : A.RAMESH, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. FAC III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 12 th day of March, 2020.

O.S. No.698 of 2019

Between:

M/s.Canara Bank, a body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings Act, 1970 having its Head Office at J.C.Road, Bangalore and Branch Office amongst other places at Main Branch, Trunk road, Nellore, rep., by its Chief Manager, Sri K.Shiva Subrahmanyam, S/o.late Satyanarayana, aged 53 yrs., Nellore. … Plaintif

Vs.

1. Bommilla Penchalaiah.

2. Thottempudi Madhu. … Defendants.

This suit came up on 11.3.2020 before this Court for consideration in the presence of Sri D.Subhashini, Advocate for plaintif and the defendants were set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.3,95,178.58 Ps., due under loan agreement

dated 17.6.2016 for Rs.5,45,000/- executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintif-

bank, with interest at 11.10% per annum and for costs.

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

a) The 1st defendant obtained personal loan of Rs.5,45,000/- on 17.6.2016 from the plaintif bank and 2nd defendant stood as guarantor to the 1st defendant for due repayment of the said loan amount. The 1st defendant executed all the necessary documents agreeing to repay the same with interest at 11.10% per annum. D2 stood as co-obligant/surety/guarantor to D1 and executed the documents in favour of plaintif-bank, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 11.10% per annum. The rate of interest is subjected to variation as per the guide lines of R.B.I. The defendants have to discharge the said debt within 60 EMIs and both the defendants had executed Term Loan Agreement and other necessary documents in favour of plaintif-bank on 17.6.2016. Thereafter the defendants were irregular in payment of monthly instalments as agreed upon under the above referred loan transaction and 2 committed default in payment of monthly instalments due under the same. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif bank, the defendants failed to pay the amount due under the loan amount. As per the statement of account, the defendants fell due in a sum of Rs.3,95,178.58 prs., as on 18.6.2019. Thus both the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount.

3. Summons issued to D1 & D2 were returned unserved. On 22.1.2020 on filing a petition by learned counsel for defendants, this Court issued summons to defendants by way of substitute service for publishing the same in ‘Prajasakthi Telugu Daily

Newspaper, Nellore District Edition’. On 3.3.2020 the copy of publication was filed

before this Court and on that day defendants were called absent and there was no

representation on their behalf. Hence, the defendants were set exparte.

4. To prove the case of plaintif-bank, its Chief Manager was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A.7.

5. Heard the plaintif. Perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is

“Whether the plaintiff-bank is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for”?

7. POINT: The Chief Manager of plaintif-bank, as PW1 in his evidence, deposed that the 1st defendant approached the plaintif for personal loan by submitting loan application under Ex.A.1 and obtained loan of Rs.5,45,000/- on 17.6.2016 from the plaintif bank under Ex.A.2 and 2nd defendant stood as guarantor to the 1st defendant for due repayment of the said loan amount. D1 executed Demand Promissory note

dated 17.6.2016 and Take Delivery to DPN dated 17.6.2016 under Ex.A3 & Ex.A.4 in

favour of the plaintif bank acknowledging the above mentioned loan transaction and agreed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.3,95,178.58 Ps., as on 18.6.2019 together with interest at 11.10 % per annum. Thereafter the defendants committed default in payment of loan instalments to the plaintif-bank due under Ex.A.1 to A4. Ex.A.5 is

Statement of account of D1. Ex.A.6 is Registered post with acknowledgement due

dated 6.8.2018. Ex.A.7 is attested copy of G.P.A./Authorization dated 22.8.2003.

8. The recitals of Ex.A1 to Ex.A.4 and the evidence of PW1 manifestly proved that 1st defendant availed loan from the plaintif-bank and did not choose to repay the said loan amount due under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. 2nd defendant stood as guarantor to the 1st defendant for due repayment of the said loan amount granted to D1.

Ex.A.5 is the statement of account of D1 showing that the defendants fell due a sum of Rs.3,95,178.58 Ps., as on 18.6.2019. Therefore, the unchallenged evidence of PW1 3 proved that 1st defendant availed loan under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A4 from the plaintif-bank.

As the defendants did not pay the loan amount due under Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, the plaintif-bank is entitled for suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintif-bank and against the defendants.

9. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.3,95,178-58 Ps., to the plaintiff-bank with subsequent interest

@12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and with future

interest @6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on

Rs.3,95,178-58 Ps.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 12th day of March, 2020.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

FAC III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff:- Defendants:

PW1: K.Siva Subrahmanyam. -None- (Exparte).

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1Loan Application dated 17.6.2016.

Ex.A.2Loan Sanction Memorandum dated 17.6.2016.

Ex.A.3Demand Promissory note dated 17.6.2016.

Ex.A.4Take Delivery to DPN dated 17.6.2016.

Ex.A.5Statement of account.

Ex.A.6Registered Post with acknowledge due dated 6.8.2018 (Notice issued by Bank).

Ex.A.7Attested copy of GPA/Authorization dated 22.8.2003.

Exhibits marked for defendants: -NIL-

I A.J.C.J., NLR.

`FAC III A.J.C.J., NLR.

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : NELLORE

PRESENT : A.RAMESH, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. FAC III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 12 th day of March, 2020.

O.S. No.698 of 2019

Between:

M/s.Canara Bank, a body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings Act, 1970 having its Head Office at J.C.Road, Bangalore and Branch Office amongst other places at Main Branch, Trunk road, Nellore, rep., by its Chief Manager, Sri K.Shiva Subrahmanyam, S/o.late Satyanarayana, aged 53 yrs., Nellore. … Plaintif

Vs.

1. Bommilla Penchalaiah S/o.Gangaiah, aged 44 yrs., Residing at Masthan Reddy Nagar, Podalakur, Nellore SPSR Nellore District.

2. Thottempudi Madhu S/o.Ramadas, aged 47 years, residing near More Super Market, Chandramoulinagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. … Defendants.

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.3,95,178.58 Ps., due under loan agreement

dated 17.6.2016 for Rs.5,45,000/- executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintif-

bank, with interest at 11.10% per annum and for costs.

Plaint presented on 3.7.2019. Plaint numbered on 17.7.2019.

The suit is valued at Rs.3,95,178-58 Ps., and a Court Fee of Rs.6,386/- is paid u/Sec.20 of A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This suit came up on 11.3.2020 before this Court for consideration in the presence of Sri D.Subhashini, Advocate for plaintif and the defendants were set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE :--

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2. that the defendants 1 & 2 be and hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,95,178-

58 Ps., to the plaintiff-bank with subsequent interest @12% p.a. from the

date of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest @6% p.a. from

the date of decree till the date of realization on Rs.3,95,178-58 Ps.

3. that the defendants do pay to the plaintif-bank a sum of Rs.12,938/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 12th day of March, 2020.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

FAC III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

Memo of Costs

For Plaintiff : For Defendants:

Stamp on plaint : Rs.6,386-00 Stamp on vakalath: Rs. 2-00 Stamp on process : Rs. 300-00 Typing charges : Rs. 50-00 Costs memo is not filed. Publication charges:Rs.1,200-00 Advocate fees : Rs.5,000-00 (As claimed).

------------------ Total : Rs.12,938-00 ------------------

I A.J.C.J., NLR.

`FAC III A.J.C.J., NLR.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Present:-Sri A.RAMESH

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. FAC III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 6 th day of March, 2020.

O.S. No.1256/2019

Chapparam Mallikarjuna. . . . Plaintiff

Vs.

Kanupuru Srinivasulu. . . . Defendant

This suit came on this day ie., 5.3.2020 before this Court for consideration in the presence of Sri P.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant was set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

::JUDGMENT::

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,71,600/- against the defendant based on a promissory note dated 21.8.2017 for Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows: The defendant, on 21.8.2017 borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his necessities and in consideration thereof, he had executed a promissory note with his own handwriting in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Later on, the defendant did not pay any amount and postponing the same on one pretext or other. The defendant owns landed property at Nelaballi, Rettapalli Gram Panchayath, Chillakuru Mandal, SPSR

Nellore District. He came to know that the defendant is heavily indebted to third parties and he is attempting to alienate his property to secret the sale proceeds beyond the reach of the creditors including the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit, without issuing legal notice, as there is no sufficient time.

3. Summons issued to defendant was served on 3.12.2019 On 2.3.2020 the defendant was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf. Since the defendant was failed to file his written statement within the statutory period, he was set exparte.

4. To prove his case, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 & Ex.A.2.

5. Heard the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for”?

7. POINT: The plaintiff, as PW1 in his evidence, deposed that on 21.8.2017 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest under Ex.A1. Thereafter, the defendant did not pay any amount and postponing the same on one pretext or other. Later, the defendant attempted to alienate his property to secret the sale proceeds beyond the reach of the creditors including the plaintiff. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 15.2.2017 executed in favour of defendant by one Yanna Usha.

8. The recitals of Ex.A1 and the evidence of PW1 manifestly proved that on 21.8.2017, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note. Thereafter the defendant did not pay any amount due under

Ex.A.1 and postponing the same on some pretext or other. The unchallenged evidence of

PW1 proved that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.8.2017 and executed Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff and as he did not pay any amount due under

Ex.A1, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.7,71,600/- to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 6th day of Marc, 2020.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

FAC III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore. Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff:- Defendant:

PW1: Chapparam Mallikarjuna. -None- (Exparte).

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Original Promissory note, dated : 21.8.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-.

Ex.A2:C.C., of Registered Sale Deed dated 15.2.2017 executed in favour of deendant by Yanna Usha.

Exhibits marked for defendant: -NIL-

I A.J.C.J., NLR.

FAC III A.J.C.J., NLR.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Present:-Smt S.V. Kavitha

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Dated this the 6 th day of March, 2020.

O.S. No.1256/2019

Chapparam Mallikarjuna S/o.Mukkanti, aged 35 years, presently residing at 2nd Street, Nethajinagar, D.No.23-3-5, Padmavathi Centre, Nellore city. . . . Plaintiff

Vs.

Kanupuru Srinivasulu S/o.Venkata Ramanaiah aged 37 yers, Violet Industries, Back side of Palle Ruchulu, near Reliance Petrol Bunck, Chavatapalem village and post, V.Satram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. . . . Defendant

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,71,600/- against the defendant based on a promissory note dated 21.8.2017 for Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 28.11.2019.

Plaint numbered on 28.11.2019.

The suit is valued at Rs.7,71,600/- and a Court Fee of Rs.10,226/- is paid u/Sec.20 of A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This suit came on this day ie., 5.3.2020 before this Court for consideration in the presence of Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant was set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE :--

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2. that the defendant be and hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,71,600/- to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.22,916/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 6th day of March, 2020.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore.

FAC III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Nellore. .

Memo of Costs

For Plaintiff : For Defendant:

Stamp on plaint : Rs.10,226-00 Stamp on vakalath: Rs. 2-00 Costs memo is not filed. Stamp on process : Rs. 214-00 Typing charges : Rs. 50-00 Advocate Fees : Rs.12,424-00 ------------------- Total : Rs.22,916-00 -------------------

I A.J.C.J., NLR.

FAC III A.J.C.J., NLR.

.