Sri Shaik Peda Khasim

1 of 8 Fair in IA.977/19 in OS.784/19

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Present : Sri Shaik Pedakhasim,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 06th day of April, 2022.

. No. I.A 977 /20 19

in

O.S. No.784/2019

1. K. Meghana, D/o. K. Chandra Sekhar Raju, Minor, Aged 11 years, Rep. by her natural guardian and mother K. Deepika

2. K. Manasvi, D/o. K. Chandra Sekhar Raju, Minor, Aged 9 years, Rep. by her natural guardian and mother K. Deepika Both are minors being Rep. by her natural Guardian and mother K. Deepika, W/o. K. Chandra Sekhar Raju, Hindu, Housewife, Aged 31 years, R/at D.No.1/14-2, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Chemmuiapet, Kadapa City & District. … Petitioners / Plaintiffs

Vs.

K. Chandra Sekhar Raju, S/o. K. Chinna Subba Raju, Hindu, Aged 38 years, working as Lecturer, S.V.Degree College, Kadapa R/at 1/14/2, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Chemmumiahpet, Kadapa City & District. … Respondent / Defendant

This Petition is coming before me on 22-03-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Mohana Krishna, learned counsel for Petitioners / Plaintiffs, and of Sri M. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent / Defendant, upon perusing the material papers on record, and hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

2 of 8 Fair in IA.977/19 in OS.784/19

O R D E R

This petition is filed for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the petition schedule properties till disposal of the suit.

2.The case of the petitioners as averred in the petition and affidavit along with it in nutshell is as follows :

The petitioners filed above suit against the respondent for partition of petition schedule property. The respondent succeeded ancestral properties i.e., house and landed property in the village. Respondent came down to Kadapa in the year 2006 and joined as Lecturer in a private college on contract basis. Respondent purchased petition schedule property out of income of ancestral property and constructed a house in item No.1 of the petition schedule property. Though property was purchased in the name of respondent, it is coparcenery property of petitioners and respondent, both of them are in joint possession of the same. In the year 2016 the respondent deserted the petitioners and their mother. Mother of petitioners filed dowry harassment case and maintenance case against the respondent. Each petitioner have 1/3rd share, total petitioners have 2/3rd share in the petition schedule property.

Respondent is seriously trying to alienating the petition schedule property to third parties to deprive the share of petitioners. Respondent refused for partition of petition schedule property. Therefore the petitioners are constrained to file the suit for partition and present petition for temporary injunction from alienating the petition schedule property. Hence this petition.

3.The case of the respondent as averred in the counter in nutshell is as follows :

3 of 8 Fair in IA.977/19 in OS.784/19

a)The description of item No.1 of the property is incorrect.

The house bearing D.No.1/14-2, Vijayanagar Colony is different from the site to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents and 754 Sq. links bearing plot No.C-93

Circar Punji D.No.361 situated in Pakruthi Nagar, chemmumiahpet

Panchayat now merged in Kadapa Municipal Corporation which is self acquired property of respondent under registered sale deed No.293/2007, dt.05.11.2017. The respondent was unable to maintain the said property and sold to Kamasani Reddemma under registered GPA No.411/2011, dt.23.11.2011. Kamasani Reddemma sold the said property to L. Surya

Narayana Reddy on 25.5.2012 under sale deed No.1467/2012 and delivered possession. L. Surya Narayana Reddy has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

b)Originally the house bearing D.No.1/14-2, Vijayanagar

Colony is an old house purchased by the respondent on 19.2.2009, therefore same is his self acquired property. The respondent sold said house under GPA Dt.29.7.2019 and delivered possession of the same. In turn the GPA Holder sold the same to Peethambaram Desai Reddy on 05.9.2019 and delivered possession. Since then Peethambaram Desai

Reddy has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

c)The 2nd item of petition schedule property was the absolute property of respondent and Chamarthi Kamala by purchasing the same on 05.2.2013. Thereafter respondent and Chamarthi Kamala sold the same to Puram Venkata Siva on 3.11.2018 and delivered possession. Since then

Venkata Siva has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

d)Item No.3 of the property was purchased by the respondent and Ula Sunil under GPA, Dt.15.5.2019, thereafter same was divided into two portions. One portion was sold to Narapraju Pedda Venkata Rama

4 of 8 Fair in IA.977/19 in OS.784/19

Raju on 21.8.2019 and another portion was sold to Seelam Kalpana on 21.8.2019. Since then Venkata Rama Raju and Kalpana have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares.

e)The above properties are self acquired properties of respondent, same are not coparcenery properties, therefore petitioners have no right or interest in those properties. The mother of petitioners bore grudge against the respondent and filed this case to harass the respondent. The petitioners not produced any oral or documentary evidence in support of their contention that petition schedule property is ancestral property of the petitioners. The respondent is working as part time Lecturer in Kadapa and getting Rs.8,000/- per month. Respondent has no other source of income except his salary. Respondent not made any attempts to alienate the petition schedule property. This petition has no merits. Hence prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.During the course of enquiry, no witnesses are examined on either side but Exs.P.1 to P.3 are marked on behalf of the petitioners and

Exs.R.1 to R.11 are marked on behalf of the respondent.

5.Heard the learned advocates for both the parties. Perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for determination is “whether the

petitioners are entitled for temporary injunction as prayed for” ?

7.Point : There is no dispute that the petitioners are the daughters of respondent, they are minors, therefore represented by their mother who is natural guardian. As per petitioners the petition schedule properties were acquired by the respondent out of the income of ancestral property, therefore petition schedule properties are ancestral properties of petitioners and the respondent, therefore petitioners are entitled for share

5 of 8 Fair in IA.977/19 in OS.784/19

in the property. As per the respondent the petition schedule properties and another property are the self acquired properties more over he sold all those properties to others. The petitioners not filed any piece of paper to show that the respondent got his ancestral properties. There is no iota of evidence about ancestral properties of petitioners and respondent.

8.Exs.P1 and R7 are one and same documents. The respondent purchased item No.1 of the petition schedule property under

Ex.P1. The contents of Ex.P9 reveals that the respondent executed

General Power of Attorney in favour of Kamasani Reddemma under Ex.R9 for the suit schedule property. Ex.R.10 reveals that Kamasani Reddemma sold item No.1 of the petition schedule property to L. Surya Narayana

Reddy under Ex.R.10 in pursuance of the right Kamasani Reddemma got under Ex.R9. Therefore it is clearly from Exs.R.9 and R.10 that the respondent sold item No.1 of the property on 25.2.2012 and delivered possession of the same. The suit was filed on 16.8.2019. Therefore respondent was not the owner of item No.1 of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the present suit/petition.

9.Ex.R.11 reveals that the respondent and Chamarthi Kamala purchased item No.2 of the petition schedule property under Ex.R.11 on 05.2.2013. Ex.R1 reveals that the respondent and Chamarthi Kamala sold item No.2 of the petition schedule property to Puram Venkata Siva under

Ex.R1 on 03.11.2018 and delivered possession. Therefore the respondent was not the owner of item No.2 of the petition schedule property as on date of filing the present suit. Exs.P2 and R2 are one and same documents. These two documents reveals that the respondent and Ula

Sunil purchased item No.3 of the petition schedule property under Ex.P2 on 15.5.2019 under GPA. Ex.R4 reveals that the respondent and Ula Sunil

6 of 8 Fair in IA.977/19 in OS.784/19

sold one portion of item No.3 on 21.8.2019 under Ex.R4. Ex.R5 reveals that the respondent and Ula Sunil sold another portion of item No.3 of petition schedule property on 21.8.2019 under Ex.R5. Therefore it is clear that even the respondent sold away item No.3 of petition schedule property and delivered possession of the same to the purchasers.

10.The respondent in his counter stated about his another property which is not shown in the petition schedule. As per respondent he purchased house from Suddamalla Sarojamma under Ex.R8 and he sold the same under Ex.R3 and delivered possession of the said house. Ex.R6 reveals that purchaser under Ex.R3 sold the said house in favour of

Peethambaram Desai Reddy under Ex.R6. The contents of Exs.R8, R3 and

R6 reveals that the respondent purchased house bearing D.No.1/14-2,

Vijayanagar Colony but later he sold away the same and delivered possession. Therefore the respondent is not the owner of house bearing

D.No.1/14-2 situated in Vijayanagar Colony.

11.In view of the above facts, it clearly established that the respondent is not the owner of item Nos.1 to 3 of petition schedule property and also house bearing D.No.1/14-2 situated in Vijayanagar

Colony. As respondent is not the owner of petition schedule properties and another house it is not just and proper to pass in interim injunction restraining the respondent from alienating these properties as respondent himself has no right to alienate these properties. The material on record clearly established that petition schedule properties and another property were purchased by the respondent, therefore it is deemed that they were self acquired properties of respondent. On one hand the petitioners failed to establish that the petition schedule properties were purchased by the respondent out of the income of ancestral property, on the other hand the

7 of 8 Fair in IA.977/19 in OS.784/19

documents clearly shows that the properties were purchased in the name of respondent. After considering all the aspects this court is of the opinion that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, even the balance of convenience is not in favour of petitioners. No irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioners if temporary injunction is not granted in their favour. Further inspite of the fact that some of the petition schedule properties were sold long back the petitioners filed the present petition suppressing all those facts and obtained ad-interim injunction in their favour. Therefore it can be said that the petitioners approached this court with unclean hands. After taking all these aspects into consideration this court is of the opinion that this petition has no merits and liable to be dismissed without costs. Accordingly the point is answered against the petitioners and in favour the respondent.

12.In the result, this petition is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 06th day of April, 2022.

Digitally signed by

PEDAKHASIM

PEDAKHASIMSHAIK

SHAIK Date: 2022.04.06 14:38:29 +0000

III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner s /Plaintiff s : Respondent/Defendant:

NIL NIL

Exhibits marked for Petitioner s / Plaintiff s :

Ex.P1: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.293/2007, dt.05.11.2007.

8 of 8 Fair in IA.977/19 in OS.784/19

Ex.P2: Certified copy of General Power of Attorney bearing document

No.3884/2009, dt.15.5.2019.

Ex.P3: Certificate of Market Value of the properties in Annexure-II.

Exhibits marked for Respondent / Defendant:

Ex.R1: Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.8048/2018, dt.03.11.2018.

Ex.R2: Certified copy of General Power of Attorney bearing document

No.3884/2019, dt.15.5.2019.

Ex.R3: Certified copy of General Power of Attorney bearing document

No.6370/2019, dt.29.7.2019.

Ex.R4: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.7285/2019, dt.21.8.2019.

Ex.R5: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.7079/2019, dt.21.8.2019.

Ex.R6: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.7544/2019, dt.05.9.2019.

Ex.R7: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.293/2007, dt.05.11.2007.

Ex.R8: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.604/2009, dt.19.2.2009.

Ex.R9: Certified copy of General Power of Attorney bearing document

No.411/2011, dt.23.11.2011.

Ex.R.10: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.1467/2012, dt.25.2.2012.

Ex.R.11: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.656/2013, dt.05.2.2013.

Digitally signed by

PEDAKHASIM

PEDAKHASIM

SHAIK SHAIK Date: 2022.04.06 14:38:55 +0000

III A.J.C.J.,

FAC P.J.C.J.,

KDP.

1 of 8 Fair in OS.302/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Present : Sri Shaik Pedakhasim,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Friday, this the 18th day of November, 2022.

O.S.No.302 of 2019

V. Siddaiah, S/o. V. Siddaiah, Hindu, Aged 67 years,

Retired Employee, R/at D.No.4/391-A, Vivekananda Nagar,

Kadapa City and District.

… Plaintiff

Vs.

T. Vijaya Bhaskar Guptha, S/o. T. Krishnaiah, Hindu,

Aged 50 years, R/at D.No.39/517-1-11, Y.S. Nagar,

Kadapa City. Shop at D.No.13/632 and 13/633,

Y.V. Street, Sri Vasavi Readymade Show Room,

Kadapa City.

… Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 17.11.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, and of Sri C.

Sundar Raj, learned counsel for the Defendant, upon perusing the material papers on record, after hearing the arguments of both sides and 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 recovery of Rs.7,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the foot of a debt letter dt.25.6.2017 and costs of the suit from the defendant.

2.The case of the plaintiff i n nutshell is as follows :

On 23.9.2013 the defendant had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note for the said amount, later on

2 of 8 Fair in OS.302/2019

02.6.2016 defendant paid Rs.10,000/- and endorsed the same on the reverse side of said promissory note. But later not discharged the amount due under the promissory note. In the year 2015 the defendant had borrowed Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff on different occasions as hand loan without executing any document but not repaid the same. Later on 25.6.2017 the defendant had executed a debt letter in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay Rs.17,00,000/- on or before December, 2018 to the plaintiff towards discharge of promissory note dt.23.9.2013 debt and also hand loan Rs.7,00,000/- debt but failed to discharge the said amount inspite of repeated requests and demands. Hence this suit.

3.The case of the defendant in nutshell is as follows :

The defendant did not borrow hand loans from the plaintiff and not executed debt letter in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged debt letter is created by the plaintiff for unlawful gain. The defendant had borrowed

Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing promissory note dt.23.9.2013 but he repaid the same. Defendant also got issued reply notice to the legal notice of plaintiff. OS.No.7/2018 is no way concerned with the present case. The debt letter is rank forged with the assistance of henchmen by the plaintiff. The suit has no merits. Hence prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for the purpose trail :

1. Whether the suit document i.e., debt letter, dt.25.6.2017

is true, valid, binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

3 of 8 Fair in OS.302/2019

5.During the course of trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined,

Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, Dws.1 to 4 were examined but no documents were marked.

6.Heard learned advocates for both the parties. Perused the material on record.

7.1.Issue No.1 :

The plaintiff deposed evidence by filing his chief examination affidavit as PW.1. The attestor of debt letter which is marked as Ex.A1 deposed evidence by filing his chief examination affidavit as PW.2. On the other hand the defendant deposed evidence by filing his chief examination affidavit as DW.1. Friend of defendant deposed evidence as DW.2.

Brother-in-law of defendant deposed evidence as DW.3. The brother of defendant deposed evidence as DW.4. Debt letter is marked as Ex.A1, office copy of legal notice is marked as Ex.A2 and postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex.A3.

7.2.PW.1 in his evidence deposed that on 23.9.2013 the defendant had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from him and on the same day executed promissory note but later repaid only Rs.10,000/- by making endorsement on the promissory note. PW.1 further deposed that in the year 2015 the defendant had borrowed Rs.7,00,000/- from him on different occasions for his family and business necessities but later not repaid the same. PW.1 further deposed that subsequently the defendant executed

Ex.A1 agreeing to repay Rs.17,00,0000/- on or before December, 2018.

PW.1 categorically deposed that inspite of repeated requests and demands the defendant not discharged the amount due under Ex.A1. PW.1 in his cross examination also deposed that defendant is son of his elder sister, he has cordial terms with the defendant. PW.1 further deposed that he filed OS.No.7/2018 against the defendant regarding promissory note

4 of 8 Fair in OS.302/2019

dt.23.9.2013 and same is pending before Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s

Court, Kadapa. PW.2 deposed that on 25.6.2017 the defendant executed

Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff. PW.2 further deposed that in the year 2015 the defendant had borrowed Rs.7,00,000/- and he also borrowed

Rs.10,00,000/- in the year 2013 but executed Ex.A1 covering both debts.

PW.2 categorically deposed that he attested Ex.A1. PW.2 further deposed that he was present when Ex.A1 was prepared by the defendant. PW.2 categorically deposed that defendant drafted Ex.A1. The learned advocate for the defendant had cross examined Pws.1 and 2 at length but nothing is elicited to disbelieve, discard the evidence of Pws.1 and 2.

7.3.Ex.A1 is crucial document in this suit. Certified copy of debt letter / Oppanda Khararu Agreementu, dt.25.6.2017 is marked as Ex.A1. It appears from the material that original document of Ex.A1 was filed in

OS.No.7/2018 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, therefore

certified copy is filed before this court. The contents of Ex.A1 reveals that the defendant had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- under promissory note dt.23.9.2013 from the plaintiff and defendant also borrowed Rs.7,00,000/- in the year 2015. Ex.A1 further reveals that the defendant had executed

Ex.A1 for Rs.17,00,000/- agreeing to repay the amount on or before

December, 2018. The contents of Ex.A1 clearly established that the defendant had borrowed Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff in the year 2015 but not repaid the same, therefore defendant executed Ex.A1. Execution of

Ex.A1 is proved by the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. Inspite of lengthy cross examination the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and contents of Ex.A1 remained intact.

7.4.The defendant filed written statement alleging that letter is forged and fabricated. Mere filing of written statement is not sufficient.

The burden lies on the defendant to prove the contents of written

5 of 8 Fair in OS.302/2019

statement and to disprove the case of plaintiff. The defendant not produced any document in support of contents of his written statement.

Even nothing is elicited during the cross examination of Pws.1 and 2 in support of case of defendant. Further the defendant filed IA.No.175/2022 and IA.No.895/2022. Both these I.As were filed U/Sec.45 of Evidence Act with a prayer to send the disputed signature on Ex.A1 for hand writing expert to compare with the admitted signatures. However this court dismissed both the petitions on the ground that defendant not produced contemporary, standard signatures of defendant to send the same to the hand writing expert. Further order of this court in IA.No.175/2022 was challenged before Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court confirmed order of this court in IA.No.175/2022. The defendant not taken any effective steps to prove that the disputed signature on Ex.A1 is not his signature. The material on record more particularly the case of both the parties reveals that defendant is engaged in business from past several years. As defendant is engaged in business since long time there is every possibility for the defendant to secure his contemporary, standard signatures from any sources to send the same to the hand writing expert for comparing his admitted signatures with the disputed signature on

Ex.A1. However the defendant has not taken any such steps. The oral evidence of DW.1 to DW.4 is not helpful to defendant to prove his case in any manner. After considering all these aspects this court is of the opinion that defendant utterly failed to prove the contents of his written statement consequently failed to prove his case and also failed to disprove the case of plaintiff.

7.5.The plaintiff pleaded that he got issued legal notice which is marked as Ex.A2 and defendant received the same under acknowledgment which is marked as Ex.A3 but defendant failed to deny

6 of 8 Fair in OS.302/2019

the contents of Ex.A2 at the earliest point of time. The perusal of Exs.A2 reveals that the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant demanding Rs.17,00,000/- which is due under Ex.A1. Ex.A3 reveals that the defendant received Ex.A2. DW.1 in his cross examination also admitted that the signature on Ex.A3 is his signature. In fact defendant in his written statement pleaded that he gave reply notice to Ex.A2. However defendant not produced any such reply notice before this court. The material on record clearly established that the plaintiff demanded the defendant for payment of the amount due under Ex.A1 by issuing Ex.A2 legal notice and defendant received the same but defendant not gave any reply to the notice denying the contents of said notice. Therefore it can be said that defendant failed to deny the case of plaintiff at the earliest point of time. This aspect clearly goes in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

7.6.The above discussed facts, circumstances and other material on record clearly established that the suit document i.e., debt letter, dt.25.6.2017 is true, valid document and same is binding on the defendant. Accordingly issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8.Issue No.2 :

The principal amount under Ex.A1 regarding hand loan amount is

Rs.7,00,000/-. The plaintiff claimed future interest at the rate of 24% p.a.

In view of Sec.34 CPC the plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% p.a.

from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.7,00,000/-. Further in view of the facts of the suit the plaintiff is entitled for suit costs from the defendant. After taking all these aspects into consideration this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled

7 of 8 Fair in OS.302/2019

for suit claim amount to the extent discussed and decided supra.

Accordingly issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9.Issue No.3 :

In view of the decision of this court on issue Nos.1 and 2 this suit has merits and deserves to be decreed with costs. Accordingly, the issue

No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the suit amount of Rs.7,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree on principal amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of decree till date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18 th day of November, 2022.

Digitally signed by PEDAKHASIM

PEDAKHASIM

SHAIK

SHAIK

Date: 2022.11.18

16:25:00 +0000

III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff’s side Defendant’s side

PW.1 : V. Siddaiah DW.1 : T. Vijaya Bhaskar Gupta

PW.2 : R. Ranganatha Reddy DW.2 : Ummadireddy Vara Prasad Reddy DW.3 : Guduguntla Charan Ganesh

DW.4 : Tatamsetty Sathyanarayana

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1 Certified Copy of Letter of Debt, dt.25-06-2017 executed by the

Defendant in favour of plaintiff.

8 of 8 Fair in OS.302/2019

Ex.A.2 Office copy of the Legal Notice, dt.12-12-2018 issued by plaintiff along with postal receipts.

Ex.A.3 Served Acknowledgment card.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendant : - NIL -

Digitally signed by

PEDAKHASIMPEDAKHASIM

SHAIKSHAIK

Date: 2022.11.18

16:25:20 +0000

III A.J.C.J., KDP.

1 of 7 Fair in OS.970/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Present : Sri Shaik Pedakhasim,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Friday, this the 18th day of November, 2022.

O.S.No.970 of 2020

Bodicherla Lakshmi Devi, W/o. B.V. Subbarayudu,

Hindu, Aged 54 years, R/at D.No.41/1448-4,

Sankarapuram, Kadapa City & District.

… Plaintiff

Vs.

Meruva Ramadasu, S/o. M. Ramaiah, Hindu,

Aged 58 years, working as School Assistant (English) in Z.P. High School, Pedda Putha Village, Vallur Mandal,

Kadapa District. R/at D.No.1/2498, A.P.H.B. Colony,

Kadapa City & District.

… Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 16.11.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Raghu Nath Reddy, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, and of Sri V. Rama Mohan, learned counsel for the Defendant, upon perusing the material papers on record, after hearing the arguments of both sides and 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 recovery of Rs.14,37,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a on the foot of a promissory note and costs of the suit from the defendant.

2.The case of the plaintiff i n nutshell is as follows :

On 10.7.2018 the defendant had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff and on the same day the defendant executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the amount together with

2 of 7 Fair in OS.970/2020

interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Later inspite of repeated requests and demands the defendant not discharged the amount due under suit promissory note. Hence this suit.

3.The case of the defendant in nutshell is as follows :

The plaintiff is stranger to the defendant. The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed suit promissory note. The suit is filed with active collusion of husband of plaintiff by name B.V. Subbarayudu. No consideration was passed under suit promissory note. The plaintiff’s husband obtained signatures of defendant on blank promissory notes by blackmailing the defendant. The husband of plaintiff and defendant are doing private chits business jointly, defendant have undergone by-pass surgery on that some of the subscribers not paid chit amount, taking the same as advantage the husband of plaintiff collected amount from the subscribers and used the same for his necessities but by suppressing the same obtained signatures of defendant in the alleged suit promissory note. The defendant is government teacher having good reputation taking the same as advantage the plaintiff forced the defendant to arrange amount and asked to arrange the sureties. The defendant arranged amount and given sureties to Hari Narayana for Rs.15,00,000/-, Sreeramulu for Rs.5,00,000/-,

Ramu for Rs.5,00,000/-, Phaneendra for Rs.10,00,000/-, Karemulla for

Rs.10,00,000/-, Nayab Rasool for Rs.70,000/- and George for Rs.3,00,000/- by borrowing amounts from various persons. The borrowers left from the

City and neglected payment for which defendant going on paying interest to the creditors. The defendant sustained heavy loss, therefore he filed insolvency petition before the court showing his house and creditors, same was numbered as I.P.No.50/2020 on the file of Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Kadapa. The plaintiff’s husband know about the bad financial

3 of 7 Fair in OS.970/2020

condition of defendant but still he got filed the present suit for unlawful gain. This suit has no merits. Hence prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for the purpose trail :

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 10.07.2018 is

true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim amount as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, Pws.1 and 2 were examined,

Ex.A.1 was marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant,

DW.1 was examined, Ex.B1 was marked.

6.Heard learned advocates for both the parties. Perused the material on record.

7.1.Issue No.1 :

The plaintiff deposed evidence by filing her chief examination affidavit as PW.1. PW.1 in her evidence deposed that on 10.7.2018 the defendant had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from her by executing suit promissory note which is marked as Ex.A1 but later failed to repay the amount due under Ex.A1. PW.1 further deposed that her parents gave amount to her as pasupu kunkuma and she gave the same to the defendant. PW.1 further deposed that she know the defendant from the date of her marriage, as her husband and defendant are working as government teachers. PW.1 further deposed that the attestors of Ex.A1 are friends of defendant. PW.1 further deposed that defendant scribed

Ex.A1. The attestor of Ex.A1 deposed evidence by filing his chief examination affidavit as PW.2. PW.2 in his evidence categorically deposed that on 10.7.2018 the plaintiff gave Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendant and defendant executed Ex.A1. PW.2 categorically deposed that entire

4 of 7 Fair in OS.970/2020

transaction was occurred in his presence, he attested as a witness to

Ex.A1 whereas the defendant scribed Ex.A1. PW.2 further deposed that defendant is a teacher. PW.2 further deposed that he was present when

Ex.A1 was executed. He further deposed that he signed on Ex.A1 at the request of defendant. The contents of Ex.A1 also reveals that on 10.7.2018 the defendant had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1. The defendant deposed evidence by filing his chief examination affidavit as DW.1. DW.1 in his cross examination clearly admitted that he scribed Ex.A1 and the hand writing in Ex.A1 is his hand writing. DW.1 further admitted he executed Ex.A1 and the signatures on

Ex.A1 are his signatures. DW.1 further admitted that he has close relations with plaintiff and her husband. DW.1 clearly admitted that he borrowed amount from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 more over he scribed Ex.A1 and signatures as well as hand writing on Ex.A1 belongs to him. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2, contents of Ex.A1, the admissions made by DW.1 in his cross examination clearly established the case of the plaintiff.

7.2.The defendant filed written statement pleading that Ex.A1 is forged document, more over it is not supported by consideration etc.

Mere filing of written statement is not sufficient. The burden lies on the defendant to prove the contents of written statement. In view of the admissions of DW.1 in his cross examination the genuineness of contents of written statement is ruled out. Further even during the cross examination of Pws.1 and 2 nothing is elicited in support of contents of written statement. Even after lengthy cross examination the evidence of

Pws.1, 2 and contents of Ex.A1 remained intact. Further the case of defendant and evidence of DW.1 is not supported by any oral evidence, documentary evidence. Therefore it can be said that defendant utterly

5 of 7 Fair in OS.970/2020

failed to prove the contents of his written statement consequently failed to prove his case and also failed to disprove the case of plaintiff.

7.3.The defendant contended that he filed IP.No.50/2020 on the file of Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa. The certified copy of petition in IP.No.50/2020 is marked as Ex.B1 through DW.1. DW.1 in his cross examination deposed that plaintiff is not shown as respondent in I.P.No.50/2020. It means the plaintiff is not party in the I.P. DW.1 further admitted that after filing I.P.No.50/2020 he paid amount to seven respondents in the said I.P. and not pressed I.P. against them. This aspect clearly goes against the defendant. DW.1 further admitted that he did not mention in I.P. i.e., Ex.B1 that he is a government teacher. This itself is sufficient to raise doubt about maintainability of I.P. The admissions made by DW.1 and contents of Ex.B1 clearly established that the plaintiff herein is not respondent in the I.P. more over maintainability of I.P. itself is doubtful. Further the defendant herein paid amount to seven respondents in the I.P. and not pressed the same against them, it is also clearly goes against the defendant. Further there is no law which provides that a suit for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note shall be dismissed merely on the ground that I.P. filed by defendant is pending. Pendency of

I.P. is not at all a ground to dismiss the suit for recovery of money on the foot of promissory note. Therefore there is no substance in the contention of the defendant.

7.4.The above discussed facts, circumstances and material on record clearly established that the suit promissory note, dt.10.07.2018 i.e.,

Ex.A1 is true, valid document and same is binding on the defendant.

Accordingly issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

6 of 7 Fair in OS.970/2020

8.Issue No.2 :

The principal amount is Rs.10,00,000/- and the agreed rate of interest is 18% p.a under Ex.A1. In view ofSec.79 of Negotiable

Instrument Act and Sec.34 of CPC the plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from date of suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Further in view of the facts existing in this suit this court is of the opinion that it is just and proper to award suit costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. After taking all these aspects into consideration this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim amount to the extent discussed and decided supra. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9.Issue No.3 :

In view of the decision of this court on issue Nos.1 and 2 this suit has merits and deserves to be decreed with costs. Accordingly, the issue

No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the suit amount of Rs.14,37,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree on principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of decree till date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18 th day of November, 2022.

Digitally signed by PEDAKHASIM

PEDAKHASIM

SHAIK

SHAIK

Date: 2022.11.18

13:21:40 +0000

III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

7 of 7 Fair in OS.970/2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff’s side Defendant’s side

PW.1 : Bodicharla Lakshmi DeviDW.1 : Meruva Ramadasu

PW.2 : B. Venkata Subbarayudu

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1 Promissory note, dt.10.07.2018 executed by Meruva Ramadasu in favour of Bodicharla Lakshmi Devi.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendant :

Ex.B.1 Certified copy of Petition in I.P.No.50/2020 on the file of Hon’ble

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Digitally signed by

PEDAKHASIMPEDAKHASIM

SHAIKSHAIK

Date: 2022.11.18

13:22:01 +0000

III A.J.C.J., KDP.

1 of 6 Fair in EP.206/19 in DRK.195/14

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Present : Sri Shaik Pedakhasim,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Monday, this the 04th day of April, 2022.

E.P. No. 206/ 20 19

in

D.R.K.No.195/2014

M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited., Kadapa Rep.by its Branch Manager / Foreman D. Seshu Babu, S/o. D. Krishna Murthy, Aged 45 years, Opp. District Court, Kadapa. … Petitioner / D.Hr

Vs.

1) Rapuru Rama Subbamma, W/o. R. Lakshumaiah, Aged 50 years, R/at D.No.1/89, Matli Vaddepalli, Veeraballi (M), Kadapa District.

2) Korlakunta Venkata Kiran Kumar, Aged 37 years, S/o. K. Venkata Subbaiah, Working as Junior Assistant, O/o. The Divisional Engineer Operation, APSPDCL, Kadapa, R/at D.No.2/378, Mastanvali Street, Kadapa.

3) Rudraraju Subramanyam Raju, S/o. R. Durbaraju, Aged 36 years, working as Record Assistant, O/o. The Superintendent of Engineer Operation, APSPDCL, Kadapa, residing D.No.36/256-47, Bharath Nagar, Chinnachowk, Kadapa.

4) Kondigari Venkatesulu, S/o. K. Chinna Gangaiah, Aged 38 years, working as Jr. Line Man, O/o. The Assistant Engineer, South Section, APSPDCL, Kadapa, residing D.No.1/31, Chennur East Street, Kadapa.

5) Vallepu Surendra Kumar, S/o. V. Gurrappa, Aged 41 years, working as Typist, O/o. The Divisional Engineer, APSPDCL, MRT Division, Vidyut Bhavan, Tirupati. … Respondents / J.Drs 2 of 6 Fair in EP.206/19 in DRK.195/14

This E.P. is coming before me on 24-03-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Srinivasulu Naidu, learned counsel for Petitioner / D.Hr, and of Sri.Prasaad Row Seedalla, learned counsel for J.Dr No.5 (the E.P. is filed only against J.Dr No.5), upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

This Execution Petition is filed with a prayer to attach the salary of

J.Dr No.5 till recovery of E.P. amount by issuing necessary direction to the garnishee.

2.The case of the D.Hr as averred in the execution petition in nutshell is as follows :

The D.Hr obtained award in DRK No.195/2014 on 12.01.2016 against the J.Dr Nos.1 to 5. The D.Hr filed E.P. No.66/2016 but later same was closed on 23.02.2017. Inspite of having capacity the J.Drs not discharged the E.P. amount. The 5th J.Dr is working as Typist in the office of

Divisional Engineer, APSPDCL, Tirupati. Hence prays to attach the salary of J.Dr to an extent of Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence this E.P.

3.This E.P. is filed only against J.Dr No.5

4.The case of the J.Dr No.5 as averred in the counter in nutshell is as follows :

The E.P. column No.10 clearly shows that the calculations claiming interest from 29.11.2014 to 28.02.2019 and the interest is Rs.1,98,154/- but D.Hr claimed interest even in the previous E.P.No.66/2016. Suit costs also claimed in the previous E.P. The D.Hr claimed interest for 25 months which comes to 50,483.25 paise and same has to be deducted in the present execution petition. The D.Hr not taken steps against the principal 3 of 6 Fair in EP.206/19 in DRK.195/14 borrower, therefore E.P. is not maintainable. This court has no jurisdiction.

Hence prays to dismiss the E.P.

5.During the course of enquiry, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on either side.

6.Heard the learned advocates for both the parties. Read the written arguments submitted on behalf of J.Dr No.5. Perused the material on record.

7.Now the point for determination is “whether the salary of

J.Dr No.5 is liable to be attached under Order 21 Rule 48 CPC as

prayed for ?

8.Point : The learned advocate for the J.Dr No.5 submitted that this E.P. is filed against surety alone by leaving the principal borrower, therefore E.P. is not maintainable. In support of his submission he relied some judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. On the other hand the learned advocate D.Hr submitted that the liability of principal borrower and sureties is joint and several, therefore the D.Hr has right to proceed against all of them or any of them. In view of these rival submissions this court perused the material. This E.P. is filed basing on the award passed by the Deputy Registrar of the Chits / Arbitrator, Kadapa in DRK No.195/2014,d t.12.01.2016. In the result portion of the award it is clearly mentioned that “the dispute is accordingly decreed in favour of disputants and against the opponents jointly and severally”. Therefore as per the award the liability of J.Drs is joint and several. Further Sec.128 of

Contract Act, 1872 provides that “the liability of surety is co-extensive with that of principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by the

Contract”. It is not the case of J.Dr No.5 that there is a clause / stipulation in the contract making the principal debtor liable at first instance then only the creditor can proceed against the sureties. In view of Sec.128 of 4 of 6 Fair in EP.206/19 in DRK.195/14

Indian Contract Act the D.Hr is at liberty to proceed against principal borrower or sureties or any one of them or all of them. Further it is to be noted that there is difference between joint liability and joint and several liability. In the joint liability the persons are liable to the extent of their fixed shares but in joint and several liability each person is liable for the total amount. In the present case on hand the liability of J.Drs is joint and several, therefore each J.Dr is liable for the total amount of award.

Therefore this court is of the opinion that there is no force in the submission of learned advocate for J.Dr No.5. Further this court has gone through the bunch of judgments submitted by the learned advocate for

J.Dr No.5 in support of his contention. After thorough reading of the judgments relied by the learned advocate for J.Dr No.5 this court is of the opinion that none of these judgments are applicable to the present case on hand more over it is futile exercise to discuss all those judgments in this order, therefore this court is not discussing all those judgments in order to save the valuable time of the court. Further it is appropriate to mention here the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the aspect of joint and several liability. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in its judgment between Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited Vs.

Kanupuru Hari Kumar Reddy reported in 2016 (6) ALT 731 held that”when once there is a decree against all the judgment debtors passed jointly, it enables the decree holder to choose against whom he can proceed for the safe, early and effective recovery of fruits of the decree. This judgment is applicable to the present case on hand. Therefore this court not find any merits in the submission of learned advocate for J.Dr No.5

9.The learned advocate for the J.Dr No.5 submitted that provisions of Chit Fund Act and Rules made there under are not followed, therefore E.P. is not maintainable. This court perused the award. The 5 of 6 Fair in EP.206/19 in DRK.195/14 award was sent to this court under a covering letter of Deputy Registrar of

Chits / Arbitrator. Award and recovery certificate were sent to this court along with covering letter. This court perused the award, recovery certificate and covering letter. There is no procedural irregularity in the award and recovery certificate. There is no violation of provisions of A.P.

Chit Fund Act and Rules made there under. Therefore there is no force in the submission of learned advocate for J.Dr No.5. The learned advocate for the J.Dr No.5 further submitted that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this E.P. The award was passed in Kadapa City by the Arbitrator. The Decree Holder office is situated in Kadapa City. This

E.P. is for attachment of salary of J.Dr No.5 who is working in government institution. Therefore E.P. under Order 21 Rule 48 CPC is maintainable.

E.P. for attachment of salary under Order 21 Rule 48 can be filed irrespective of the fact that whether the J.Dr is working within the territorial limits of the said court or not. There is no need to transfer the decree for execution of attachment of salary of an government employee.

E.P. cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that J.Dr No.5 is working in

Tirupati. After considering the relevant provisions from CPC this court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the submission of learned advocate for J.Dr No.5.

10.It is not the case of J.Dr No.5 that he discharged E.P. amount or part of E.P. amount. It is not the case of J.Dr No.5 that he has no financial capacity to discharge the E.P. amount. It is not the case of J.Dr

No.5 that he is not working with the garnishee. This court received salary particulars of J.Dr No.5 from the garnishee. The gross salary of J.Dr No.5 is

Rs.35,151/-. After deductions and after calculation of amount as per

Sec.60 CPC the attachable amount per month is Rs.9,486/-. After taking the facts and circumstances of this case this court is of the opinion that it 6 of 6 Fair in EP.206/19 in DRK.195/14 is just and proper to attach Rs.5,000/- per month for the period of six months and attach Rs.2,827/- in the 7th month from the salary of J.Dr as

E.P. amount is Rs.32,827/-. No prejudice will be caused to the J.Dr if this court attaches the salary of J.Dr to satisfy the E.P. amount.

11.In view of the above facts, circumstances and other material on record this court is of the opinion that this E.P. has merits and deserves to be allowed with costs. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of

D.Hr and against the J.Dr. No.5.

12.In the result, this E.P is allowed with costs. The garnishee is directed to attach / deduct Rs.5,000/- per month for the period of six months and Rs.2,827/- in the seventh month from the salary of J.Dr with effect from 01.4.2022 and remit the same to this court. Issue attachment warrant on payment of process.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 04 th day of April, 2022.

Digitally signed by

PEDAKHASIM

PEDAKHASIM

SHAIK

SHAIK

Date: 2022.04.04 14:34:20 +0000

Sd/- Y.J. Padmasree ,

III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

Digitally signed by

PEDAKHASIM

PEDAKHASIM

SHAIK SHAIK Date: 2022.04.04 14:34:44 +0000

III A.J.C.J.,

FAC P.J.C.J.,

KDP.

1 of 4 Fair IA.974/20 in OS.970/20

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Present : Sri Shaik Pedakhasim,

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Friday, this the 18th day of November, 2022.

. No. I.A 974 /20 20

in

O.S. No.970/2020

Bodicherla Lakshmi Devi, W/o. B.V. Subbarayudu,

Hindu, Aged 54 years, R/at D.No.41/1448-4,

Sankarapuram, Kadapa City & District.

… Petitioner / Plaintiff

Vs.

Meruva Ramadasu, S/o. M. Ramaiah, Hindu,

Aged 58 years, working as School Assistant (English) in Z.P. High School, Pedda Putha Village, Vallur Mandal,

Kadapa District. R/at D.No.1/2498, A.P.H.B. Colony,

Kadapa City & District.

… Respondent / Defendant

This Petition is coming before me on 16.11.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Raghu Nath Reddy, learned counsel for Petitioner / Plaintiff, and of Sri V. Rama Mohan, learned counsel for Respondent / Defendant, upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

This petition is filed with a prayer to attach the petition schedule amount before judgment.

2.The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows :

The petitioner filed above suit against the respondent for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note. The respondent is working as school assistant in Z.P. High School. The petitioner came to know that

2 of 4 Fair IA.974/20 in OS.970/20

respondent is going to take voluntary retirement in December 2020 and making all possible efforts to withdraw his entire service benefits including the earned leave salary. If respondent is allowed to withdraw the benefits the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship as there will not be any amount for the petitioner to realize the decree amount in future.

Hence this petition.

3.The case of the respondent in nutshell is as follows :

The petitioner is stranger to the respondent. The respondent never borrowed any amount from the petitioner and never executed suit promissory note. The petition is filed with active collusion of husband of petitioner by name B.V. Subbarayudu. No consideration was passed under suit promissory note. The petitioner’s husband obtained signatures of respondent on blank promissory notes by blackmailing the respondent.

The husband of petitioner and respondent are doing private chits business jointly, respondent have undergone by-pass surgery on that some of the subscribers not paid chit amount, taking the same as advantage the husband of petitioner collected amount from the subscribers and used the same for his necessities but by suppressing the same obtained signatures of respondent in the alleged suit promissory note. The respondent is government teacher having good reputation taking the same as advantage the petitioner forced the respondent to arrange amount and asked to arrange the sureties. The respondent arranged amount and given sureties to Hari Narayana for Rs.15,00,000/-, Sreeramulu for

Rs.5,00,000/-, Ramu for Rs.5,00,000/-, Phaneendra for Rs.10,00,000/-,

Karemulla for Rs.10,00,000/-, Nayab Rasool for Rs.70,000/- and George for

Rs.3,00,000/- by borrowing amounts from various persons. The borrowers left from the City and neglected payment for which respondent going on

3 of 4 Fair IA.974/20 in OS.970/20

paying interest to the creditors. The respondent sustained heavy loss, therefore he filed insolvency petition before the court showing his house and creditors, same was numbered as I.P.No.50/2020 on the file of Hon’ble

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa. The petitioner’s husband know about

the bad financial condition of respondent but still he got filed the present petition for unlawful gain. This petition has no merits. Hence prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.During the course of enquiry, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on either side.

5.Heard learned advocates for both the parties. Perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for determination is “whether the petition

schedule property is liable to be attached before judgment as

prayed for” ?

7.Point : The petitioner being sole plaintiff filed the above suit against the respondent as sole defendant for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note. The present petition is filed for attachment of petition schedule property before judgment. The material on record reveals that the respondent is working as School Assistant in Z.P. High

School. It means the respondent is government teacher. It is also mentioned in the petition that respondent is aged about 58 years and going to take voluntary retirement from the service. It is not the case of respondent that he has sufficient financial capacity to discharge the amount of petitioner in case decree is passed in future. It is not the case of respondent that he has movable and immovable properties in his name.

It is not case of respondent that he is not going to take voluntary retirement from the service. The contents of counter of respondent is on

4 of 4 Fair IA.974/20 in OS.970/20

the merits of the main case but not on the contents of petition for attachment before judgment. In this petition this court cannot discuss the merits of the suit. Prima facie there is material in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. If respondent is permitted to withdraw his retirement benefits the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. After taking all the aspects into consideration this court is of the opinion that it is just and proper to allow this petition without costs, otherwise the petitioner will be put to heavy loss. Further this court already passed conditional attachment order and same was served on the garnishee. Therefore it is just and proper to make said conditional attachment order as absolute. In view of the above facts the point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

8.In the result, this petition is allowed without costs. The conditional attachment order passed by this court on 19.03.2021, which was served on the garnishee is made absolute.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18th day of November, 2022.

Digitally signed by

PEDAKHASIMPEDAKHASIM

SHAIKSHAIK

Date: 2022.11.18

13:23:40 +0000 [[

III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADAPA.

Appendix of evidence

- NIL -

Digitally signed by PEDAKHASIM

PEDAKHASIM

SHAIK SHAIK

Date: 2022.11.18

13:24:02 +0000

III A.J.C.J., KDP.