Sri Shaik Jani Basha

1 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023

In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Present: Sri Sk.Jani Basha,

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Monday, this the 27 th day of March, 2023

O.S.No.46/2014

1. Naramala Saraswathi

2. Naramala Laila

3. Naramala Sugunamma

4. Naramala Vallemma ….Plaintiffs

Vs.,

1. Alla Sunanda

2. Akepati Indira….Defendants.

This suit is came on 7.3.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Upendra Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri P.Gopal Redy, Advocate for the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant remained exparte and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their right and title over items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule property and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have purchased item No.1 of the plaint schedule property from the 1st defendant under registered sale deed, dt.11.11.2002 and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs 3 and 4 have purchased item No.2 of plaint schedule property from the 1stdefendant under registered sale deed, dt.11.11.2002 and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the 2 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023 same. Originally items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule belongs to ancestors of the 1st defendant and she acquired the same in the family partition and she obtained the pattadar pass book and title deed. The plaintiffs converted the plaint schedule property into prawn ponds and doing prawn culture. While so, during the 2nd week of February, 2014, the 2nd defendant visited the plaint schedule property and she proclaimed that she is the owner of the property and threatened the plaintiffs to vacate the same. The plaintiffs resisted her acts and made enquiries and obtained the certified copy of registered sale deed, dt.7.11.2003 executed by Konduru Atchamma in favour of Paturu Srinivasulu in respect of some properties including plaint schedule property and another sale deed, dt.8.6.2007 executed by Paturu Srinivasulu in favour of the 2nd defendant. Konduru Atchamma has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of Srinivasulu as the plaint schedule property was not shown in her title deed. Paturu Srinivasulu cannot acquire any right over the plaint schedule property and he has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 are daughters of Konduru

Atchamma. On coming to know above said two sale deeds the plaintiffs approached the defendants and questioned about their illegal acts and they gave evasive reply. After execution of sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendants colluded with Konduru Atchamma and created the sale deeds,dt.7.11.2003 and dt.8.6.2007 and the said sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants are making hectic efforts to disposes the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. The defendants are highly influenced persons and the plaintiffs are unable to resist the high handed acts of the defendants. Hence they constrained to file the suit. The 1st defendant remained exparte.

3 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023

3. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the 2 nd defendant are that:

The 2nd defendant filed her written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint parawise specifically except admitting the relationship between herself and the 1st defendant. She stated that herself, her mother Atchamma and her brother Sridhar Reddy jointly purchased an extent of Ac.97-98 cents under different survey numbers of

Puchalapalli village under registered sale deed, dt.11.2.1961 from

Kethireddy Ramachandra Reddy and took the possession of the same.

They have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Herself, her mother and her brother got 1/3rd share each in the above extent. Her mother sold away her 1/3rd share and 1/3rd share of her brother to one

Yerrabolu Subbarami Reddy and Paturu Srinivasulu under agreement of sale and delivered the possession to them. They had been in possession and enjoyment of undivided 2/3rd share and she is in possession of her 1/3rd share. While so in the year, 1970 herself, Yerrabolu Subbarami

Reddy and Paturu Srinivasulu orally partitioned the above said extent of 97-98 cents. Subbarami Reddy and Paturu Srinivasulu got Ac.29-09 cents and Ac.40-83 cents respectively and she got Ac.28-06 cents.

Paturu Srinivasulu got Ac.8-88 cents in survey No.88 towards his share apart from other lands and he had been in possession of the said lands. Subbarami Reddy and Paturu Srinvasulu sold away the property fell to their share to several persons. The husband of the 1st defendant managed the revenue officials and got pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of Konduru Atchamma for an extent of Ac.26-30 cents and

Ac.9-66 cents in the name of the 1st defendant. Konduru Atchamma had 4 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023 no knowledge about the pattadar passbook and title deed obtained in her name. Paturu Srinivasulu came to know the same and questioned

Konduru Atchamma and 1st defendant about obtaining of pattadar passbook, title deed in their favour on that Konduru Atchammma surrendered the pattadar passbook and title deed to the Revenue

Divisional officer, Gudur. Subsequently, she executed the sale deed in favour of Srinivsulu. Paturu Srinivasulu filed the petition for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed issued in the name of the 1st defendant and the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the same. She purchased the plaint schedule property and Ac.0-14 cents in survey

No.110/3 from Paturu Srinivasulu under registered sale deed, dt.8.6.2007.

She is cultivating the plaint schedule property through P.Subrahmanyam

Reddy and she converted the plaint schedule land into prawn ponds and leased out the same to him. She is the title holder of the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant has no title over the plaint schedule property to alienate the same in favour of the plaintiffs. The sale deeds obtained by the plaintiffs were not acted upon. The plaintiffs have no valid right and title over the plaint schedule property and they have no right to seek declaration. The plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands.

There is no cause of action to institute the suit and prayed to dismiss the same with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

ISSUES:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title as prayed for?

5 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023

2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the 3rd plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff are examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got exhibited

Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the 2nd defendant herself is examined as DW1 and got exhibited Exs.B1 to B8. One P.Subrahmanyam Reddy is examined as DW2.

6.Heard both the sides.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the 1st defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule property and she sold the same to the plaintiffs under two registered sale deeds and the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He further argued that the plaintiffs converted the plaint schedule property into prawn ponds and they are doing prawn culture. He also argued that the 2nd defendant, who is having no right over the plaint schedule property is threatening the plaintiffs to dispossess from the plaint schedule property and claiming right over the same. He finally argued that the documents filed by the plaintiffs show that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and prayed to decree the suit.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd defendant argued that the 2nd defendant, her mother and her brother jointly purchased an extent of Ac.97-98 cents and they jointly enjoyed the same. He further argued that Konduru Atchamma, who is the mother of the 2nd defendant sold her 1/3rd share and 1/3rd share of her son to one Subbaramireddy and 6 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023

Srinivasulu under agreement of sale and delivered the possession to them. He also argued that the 2nd defendant, Subbarami Reddy and

Srinivasulu orally divided the total extent and they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. He finally argued that the husband of the 1st defendant managed the revenue officials and obtained the pattadar passbook and title deed in the name of Konduru

Atchamma and 1st defendant and created the sale deeds in the name of plaintiffs with an intention to knock away the property. The 2nd defendant purchased the plaint schedule property from Paturu Srinivasulu and she is the absolute owner of the plant schedule property and the documents filed by the 2nd defendant proves the title of the 2nd defendant over the plaint schedule property and the plaintiffs have failed to prove the title of their vendor and prayed to dismiss the suit.

Issue No.1 and 2:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title as prayed for? And

2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for?

Both issues are taken up together to avoid repetition of evidence and discussion. This court has perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties.

9.The contention of the plaintiffs is that they have purchased the plaint schedule property and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. To prove the contention of the plaintiffs they got exhibited Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is original sale deed, dt.11.11.2002 7 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. Ex.A2 is original sale deed, dt.11.11.2002 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs 3 and 4. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 purchased item No.1 under

Ex.A1 and the plaintiffs 3 and 4 purchased item No.2 under Ex.A2. The recitals of Exs.A1 and A2 show that the 1st defendant acquired the property through her father. The plaintiffs have not filed any piece of document as to how their vendor the 1st defendant acquired the property and it is her ancestral property.

10. Ex.A3 is registration extract of sale deed, dt.7.11.2003 executed by

Konduru Atchamma in favour of Paturu Srinivasulu. Ex.A4 is registration extract of sale deed, dt.8.6.2007 executed by Paturu Srinivasulu in favour of 2nd defendant. The recitals of Ex.A3 show that Konduru Atchamma, her son and the 2nd defendant jointly purchased the property and she sold the 2/3rd share of herself and her son to Subbarami Reddy under agreement of sale and delivered possession. The 2nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of her 1/3rd share. It is true that Konduru

Atchamma executed the sale deed in favour of Paturu Srilnivasulu subsequent to sale deeds executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. Though Konduru Atchamma executed the sale deed subsequent to Exs.A1 and A2 it cannot be said that she has no right over the property. The 2nd defendant purchased the plaint schedule property from

Paturu Srinivasulu under original of Ex.A4.

11. P.W.1 in the affidavit filed in lieu of her examination in chief reiterated the contents of the plaint. In her cross-examination admitted that they have not obtained any encumbrance certificate before property purchased by them. She further admitted that they have not taken any 8 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023 link document from the 1st defendant except the pattadar pass book and and they have not seen any other document to say that the property belongs to the 1st defendant. PW1 further admitted that they have not taken any record from the 1st defendant to show that the plaint schedule property belongs to her father. The admission made by PW1 makes it clear that herself and other plaintiffs purchased the property without proper verification of documents. The admission made by PW1 further makes it clear that they have not verified the documents as to how the 1st defendant got the property. When the plaintiffs have intended to purchase the property it is their duty to verify the documents of their vendor and she got title over the property or not.

12.PW1 in her cross-examination further admitted that the 2nd defendant, her mother and her brother jointly purchased an extent of

Ac.97-98 cents including the suit schedule property and they got 1/3rd share each. She also admitted that Atchamma sold away her 1/3rd share and 1/3rd share of her son to one Paturu Srinivasulu and Yerrabolu

Subbarami Reddy under agreement of sale and delivered the possession to the purchasers. The admissions made by PW1 make it clear that the plaintiffs got knowledge that the plaint schedule property belongs to

Atchamma and others, but they have entered into the sale deed with the 1st defendant. When the plaint schedule property belongs to 3rd parties the 1st defendant has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. PW1 pleaded ignorance whether the 1st defendant and her husband created pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of

Atchamma and 1st defendant and Atchamma surrender her pattadar passbook to the revenue officials. She denied the suggestion that the 1st 9 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023 defendant is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property and she has no right to convey the title to them. Though PW1 denied the suggestion, the plaintiffs have not filed any piece of document to prove that the 1st defendant is the title holder of the plaint schedule property.

13. P.W.2 in the affidavit filed in lieu of her examination in chief reiterated the contents of plaint. In her cross-examination admitted that they have not filed any record pertaining to Sunandamma. She stated that herself and other plaintiffs obtained electricity service connections in their names and cultivating the prawn culture in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs have not filed any piece of document except

Exs.A1 and A2 to show that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. She denied the suggestion that the 1st defendant is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property.

14.The contention of the 2nd defendants is that the plaint schedule property is part and parcel of an extent Ac.97-98 cents purchased by herself, her mother and her mother in the year, 1961. One Paturu

Srinivasulu purchased the plaint schedule property from her mother in turn she purchased the same under registered sale deed in the year, 2007 and she leased out the same to DW2 and he is cultivating prawn culture in the plaint schedule property. To prove the contention of the 2nd defendant he got exhibited Exs.B1 to B8. Ex.B1 is pattadar passbook issued in the name of Paturu Srinivasulu. Ex.B2 is certified copy of 1-B

Namuna issued in the name of Paturu Srinivasulu. Ex.B5 is land revenue receipts. In Exs.B1 and B2 the plaint schedule property shown as one of the item. The contents of Exs.B1, B2 and B5 show that Paturu Srinivasulu purchased the plaint schedule property and he was in possession and 10 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023 enjoyment of the same and he paid land revenue to the government. The plaintiffs have not filed any piece of document to disprove the contents of

Exs.B1 and B2.

15.Ex.B3 is adangals for the fasalies 1420 to 1424. Ex.B4 is 1-B namuna. In Exs.B3 and B4 the name of 2nd defendant mentioned as pattadar and enjoydar of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs have failed to explain as to how the name of 2nd defendant entered int the revenue record, though they have purchased the property in the year, 2002. The contents of Exs.B3 and B4 show that the 2nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

16.Ex.B6 is registration extract of sale deed, dt.7.11.2003. One

Konduru Atchamma executed the sale deed in favour of Paturu

Srinivasulu in respect of certain extents out of them the plaint schedule property is the 1st extent shown in the sale deed. The 2nd defendant got exhibited Ex.B6 to show that her mother executed the sale deed in favour of Paturu Srinivasulu in respect of plaint schedule property.

17.Ex.B7 is registration extract of sale deed, dt.11.2.1961. Ex.B8 is registration extract of sale deed, dt.11.2.1961. A perusal of Ex.B7 it shows that one paper is missed in the said document as such the 2nd defendant got exhibited Ex.B8. The contents of Ex.B8 show that the 2nd defendant, her mother and her brother Sridhar Reddy jointly purchased an extent of Ac.97-98 cents. The plaintiffs have not disputed the contents of Ex.B8. The plaint schedule property is shown as 2nd item in Ex.B8. The plaintiffs have failed to explain as to how their vendor acquired the plaint schedule property when the same was purchased by 11 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023 her mother, her brother and 2nd defendant jointly. The documents filed by the 2nd defendant show that the 1st defendant is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have not filed any piece of document to show that the 1st defendant got right over the plaint schedule property.

18.The 2nd defendant in the affidavit filed in lieu of her examination in chief reiterated the contents of written statement. In her cross- examination admitted that there are no cordial terms between herself and her sister. The said admission makes it clear that there are no terms between the defendants. She stated that she cannot say how many items shown by the plaintiff and she can say the extent. She admitted that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to her mother. The question posed to DW1 also makes it clear that the 1st defendant is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property. She admitted that there was a document to show the partition between herself, her mother and her brother. It is true that the 2nd defendant has not filed any piece of document to show that there was a partition among herself, her brother and her mother. The non-filing of said document is not at all a ground to disbelieve the case of the 2nd defendant. She pleaded ignorance whether the 1st defendant obtained pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of plaint schedule property. She admitted that in the plaint schedule property prawn culture is doing. She has no idea whether the plaint schedule property is agricultural land or prawn ponds as on the date of property purchased by her. The admissions made by DW1 are no way helpful to the plaintiffs to prove their title over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs without filing any document to prove the right 12 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023 and title of their vendor they wanted to depend upon the admissions made by DW1. When the plaintiffs have failed to prove the title of their vendor they have no right to depend upon the weakness of the 2nd defendant.

19.DW2 in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief stated that he is cultivating the plaint schedule property by raising paddy crop and in the year, 2011 the plaint schedule property converted as prawn ponds and he is doing prawn culture. He is paying lease amount to the 2nd defendant. He obtained electricity service connection in the name of his son. In his cross-examination admitted that the defendants are sisters and the husband of the 2nd defendant is an I.A.S Officer. He does not know who filed the suit against whom and for how much extent the plaintiffs filed the suit. He stated that he has taken the land of the 2nd defendant an extent of Ac.80.80 cents in survey No.88 and doing prawn culture. He further admitted that he has no document to say that he paid lease amount to the 2nd defendant. He denied the suggestion that he does not know anything about the plaint schedule property and he is deposing false evidence to help the 2nd defendant. It is true that there is no document to show that DW2 has taken the plaint schedule property on lease from the 2nd defendant. DW2 in his evidence clearly stated that the lease is oral one. When there is oral lease the document cannot be expected from DW2. In the cross-examination DW2 it was elicited that the service connection is in the name of his son. Though DW2 admitted that he does not know who filed the suit against whom he categorically stated that he is cultivating the plaint schedule property. In the cross- examination of DW2 nothing was elicited to discard his evidence.

13 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023

20.The plaintiffs approached the court for declaration of their right and title over the plaint schedule property. In the nature of suit filed by them the burden is always lies upon them to prove their title.

In a case between Jagadeesh Prasad Patel Vs., Shivnadh

reported in 2019 (6) SCC 82

Our Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession the plaintiff could succeed only on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the case of the defendant.

In case between Union of India and others Vs., Vasavi

Cooperative Housing Society Limited reported in AIR 2014 SC 937

Our Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a suit for declaration of right and title the plaintiff has to succeed his case on his own strength irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not.

As per the ratio laid down in the above two decisions, it is clear that in a suit for declaration of right and title the burden is always on the plaintiffs to prove their case. In the case on hand the plaintiffs have not filed any piece of document to prove the right and title of their vendor.

The plaintiffs have not filed any piece of document as to how their vendor acquired the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs have not filed any piece of document except Exs.A1 and A2 to prove their right and title and to show that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. When the plaintiffs have failed to prove as to how their vendor acquired the right and title over the plaint schedule property, on the basis of Exs.A1 and A2 they have no right to seek 14 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023 declaration of their right and title. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their right and title over the plaint schedule property by adducing cogent evidence. When the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right and title and possession over the plaint schedule property they have not entitled to seek declaration of their right and title and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. Accordingly, both issues answered against the plaintiffs.

Issue No.3: To what relief?

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

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27 th day of March, 2023.

Fair Copy: Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFs: DEFENDANTs:

P.W.1: . Naramala SugunammaD.W.1: Akepati Indira P.W.2:Naramala Laila D.W.2: Padarthi Subrahmanyam Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFs:-

Ex.A1: Original sale deed, dt.11.11.2002 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2.

Ex.A2: Original sale deed, dt.11.11.2002 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs 3 and 4.

Ex.A3: Registration extract of sale deed, dt.7.11.2003 executed by Konduru Atchamma in favour of Paturu Srinivasulu.

Ex.A4: Registration extract of sale deed, dt.8.6.2007 executed by Paturu Srinivasulu in favour of 2nd defendant.

15 O.S.No.46/2014, dated 27.3.2023

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTs :-

Ex.B1: Pattadar passbook issued in the name of Paturu Srinivasulu.

Ex.B2: Certified copy of 1-B Namuna issued in the name of Paturu Srinivasulu. Ex.B3: Adangals for the fasalies 1420 to 1424.

Ex.B4: 1-B namuna.

Ex.B5: Land revenue receipts.

Ex.B6: Registration extract of sale deed, dt.7.11.2003.

Ex.B7: Registration extract of sale deed, dt.11.2.1961.

Ex.B8: Registration extract of sale deed, dt.11.2.1961.

Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

1 O.S.No.265/2017, dated 21.3.2023

In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Present: Sri Sk.Jani Basha,

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Tuesday, this the 21 st day of March, 2023

O.S.No.265/2017

Vardineni Narayana …. Plaintiff

Vs.,

Gundapaneni Prasad …. Defendant

This suit is came on 6.3.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Abbi Raju, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri P.Gopal Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of

Rs.14,46,400/- being the principal and interest basing on the two promissory notes executed by the defendant, claiming future interest and costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 1.7.2016 for his necessities and executed two promissory notes for

Rs.5,50,000/- each agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Inspite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay any amount.

The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 10.10.2017.

Hence, he constrained to file the suit.

2 O.S.No.265/2017, dated 21.3.2023

3.The brief averments of the written statement are that:

The defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint para-wise specifically. He stated that the plaintiff is running unauthorized chits at Podalakur. He during the year, 2015 joined as member in the chit for Rs.7,50,000/- and the chit duration is 30 months at Rs.25,000/- per month. He knocked the 15th chit and the defendant has paid Rs.5,50,000/- at that time he obtained two promissory notes each for Rs.5,50,000/- towards security from him. The plaintiff promised to return the promissory notes at the time of last date of chit and he paid chit amount till the September, 2017. He demanded the plaintiff to return the promissory notes and he stated that they were misplaced in the house. During the 1st week of October, 2017 disputes arose between himself and Atla Sugunamma in respect of money transactions, she prevailed over the plaintiff and filed the suit with false allegations. The plaintiff has no capacity to pay Rs.11,000,000/-. The interest claimed by the plaintiff is usurious. The signatures of the attestors were obtained before filing the suit. There is no cause of action to institute the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

ISSUES:

1) Whether the suit promissory notes are supported by consideration?

3 O.S.No.265/2017, dated 21.3.2023

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount?

3) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A4. One Gavva Raju Ramakrishnam Raju was examined as PW2. On behalf of the defendant, himself is examined as

DW1 and no documents were exhibited on his behalf.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes.

He further argued that the defendant filed written statement with false allegations with an intention to evade the suit debt. He finally argued that the defendant has not adduced any evidence to show that the plaintiff is conducting private chits and the defendant is one of the subscriber of the chits and he executed the promissory notes towards security for the chit amount and prayed to decree the suit.

8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. He further argued that the plaintiff is running private chits and the defendant joined as member in the chit for Rs.7,50,000/-. He also argued that the defendant participated in the auction in the 15th month and agreed to forgo Rs.2,00,000/- and the plaintiff paid Rs.5,50,000/- at that time he has taken two promissory notes from the defendant towards security. He finally argued that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount to the 4 O.S.No.265/2017, dated 21.3.2023 defendant and one Sugunamma prevailed over the plaintiff and got filed the suit with false allegations and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

Issue No.1 :

Whether the suit promissory notes are supported by

consideration?

9. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- from him and executed two promissory notes. The written statement filed by the defendant shows that the suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration. When the defendant denied passing of consideration the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove that the suit promissory notes are supported by consideration. The plaintiff got exhibited Exs.A1 to A4. Exs.A1 and A2 are promissory notes, dt.1.7.2016 for Rs.5,50,000/- each. The written statement filed by the defendant discloses that the signatures on Ex.A1 and A2 belongs to him. Ex.A3 is office copy legal notice, dt.10.10.2017.

Ex.A4 is postal receipt. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant with a demand to pay the amount.

10.The plaintiff in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief reiterated the contents of the plaint. In his cross-examination admitted that he lived at Podalakur more than 12 years and he has not stated the same in his chief examination affidavit. It is true that PW1 in his evidence no where stated that previously he resided at Podalakur. The said admission is no way helpful to the defendant to prove his case. PW1 admitted that one Atla Sugunamma is native of Regadapalli village and 5 O.S.No.265/2017, dated 21.3.2023 she is residing at Podalakur. He denied the suggestion that there arose disputes between Sugunamma and defendant with regard to money transaction. He further denied the suggestion that he was conducting unauthorized chits at Podalakur in the year, 2015 and the defendant joined one of the member in a chit for Rs.7,50,000/-. He further denied the suggestion that at the time of payment of bid amount of Rs.5,50,000/- he obtained two promissory notes from the defendant towards security.

In the cross-examination of PW1 nothing was elicited in favour of the defendant.

11. PW2 in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief stated that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 1.7.2016 and executed two promissory notes for Rs.5,50,000/- each and the defendant is the scribe of the promissory notes. Himself and one Srinivasulu Reddy were present at the time of suit transaction and they attested the promissory notes. In his cross-examination admitted that he is residing at Nellore from the year, 2011. He further admitted that in his chief examination affidavit it was mentioned that he is residing at Podalakur, but the same was not correct. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff never paid any amount in his presence and the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. He admitted that he does not know what was doing by the plaintiff at Podalakur. After gone through the cross-examination of PW2, it shows that address mentioned in his affidavit is not correct. Though the address mentioned in his chief examination affidavit is not correct it cannot be said that his 6 O.S.No.265/2017, dated 21.3.2023 entire evidence is not correct. If really PW2 wanted to suppress the facts he should have not disclosed the correct address where he is residing.

Though the learned counsel for the defendant cross-examined PWs.1 and 2 at length nothing was elicited in favour of the defendant. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is consistent with each other with regard to execution of the promissory notes.

12. The defendant has not adduced any documentary evidence. The defendant in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief reiterated the contents of written statement. In his cross-examination admitted that the signatures on Exs.A1 and A2 belongs to him. He knows the plaintiff since 2015. He further admitted that he does not know the avocation of the plaintiff and his native place. The admission made by

DW1 shows that he does not know the avocation of the plaintiff, but in his written statement pleaded that the plaintiff is conducting chits. When the defendant does not know the avocation of the plaintiff he cannot say that the plaintiff is running private chits. The admission made by DW1 further shows that he received the notice issued by the plaintiff. The defendant has not issued reply. If really, the circumstances pleaded by the defendant in his written statement are true at least he should have issued reply notice with the said facts.

13.The plaintiff by examining himself and PW2 proved that defendant borrowed amount from him and executed the promissory notes. On the other hand, the defendant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the suit promissory notes are obtained by the plaintiff in respect of chit 7 O.S.No.265/2017, dated 21.3.2023 transaction. When the plaintiff proved the execution of Exs.A1 and A2 a presumption under section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act can be drawn that the same were executed for consideration. The suit promissory notes are supported by consideration. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.2:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount?

14.In view of finding on issue No.1 that the suit promissory notes are supported by consideration, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with future interest. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.3: To what relief?

15.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.14,46,400/- with subsequent interest @12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.11,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 21 st day of March, 2023.

Fair Copy: Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

8 O.S.No.265/2017, dated 21.3.2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Vardineni NarayanaD.W.1: Gundapaneni Prasad

P.W.2:Gavva Raju Ramakrishnam Raju

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Original promissory note, dt.1.7.2016 for Rs.5,50,000/-. Ex.A2: Original promissory note, dt.1.7.2016 for Rs.5,50,000/-. Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice, dt.10.10.2017. Ex.A4: Postal receipt.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT :-

Nil.

Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

1 O.S.No.169/2017, dated 28.3.2023

In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Present: Sri Sk.Jani Basha,

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Wednesday, this the 28 th day of March, 2023

O.S.No.169/2017

Thikkamreddy Bhaskar Reddy….Plaintiff

Vs.,

Patan Dada Khan …. Defendant

This suit is came on 10.3.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Gangi Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri R.Kumar, Advocate for the defendant and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,18,000/- being the principal and interest basing on the promissory note executed by the defendant, claiming future interest and costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on 25.9.2014 from the plaintiff for his family and business necessities and executed a promissory note on the same day, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay any amount. Hence the plaintiff constrained to file the suit.

2 O.S.No.169/2017, dated 28.3.2023

3.The brief averments of the written statement are that:

The defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint para-wise specifically. He stated that the plaintiff is doing money lending business at Sullurpet and Thandal business on daily collection. On one occasion in the year, 2012 he approached the plaintiff.

He did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and the suit promissory note and he did not execute the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one. There is no cause of action to institute the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

ISSUES:

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

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount?

3) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.A1. One Ravuri Venkata Ramesh is examined as

P.W.2. On behalf of the defendant himself is examined as DW1 and no documents were exhibited on his behalf. One Sodavaram Balaji is examined as DW2.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note. He further argued that the defendant filed the written statement with false 3 O.S.No.169/2017, dated 28.3.2023 allegations with an intention to evade the suit debt. He also argued that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff proved that the defendant borrowed amount from him and executed the promissory note. He finally argued that the defendant has not adduced any evidence to prove his contention and prayed to decree the suit.

8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. She further argued that in the year, 2012 the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed small amount by that time the plaintiff obtained the promissory note. She also argued that the plaintiff is doing money lending business. She finally argued that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document and prayed to dismiss the suit.

Issue No.1 :

Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding

on the defendant?

9. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him and executed the promissory note.

The defendant filed his written statement that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document. When the defendant denied the execution of the promissory note the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove the execution. The plaintiff got exhibited Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is promissory note, dt.25.9.2014 for Rs.2,50,000/-.

10.The plaintiff in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief reiterated the contents of the plaint. In this cross-examination deposed 4 O.S.No.169/2017, dated 28.3.2023 that the defendant is doing vegetable business and running chicken stall.

He further deposed that the transaction took place at about 10-00am., and he paid amount in the presence of Ramesh, Suresh and Suman. He admitted that he has not filed any document how he secured the amount.

It is not the case of defendant that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount. As per the written statement filed by the defendant it is clear that the plaintiff is doing money lending business in such case the admission made by PW1 is no way helpful to the defendant. He denied the suggestion that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,000/- from him in the year, 2012 and he has taken the empty signed promissory note towards security. The said fact was not mentioned in the written statement. The suggestion made to PW1 is contra to the averments of the written statement. He denied the suggestion that the defendant never borrowed any amount and he never executed the promissory note. In the cross-examination of PW1 nothing was elicited in favour of the defendant.

11.PW2 in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief stated that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note. The defendant received the amount in his presence and in the presence of V.Suresh. Himself and

V.Suresh attested the promissory note. One Suman scribe the same. In his cross-examination admitted that he is the neighbourer of the plaintiff.

He denied the suggestion that himself, another attestor and scribe are the close associates of the plaintiff. He further denied the suggestion that no transaction took place in his presence and the plaintiff obtained 5 O.S.No.169/2017, dated 28.3.2023 his signature in the promissory note before filing the suit. In the cross- examination of PW2 nothing was elicited except he is the neighbourer of the plaintiff. Though PW2 is neighbourer of the plaintiff there is no need to him to depose false evidence against the defendant. The evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 is consistent with each other with regard to execution of the promissory note.

12.The contention of the defendant is that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document. The defendant in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief reiterated the contents of the written statement. In his cross-examination admitted that he knows the plaintiff since 2012 and he borrowed amount from him. He says that he has not executed any promissory note. He denied the signatures on the promissory note, written statement and suit summons. The denial of signatures on the written statement and suit summons shows that the attitude of the defendant and he deposed false evidence. The defendant in his written statement no where pleaded that he repaid the amount borrowed in the year, 2012 from the plaintiff. When the defendant has not pleaded the same he has no right to introduce the same in the evidence. After gone through the evidence of DW1 it shows that he filed the written statement with false allegations with an intention to evade the suit debt. The defendant has not taken any steps to prove that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document.

13.DW2 in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief stated that in the year, 2012 the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note, he repaid the amount and the plaintiff 6 O.S.No.169/2017, dated 28.3.2023 returned the promissory note by removing the revenue stamp. The suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document. In his cross- examination admitted that he does not know whether the defendant executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in the year, 2012.

He deposed that in his chief examination he has not stated that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note and the plaintiff returned the promissory note. After gone through the cross-examination of DW2 it can safely concluded that he does not know anything about the suit transaction. Added to that the evidence of DW2 is contra to the defence set up by the defendant. The evidence of DW2 is no way helpful to the defendant.

14. The plaintiff by examining himself and PW2 proved that the defendant borrowed amount from him and executed the promissory note.

On the other hand, the defendant has not taken any steps to prove that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document. When the plaintiff proved the execution of the promissory note a presumption under section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act can be drawn that it was executed for consideration. The suit promissory note is a true and valid document. When Ex.A1 is a true and valid document it binding on the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.2:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount?

7 O.S.No.169/2017, dated 28.3.2023

15.In view of finding on issue No.1 that the suit promissory note is a true, valid and binding on the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with future interest.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.3: To what relief?

16.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs. 4,18,000/- with subsequent interest @12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28 th day of March, 2023.

Fair Copy: Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

P.W.1:ThikkamreddyBhaskarD.W.1: Patan Dada Khan Reddy P.W.2:Ravuri Venkata Ramesh D.W.2: Sodavaram Balaji

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Promissory note, dt.25.9.2014 for Rs.2,50,000/-.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT :-

-NIL-

Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

8 O.S.No.169/2017, dated 28.3.2023

1 O.S.No.154/2016, dated 4.4.2023

In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Present: Sri Sk.Jani Basha,

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Tuesday, this the 4 th day of April, 2023

O.S.No.154/2016

Sri Penusila Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy vari temple, Penchalakona, Rapur Mandal, represented by Executive Officer.….Plaintiff

Vs.,

Geethala Syamsundar Reddy …. Defendant

This suit is came on 24.3.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri Sk.Nagooru, Advocate for the defendant and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff temple filed the suit for recovery of an amount of

Rs.8,54,128/- payable by the defendant being the balance lease hold auction amount and costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The Executive Officer of the plaintiff temple conducted auction of lease hold rights in the temple area for sale of coconuts and pooja dravyams for the year, 2015-2016 and issued publication. On 6.3.2015 the Executive Officer of the plaintiff temple conducted auction in the temple premises and the defendant became highest bidder for an amount of Rs.28,50,000/- for lease hold rights from 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2016. As per the conditions of auction half of the amount has to be paid on the date of 2 O.S.No.154/2016, dated 4.4.2023 auction and the remaining amount has to be paid 25% on or before 30.6.2015 and remaining 25% on or before 31.12.2015. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.20,50,000/- on different dates and he has not paid the remaining balance of 8 lakhs. As per the terms of auction if the defendant failed to pay the balance amount, the temple authorities have right to claim interest at the rate of 24% pa., after completion of lease period. The defendant committed default of payment of balance amount inspite of repeated demands made by the temple authorities. On 10.4.2016 legal notice was issued to the defendant and the defendant got issued reply with false allegations. As the defendant failed to pay the balance amount the plaintiff temple constrained to file the suit.

3.The brief averments of the written statement are that:

The defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint para-wise specifically except admitting that he became highest bidder for lease hold rights and he paid Rs.20,50,000/-. He stated that he paid entire amount as per the terms of auction otherwise he will not be allowed to carry on the business. The notice issued after expiry of lease period itself shows there is something fishy with the plaintiff and it did not come to the court with clean hands. The plaintiff filed the suit by suppressing the true facts. There is no cause of action to institute the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

ISSUES:

3 O.S.No.154/2016, dated 4.4.2023

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, one J.Venkata Subbaiah, Executive Officer of the plaintiff temple s examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to

A14. The defendant filed his examination in chief but he did not turn and his evidence was closed.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant participated in the lease hold rights conducted in the temple premises and he became highest bidder for an amount of Rs.28,50,000/-. He further argued that the defendant has paid totally an amount of

Rs.20,50,000/- and he has failed to pay the balance of Rs.8,00,000/-. He also argued that the temple authorities several times demanded the defendant to pay the balance amount, but he has failed to pay the amount. He finally argued that the defendant has not adduced any evidence to prove that he paid entire auction amount to the plaintiff and he filed the written statements with false allegations and prayed to decree the suit.

8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant has paid entire lease amount to the officers of the plaintiff temple and the authorities of the plaintiff temple filed the suit with false allegations. She finally argued that the defendant has no need to pay any amount to the plaintiff temple and prayed to dismiss the suit.

4 O.S.No.154/2016, dated 4.4.2023

Issue No.1 :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount,

as prayed for?

9. The contention of the plaintiff temple is that the defendant has participated in the lease hold rights and he became highest bidder for

Rs.28,50,000/- and he paid Rs.20,50,000/- and he has failed to pay the balance of Rs.8,00,000/-. The plaintiff temple got exhibited Exs.A1 to

A14. Ex.A1 is tender schedule submitted the defendant. Ex.A2 is auction conducted by the temple authorities. Ex.A3 is acceptance proceedings of commissioner of endowments. Exs.A4 to A10 are attested copies of payment receipts. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to auction conducted by the temple authorities and the defendant became highest bidder. It is also not in dispute that the defendant has paid

Rs.20,50,000/- under Exs.A3 to A10 on different dates.

10.Ex.A11 is office copy of legal notice, dt.10.4.2016. Ex.A12 is postal acknowledgment. Ex.A13 is reply notice. The plaintiff temple got issued legal notice to the defendant with a demand to pay balance of

Rs.8,00,000/-. The defendant got issued reply that he has paid entire amount and the temple authorities is due an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to him. The defendant in his written statement no where pleaded that the temple authorities is due an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to him. As per the documents filed by the plaintiff temple it is clear that the defendant became highest bidder for Rs.28,50,000/- and he paid only

Rs.20,50,000/-. Ex.A14 is copy of account extract. As per Ex.A14 it is clear that the defendant is due an amount of Rs.8,54,128/-.

5 O.S.No.154/2016, dated 4.4.2023

11.PW1 in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief reiterated the contents of the plaint. In his cross-examination admitted the terms of auction. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to amount payable by the defendant as per the terms. He denied the suggestion that the defendant became highest bidder for Rs.20,50,000/- but not for

Rs.28,50,000/-. He further denied the suggestion that the defendant has paid entire lease amount prior to completion of lease period. He further denied the suggestion that the temple filed the suit with false allegations.

In the cross-examination of PW1 nothing was elicited in favour of the defendant. Though the defendant suggested to PW1 that he became highest bidder for Rs.20,50,000/- he has not placed any proof to support his case. In the absence of document this court cannot presume that the defendant became highest bidder for Rs.20,50,000/-.

12.The contention of the defendant is that he paid entire lease amount to the temple authorities. The defendant has not filed any document to show that he paid entire lease amount to the temple authorities. The defendant in the reply notice nowhere stated that he became highest bidder for Rs.20,50,000/-. If really, the defendant became highest bidder for Rs.20,50,000/- he should have mentioned it in his reply notice. The defendant has not entered into the witness box for the reasons best known to him. The documents filed by the plaintiff temple show that the defendant has paid Rs.20,50,000/-. When the plaintiff temple proved that the defendant has paid Rs.20,50,000/- and he has not paid the remaining balance of Rs.8,00,000/- the temple has right to recover the same with 6 O.S.No.154/2016, dated 4.4.2023 interest. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff temple and against the defendant.

Issue No.2: To what relief?

13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.8,54,128/- with subsequent interest @12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4 th day of April, 2023.

Fair Copy: Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

P.W.1:J.VenkataSubbaiah, None Assistant Commissioner.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Tender schedule submitted the defendant.

Ex.A2: Auction conducted by the temple authorities.

Ex.A3: Acceptance proceedings of commissioner of endowments.

Ex.A4: Attested copy of payment receipt, dt.6.3.2015.

Ex.A5: Attested copy of payment receipt, dt.13.3.2015.

Ex.A6: Attested copy of payment receipt, dt.23.3.2015.

Ex.A7: Attested copy of payment receipt, dt.10.8.2015.

Ex.A8: Attested copy of payment receipt, dt.14.11.2015.

Ex.A9: Attested copy of payment receipt, dt.7.1.2016.

7 O.S.No.154/2016, dated 4.4.2023

Ex.A10: Attested copy of payment receipt, dt.25.2.2016.

Ex.A11: Office copy of legal notice, dt.10.4.2016.

Ex.A12: Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.A13: Reply notice.

Ex.A14: Copy of account extract, dt.10.7.2016.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT :-

-NIL-

Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

1 O.S.No.63/2019, dated 30.10.2019

In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali

Present: Sri Sk.Jani Basha,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali

Wednesday, this the 30 th day of October, 2019

O.S.No.63/2019

Marupudi Bala Ankamma….Plaintif

Vs., 1.Nanduri Nagaraju 2.Gundabattina Venkata Rao….Defendants

This suit is came on 29.10.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Jaganmohan Rao, Advocate for the plaintif and the defendants remained exparte and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintif filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men and agents from any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintif is a houseless poor person and she applied to the

Government for granting of house site in her name, after conducting enquiry, on 18.02.2008 the Government has issued the patta in the name of the plaintif in respect of the plaint schedule property to an extent of

Ac.0.04 cents. The plaintif levelled the site and constructed a hut, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants are residing in the same locality and the revenue authorities have issued house site plots to them also near the plaint schedule property. The defendants are neighbours of the plaint schedule property and they are nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. The defendants are 2 O.S.No.63/2019, dated 30.10.2019 openly proclaiming in the village that they will interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintif. When the plaintif questioned the high handed acts of the defendants, they threatened her with dire consequences. The defendants are powerful persons in the locality and they have no regard of law. The plaintif is not in a position to resist the high handed acts of the defendants. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 received summons and they remained exparte.

4.The plaintif is examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 and A2.

One Davuluri Malyadri is examined as P.W.2.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintif.

6.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

7.The contention of the plaintif is that the Government has allotted the plaint schedule house site in her name and she constructed a hut in it. The plaintif in the affidavit filed in lieu of her examination in chief reiterated the contents of the plaint. The plaintif got exhibited Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is original house site patta issued in the name of the plaintif. Ex.A2 is Aadhar card. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali issued house site patta in the name of plaintif in respect of plot No.40 an extent of Ac.0.04 cents. The Mandal Revenue Officer issued the house site patta as per the lay out prepared by him. P.W.2 in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief stated that the Government has issued patta in the name of plaintif in respect of plaint schedule house plot and the plaintif 3 O.S.No.63/2019, dated 30.10.2019 has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintif. Albeit the defendants received summons they did not appear before the court and put forth their contention. The defendants have not challenged the patta issued in the name of plaintif. Admittedly the plaint schedule property is a vacant house site. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is remained unchallenged. The plaintif by examining herself, P.W.2 and by exhibiting

Exs.A1 and A2 proved that the Government has issued patta in respect of plaint schedule property in her name and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintif proved prima facie case and balance of convenience. The plaintif in her plaint pleaded that the defendants are unnecessarily interfering with her possession. The defendants have not challenged the same. The plaintif further proved that if injunction is not granted she would sustain irreparable loss. When the plaintif proved the above principles she is entitled to ask the injunction against the defendants. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintif against the defendants.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30th day of October, 2019

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kavali.

4 O.S.No.63/2019, dated 30.10.2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1:Marupudi Bala Ankamma -None- P.W.2:Davuluri Malyadri

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Patta plot No.40 in RCE.No.100/08, dated 18.02.2008. Ex.A2: Copy of Adhar Card.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:-

-NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kavali.