Smt. Shalini Shakeli

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

Wednesday, this the 20th day of March, 2019

Present: Smt. Shalini Shakelli, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

O.S.No. 114 of 2007

BETWEEN:-

1. B. Naramma W/o Late B. Thirupathaiah, age: 85 years, Occ: Household, R/o Telkapally Village and Mandal (died) per L.Rs.

2. B. Laxmaiah S/o Thirupathaiah, age: 59 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o Telkapally Village and Mandal,

3. B. Dasaratham S/o Thirupathaiah, age: 55 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Telkapally village and Mandal.

… Plaintiffs.

And

1. R. Laxmaiah So R. Kashanna, age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. R. Vijaya Kumar S/o R. Laxmaiah, age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. R. Shankar S/o R. Laxmaiah, age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4. R. Mashanna S/o R. Kashanna, age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o Telkapallu Village and Mandal.

...Defendants.

The suit coming before me in the presence of Sri S. Sreenivasulu Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri P. Damodar Reddy, Advocate, for the defendants having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Plaintiff herein had filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants.

2.The plaintiff avers that they are the residents of Telkapally

Village and that the defendants are also the residents of Telkapally

Village and that the defendants are no way related to the plaintiffs herein. That the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.8-75 situated at Telkapally Village and that the plaintiff No.1/B. Naramma (died) per L.R’s got the said house from 2 her husband. That the plaintiff has obtained Gram Panchayat permission for the construction of the shops in the suit property on 04-07-2006 and constructed the compound wall in the suit land.

That the plaintiff has raised the pillars with an intention to construct shops in the suit land. That the plaintiff herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the land and that she is in enjoyment of the same till date. That the defendants do not have any right and title over the suit schedule land, however the defendants have tried to interfere over the suit property of the plaintiff, however the plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendants with great difficulty with the help of the neighbours. On 10-09-2007 when the plaintiff was raising the pillars for construction of the shops in the suit schedule property, the defendants tried to interfere and obstruct the construction work of the plaintiff. Having no other alternative the plaintiff herein filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.

3.The defendants herein have filed a written statement denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff and further submitted that the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit plot to an extent of 242.07 square yards in Sy.No.505 situated at

Telkapally Village. It is further submitted that the suit property was purchased by defendant No.1 from its original owner one Sriman

Veera Raghava Charyulu of Telkapally Village on 28-02-1964 for a sale consideration of Rs.90/- through a sale deed. It is further submitted that the said land is an Inam land. That since the date of purchase of the land by defendant No.1 he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and further erected a hut in the suit land 3 and used to live in it. That defendant No.1 is constructing a house in the said plot after taking Gram Panchayat permission Telkapally. It is further submitted that defendant No.1 completed the basement and erected pillars in the suit property and that the construction is under progress. That the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property and that the plaintiff has suppressed the real facts of the case and approached this Hon’ble

Court with unclean hands. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had suppressed the facts as to how herself and her husband got the said property and that the plaintiff has created the Gram Panchayat permission and the ownership certificates with an intention to grab the suit land. The defendants herein have sought for dismissal of the present suit.

4.The court has framed the following issues:

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent

injunction in respect of the suit schedule property?

ii) To what relief?

5.PW1/B. Naramma filed her chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. Ex.A1 is the

Copy of Revision Register for the years 1982-1983, 1989-1990 and 1999-2000. Ex.A2 is the original Gram Panchayat permission with plan dated: 04-07-2006. Ex.A3 is the original ownership certificate

dated: 06-09-2007. Ex.A4 (2) photos of suit schedule property with

negatives. During the course of cross examination she stated that she filed the suit against Laxmaiah and others and further stated that she does not remember the names of the other defendants apart from Laxmaiah. She further stated that Laxmaiah is her son.

4

She further submitted that she purchased the suit property from one

Seethaiah about 15 to 20 years ago. She further stated that she cannot say the extent of the suit land and so also the survey number of the suit property. She further stated that she had raised

Jowar and Maize crops in the suit land. She further stated that she does not know anything about the present suit.

6.PW2/R. Laxmaiah reiterated the contents of the plaint and during the course of his cross examination he stated that he is a

Retired Employee and that the survey number of the suit land is

505. He further stated that he does not know whether the said survey number is an Inam land. He further submitted that PW1 got the said land through his father who purchased the same (40) years ago from one Juluri Balaswamy. He further submitted that he had not filed any document to show the purchase of the suit property by his father. He further stated that the boundaries of the suit house are that towards the North of the suit land there is a road, towards the

South of the suit land thee is a road, towards the West of the suit land there exists Lingal road and to the East of the suit land there is the land of Bala Nagaiah Goud. He further submitted that the land situated towards the eastern side of his land was sold away subsequently to some other person. He further submitted that the suit land admeasures about 82 x 36 feet. He further denied that the suit land was purchased by the defendant to an extent of 242.07 square yards in Sy.No.505 from one Veera Raghava Chary. He further submitted that he does not know whether Veera Raghava Chary was the original Inamdhar of the land in Sy.No.505. He further denied that the defendants have laid pillars and are constructing a shop in the suit land.

5

7.Ample opportunity was given to the defendants for adducing evidence, however the defendants failed to adduce any evidence on their behalf and hence their evidence was closed.

8.PW.1 herein filed Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the Revision Register for the years 1982-83, 1989-90, and 1999-2000. The plaintiff in her pleadings submitted that she got the suit property from her husband. However the plaintiff had not filed any document to show how her husband obtained the suit property. Moreover the plaintiff has filed Ex.A1 which shows the name of the owners as

B.Naramma. However the survey number which is mentioned against the name of the owner is mentioned as 6-85. However the said document does not be speak anything about H.No.8-75 which is the suit property. Ex.A2 as filed by the plaintiff is the

Grampanchayat permission letter for construction of the house in the suit property. Ex.A3 is the ownership certificate. The documents filed by the plaintiff i.e., Ex.A1 to A3 in itself does not prove the permission of the plaintiff over the suit property.

9.The plaintiff herein had not file any document showing how her husband obtained the suit property. The plaintiff in her plaint averred that the obtained the suit property from her husband.

However she had failed to file any document to show whether her husband purchase the suit property on whether it is an ancestral property of the husband of the plaintiff. No document showing incidental title of the plaintiff has been filed by the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff in her averments stated that she obtained the suit 6 property from her husband, however did not file any documents showing, how the suit property got mutated in her name.

10. PW.1 in his testimony stated that the suit land was purchased from one Seethaiah about 15 to 20 years. PW.2 who is the son of

Pw.1 in showing his cross examination stated that the suit property was purchased by his father 40 years ago from one Juluri

Balaswamy. The cross examination of PW.1 and PW.2 clearly shows the contradiction with regard to the person from whom the suit property was purchased.

11. The plaintiff in the present suit failed to prove that he is in the possession of the suit property. It is settled principle that the plaintiff share prove his case rather than relying on the weakness of the case of the defendant. The documents itself do not show that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property.

In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20 th day of March, 2019.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NAGARKURNOOL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

PW-1B. Naramma.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT :

DW-1R. Laxmaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1:Copy of Revision Register for the years 1982-1983, 1989-1990 and 1999-2000.

Ex.A-2:Original Gram Panchayat permission with plan dated:

7 04-07-2006

Ex.A-3:Original Ownership Certificate dated: 06-09-2007.

Ex.A-4:Two photos of suit schedule property with its negatives.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS :

Ex.B-1:Original sale deed, dt: 28-02-1964.

Ex.B-2:C.C of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-1955.

Ex.B-3:C.C copy of Pahani for the year 2004-2005.

Ex.B-4:C.C of pahani for the years 1962-1963, 1974-1975 and 1983-1984.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NAGARKURNOOL.

8

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

Wednesday, this the 20th day of March, 2019

Present: Smt. Shalini Shakelli, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

O.S.No. 114 of 2007

BETWEEN:-

1. B. Naramma W/o Late B. Thirupathaiah, age: 85 years, Occ: Household, R/o Telkapally Village and Mandal (died) per L.Rs.

2. B. Laxmaiah S/o Thirupathaiah, age: 59 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o Telkapally Village and Mandal,

3. B. Dasaratham S/o Thirupathaiah, age: 55 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Telkapally village and Mandal. … Plaintiffs.

And

1. R. Laxmaiah So R. Kashanna, age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. R. Vijaya Kumar S/o R. Laxmaiah, age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. R. Shankar S/o R. Laxmaiah, age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4. R. Mashanna S/o R. Kashanna, age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o Telkapally Village and Mandal.

..Defendants

Claim:- Suit for permanent injunction.

Date of Presentation:12-09-2007 Date of Institution:12-09-2007 Cause of action:10-09.2007 at Telkapally village. Value of the Suit:The Suit is notionally valued for Rs.4,000/- on which a fixed Court fee of Rs.336/- is paid under Section 26 (C) of APCF & SV Act. * * * * This suit is coming before me for disposal in the presence of Sri S.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the Plaintiffs, and Sri P.Damodhar Reddy, Advocate for the Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered DOTH ORDER AND DECREED as follows:-

1.That the suit of the plaintiffs be and hereby is dismissed.

2.That there is no order towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand the seal of this Court, this the 20th day of March, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

Particulars of the Cost

9

Sl.Defendants ParticularsPlaintiff No.

1.Stamp on plaint336-00--

2.Stamp on Vakalat2-002-00

3.Stamp on Process54-00-

4.Stamp on Exhibits--

5.Pleader’s Feel-- -

6.Miscellaneous Fee --- Cost memo not filed TOTAL: 392-00 2-00

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

NOTE:- The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all documents (exhibits) which they may wish to preserve as the records will be liable to destroy after three years from this date.

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

That the House bearing No.8-75, situated at Telkapally village & Mandal and its bounded by:

East: Md. Jafar West : Lingal Road North : Plot of Makam Vazram South : Road

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool 10

FORM NO. 8

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT NAGARKURNOOL.

OS.NO. 114 OF 2007

Between: B.Naramma and others …. Plaintiffs

And

R.Laxmaiah and others. … Defendants (Valuation of immovable property Under Section 10 of the APCF & SV Act)

1.Sl. Item of Immovable ONE property

2.Registration District and Mahabubnagar, Nagarkurnool. Sub-District

3.Taluk, Village Property Telkapally village and Mandal. where property is located

4.Survey No./Sub Divisional H.No.8-75 Number/House No.

5.Extent82 x 36

6.Class of lands wet/dryHouse property

7.Rent value of the land--

8.Market value of the Rs.10,000/- land/H.No.

9.Value for the purpose of The Suit is notionally valued for Rs.4,000/- court fee and jurisdiction on which a fixed Court fee of Rs.336/- is with the provision of law paid under Section 26 (C) of APCF & SV under which it is valuedAct.

10.Remarks --

Dt: 20-03-2019 Sd/-

Plaintiff

Through

Sd/-

Plaintiff’s Counsel // True Copy //

Superintendent, JCJ Court, Nagarkurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018

Present: Smt.Shalini Shakelli, Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

O.S.No. 35 of 2017

BETWEEN:

State Bank of India Ithole Branch, Represented by its Branch Manager. … Plaintiff.

And

Arundhathi Mahila Sangam Rep. by its Authorised Representatives.

1. Smt.P.Bangaramma w/o Venkataiah, age 35 yrs, President

2. Smt.E.Chandramma w/o E.Yellaiah, age 53 yrs, Secretary.

3. Smt.V.Gouthami w/o V.Basavaiah, age 35 yrs, Member.

4. Smt.D.Sarada w/o D.Basavalingam, age 33 yrs, member.

5. Smt.K.Bandigamma w/o Santhaiah, age 55 yrs, member.

6. Smt.K.Renuka w/o K.Sreenu, age 31 yrs, member.

7. Smt.K.Balamma w/o K.Ramulu, age 53 yrs, member.

8. Smt.G.Sankaramma w/o Baleshwaraiah, age 33 yrs, member.

9. Smt.N.Balamma w/o N.Hanumanthu, age 48 yrs, member.

10. Smt.N.Yenkamma w/o B.Balaiah, age 58 yrs, member

11. Smt.V.Yadamma w/o V.Nagaraju, age 33 yrs, member.

12. Smt.V.Balanagamma w/o V.Yellaiah, age 33 yrs, member.

13. Smt.N.Nagamma w/o P.Krishnaiah, age 31 yrs, member.

14. Smt.P.Santhoshi w/o P.Nagaraju, age 35 yrs, member.

… Defendants.

The suit is coming up before me on 16.4.2018 for hearing in the presence of Shri B.Vignaneshwara sharma, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of the defendant set ex-parte having stood for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount of Rs.

1,20,003/- with interest @ 13.35% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization with costs from the defendant.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are as follows:

The defendants are the borrowers of the plaintiff bank. Defendant 2

No.1 to 14 have formed a Mahila Sangham under the name of

Arundhathi Mahila Sangam. Defendant No.1 and 2 are the president and secretary respectively of the said sangham. On 13.08.2013 the defendants have jointly approached the plaintiff bank and requested for sanction of loan of Rs. 2,25,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank sanctioned the said loan of Rs.2,25,000/- on 31-8-2013. The said loan is repayable in 60 equal monthly instalments starting from September, 2013. It is also evident that the defendants after availing the loan made certain part payments to the plaintiff bank. The defendants have also executed revival letter on 10-6-2016 by confirming their debt infavour of the plaintiff bank. Therefore the plaintiff bank has filed the present suit against the defendants for recovery of amount along with interest.

3.After receipt of summons, neither the defendants appeared before this court nor filed the written statement and hence they were set ex- parte.

4.In support of his claim, the plaintiff bank examined its Branch

Manager BV. Sattaiah as PW1 and Ex A1 to A10 are marked on his behalf. Ex.A1 is the Loan application dated 13.8.2013, Ex.A2 is the sanction letter dt. 13.8.2013 . Ex.A3 is the Arrangement letter dated 13.8.2013, Ex.A4 is Articles of agreement for financial self help group

dated 13.8.2013, Ex.A5 is the Inter Se Agreement dated 13.8.2013,

Ex.A6 is the Revival letter, dto 10-6-2016. Ex.A7 is the Statement of account dated 14.09.2016. Ex.A8 is the Legal notice, dt.4-10-2016.

Ex.A9 is the postal receipts (14) dt.6-10-2016. Ex.A10 acknowledgement (13).

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

6.Point: The contention of the plaintiff bank is that the bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.2,25,000/- @ 13.35% per annum to the 3 defendants. The bank further contended that after availing of entire loan amount, the defendants failed to pay the installments to the plaintiff bank despite of demands made by the bank authorities.

7. To prove the contention of the plaintiff bank, the branch Manager of the plaintiff bank is examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A10 are marked in support of banks’ claim. In his chief examination, PW1 reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint. On perusal of Ex.A1 to A10 coupled with the oral evidence of PW1 it is evident that the plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.1,20,003/- to the defendants. It is also evident that the defendants after availing the loan failed to repay the same as agreed.

In this case, the defendants neither appeared nor filed any written statement on their behalf to disprove the contention of the plaintiff bank. Hence, it can be said that the plaintiff bank proved its claim against the defendants.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff bank directing the defendants to pay the suit amount i.e., a sum of Rs.

1,20,003/- with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal sum adjudged.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of April, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NAGARKURNOOL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS

PW-1BV.Sathaiah, branch manager.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS : -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS

4

Ex.A1 is the Loan application dated 13.8.2013,

Ex.A2 is the sanction letter dt. 13.8.2013 .

Ex.A3 is the Arrangement letter dated 13.8.2013,

Ex.A4 is Articles of agreement for financial self help group dt.13.8.2013,

Ex.A5 is the Inter Se Agreement dated 13.8.2013,

Ex.A6 is the Revival letter, dto 10-6-2016.

Ex.A7 is the Statement of account dated 14.09.2016.

Ex.A8 is the Legal notice, dt.4-10-2016.

Ex.A9 is the postal receipts (14) dt.6-10-2016.

Ex.A10 is acknowledgement (13).

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS : -NIL-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NAGARKURNOOL.

5

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018

Present: Smt.Shalini Shakelli, Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

O.S.No. 35 of 2017

BETWEEN:

State Bank of India Ithole Branch, Represented by its Branch Manager. … Plaintiff.

And

Arundhathi Mahila Sangam Rep. by its Authorised Representatives.

1. Smt.P.Bangaramma w/o Venkataiah, age 35 yrs, President

2. Smt.E.Chandramma w/o E.Yellaiah, age 53 yrs, Secretary.

3. Smt.V.Gouthami w/o V.Basavaiah, age 35 yrs, Member.

4. Smt.D.Sarada w/o D.Basavalingam, age 33 yrs, member.

5. Smt.K.Bandigamma w/o Santhaiah, age 55 yrs, member.

6. Smt.K.Renuka w/o K.Sreenu, age 31 yrs, member.

7. Smt.K.Balamma w/o K.Ramulu, age 53 yrs, member.

8. Smt.G.Sankaramma w/o Baleshwaraiah, age 33 yrs, member.

9. Smt.N.Balamma w/o N.Hanumanthu, age 48 yrs, member.

10. Smt.N.Yenkamma w/o B.Balaiah, age 58 yrs, member

11. Smt.V.Yadamma w/o V.Nagaraju, age 33 yrs, member.

12. Smt.V.Balanagamma w/o V.Yellaiah, age 33 yrs, member.

13. Smt.N.Nagamma w/o P.Krishnaiah, age 31 yrs, member.

14. Smt.P.Santhoshi w/o P.Nagaraju, age 35 yrs, member.

… Defendants.

Claim: Suit for recovery of money.

Date of Presentation:31.12.2016

Date of Institution:23.1.2017

Cause of action:10.06.2016 at Ithole village.

Value of the Suit:The Suit is valued for Rs.1,20,003/- and Court Fee of Rs.3726/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.

* * * * The suit is coming up before me for hearing in the presence of Shri B.Vignaneshwara sharma, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of the defendant set ex-parte having stood for consideration, till this day the Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1. That the defendants do pay a sum of Rs.1,20,003/-, with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% per annum till the date of realization 6 on principal sum adjudged.

2. That the defendant do pay a sum of Rs.7,330/- towards the cost of the suit.

Given under my hand the seal of this Court, this the 26th day of April, 2018.

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

Particulars of the Cost

Sl. ParticularsPlaintiffDefendant No.

1.Stamp on plaint3,726-00--

2.Stamp on Vakalat52-00--

3.Stamp on Process500-00-

4.Stamp on Exhibits2-00-

5.Pleader’s Fee 2,650-00-

6.Miscellaneous Fee 200-00- (Cost memo filed)

TOTAL: 7330-00 --

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

NOTE:- The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all documents (exhibits) which they may wish to preserve as the records will be liable to destruction after three years from this date.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

NAGARKURNOOL

Tuesday, this the 19th day of March, 2019

Present: Smt.Shalini Shakelli Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

O.S.No. 185 of 2018

BETWEEN

Devarapaga Venkataiah s/o Bakkaiah, age : 48yrs, Occ :Agriculture, r/o Deshitikyala village of Nagarkurnool mandal … Plaintiff

And

1. S. Yella Swamy s/o late Jangaiah, age : 45yrs, Occ : Agriculture

2. S. Parusharamulu s/o S. Balaswamy, age : 48yrs, Occ : Agriculture

Both r/o Deshitikyala village of Nagarkurnool mandal.

...Defendants

***

The suit coming before me on 27.02.2019 for hearing and for disposal in the presence of Sri. B. Raja Shekar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants having remained exparte; having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction by the plaintiff against the defendants praying to restrain the defendants their men, agents, servants etc., from interfering into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2.The plaintiff herein avers that, the plaintiff and defendants are natives of Deshitikyala village of Nagarkurnool mandal and that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the land in

Sy.No.518/A to an extent of Ac.0.37gts and Sy.No.519/A (519/A/1) to an extent of Ac.01.09gts, total Ac.02.06gts situated at Naganool village. That originally the plaintiff purchased the suit land from its original owner

Jangaiah in the year 1986 through a registered document and after purchasing the same the plaintiff got mutated his name in the revenue records and further obtained pattadar pass book and title deed from the revenue authorities. That since the date of purchase of the suit property, the plaintiff is cultivating the suit land personally and enjoying the same as absolute owner without any interrruption from any body till date.

That the defendants are ano way concerned with the plaintiff and suit schedule property and that on 24.06.2018 the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, however the plaintiff with the help of adjacent farmers resisted the interference of the defendants. Having no other alternative the plaintiff filed the present suit for perpetual injunction.

3.During trial, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, and got markede Exs.A.1 to A.5. Ex.A1 is the proceeding issued by MRO,

Nagarkurnool, Ex.A2 is the CC of old ROR, Ex.A3 is the ROR, dt.24.06.2018, Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the fasli year 1420 to 1427 in

Sy.No.518/A and Ex.A5 is the CC of pahani for the fasli year 1420 to 1427 in Sy.No.519/A/1. Ex.A4 and A5 together show that the plaintiff herein is in possession of suit property as on the date of filing of the present suit.

Ex.A1 shows that the plaintiff herein is in possession of suit property.

Ex.A2 to A5 together prove that The plaintiff is in possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the present suit.

4.On consideration, I find the evidence of PW-1 to have remained unchallenged, in as much as the defendants have failed to appear before this Hon'ble Court even after receiving the summons. The said evidence of PW-1, supported by Exs.A.1 to A.5 documents would prove the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is accordingly, entitled to have the suit decreed in his favour.

5. In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, as prayed

for, for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men,

agents, servants etc., from interfering with the possession of the

plaintiff thereon.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19 th day of March, 2019.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NAGARKURNOOL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

THE PLAINTIFF:

PW1 D. Venkataiah

THE DEFENDANT :

None

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF :

THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the original proceeding issued by MRO, Nagarkurnool (2)

Ex.A2 is the CC old ROR

Ex.A3 is the CC of ROR, dt.24.06.2018

Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the fasli year 1420 to 1427 in Sy.No.518/A

Ex.A5 is the CC of pahani for the fasli year 1420 to 1427 in Sy.No.519/A1

THE DEFENDANT :

NIL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NAGARKURNOOL.

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

Tuesday, this the 19th day of March, 2019

Present: Smt.Shalini Shakelli Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

O.S.No. 185 of 2018

BETWEEN

Devarapaga Venkataiah s/o Bakkaiah, age : 48yrs, Occ :Agriculture, r/o Deshitikyala village of Nagarkurnool mandal … Plaintiff

And

1. S. Yella Swamy s/o late Jangaiah, age : 45yrs, Occ : Agriculture

2. S. Parusharamulu s/o S. Balaswamy, age : 48yrs, Occ : Agriculture

Both r/o Deshitikyala village of Nagarkurnool mandal.

..Defendants

Claim:- Suit for perpetual injunction.

Date of Presentation:26-06-2018 Date of Institution:26-06-2018 Cause of action:25.06.2018 at Naganool village of Nagarkurnool mandal.

Value of the Suit:The Suit is valued for Rs.11,000/- on which a fixed Court fee of Rs.846/- is paid under Section 26 (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.

@@@

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Rajashekar, Advocate for the plaintiff and for the Defendants having remained set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-

1.That the suit of the plaintiff be and hereby is decreed with costs, for perpectual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents servants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff thereon.

2.That the defendants do pay a sum of Rs. 965/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand the seal of this Court, this the 19th day of March, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

Particulars of the Cost

Sl.Defendants ParticularsPlaintiffs No.

1.Stamp on plaint846-00 Set exparte

2.Stamp on Vakalat2-00-

3.Stamp on Process100-00-

4.Stamp on Exhibits17-00-

5.Pleader’s Feel-- -

6.Miscellaneous Fee --- Cost memo not filed TOTAL: 965-00 -

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

NOTE:- The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all documents (exhibits) which they may wish to preserve as the records will be liable to destroy after three years from this date.

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

1) That the land in Sy.No. 518A, Ac.0-37 gts., situated at Naganool village of Nagarkurnool Mandal and its bounded by:-

East: Land of Gumpally Balaswamy West : Land of Chikondra Kathalu North : Land of Venkatramulu South : Land of Kavali Balnagaiah & Balnagaiah

2)That the land in Sy.No.519A (519A1), Ac.1-09 gts., situated at Naganool village of Nagarkurnool Mandal and its bounded by:-

East: Land of Gorrekalla swamy & Auto swamy West : Land of Kalmoori Mashanna & Hussain North : Land of Baki Balraj South : Land of Kavali Chandraiah

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool

FORM NO. 8

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT NAGARKURNOOL.

OS.NO. 185 OF 2018

Between:

Devaragapaga Venkataiah…. Plaintiff

And

S.Yella swamy and others. … Defendants (Valuation of immovable property Under Section 10 of the APCF & SV Act)

1.Sl. Item of Immovable ONE property

2.Registration District and Sub-Mahabubnagar, DistrictNagarkurnool.

3.Taluk, Village Property where Naganool village of Nagarkurnool property is locatedMandal.

4.Survey No./Sub Divisional Sy.No. 518A, Sy.No.519A (519A1) Number/House No.

5.ExtentAc.0-37 gts., Ac. 1-09 gts.,

6.Class of lands wet/dryDry

7.Rent value of the land--

8.Market value of the land/H.No.--

9.Value for the purpose of court The Suit is valued for Rs.11,000/- on which fee and jurisdiction with the a fixed Court fee of Rs.846/- is paid under provision of law under which it Section 26 (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act. is valued

10.Remarks --

Dt: 09-04-2019

Sd/-

Plaintiff

Through

Sd/-

Plaintiff’s Counsel // True Copy //

Superintendent, JCJ Court, Nagarkurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018.

Present: Smt.Shalini Shakelli, Junior Civil Judge. Nagarkurnool.

O.S.No. 247 of 2016

BETWEEN:

State Bank of India ADB Branch, Nagarkurnool Represented by its Branch Manager. … Plaintiff.

And

Indiramma Mahila Sangam, Ramnagar colony, Nagarkurnool, Represented by its President and Secretary.

1. Lalitha W/o Mallaiah, age 35 yrs, Occu: President,

2. Balamanemma w/o Kumara swamy, age 45 yrs, Secretary.

3. Chinnamma w/o Venaiah, age 33 yrs, member.

4. Indiramma w/o Narayana, age 25 yrs, member.

5. Padmavathi w/o Prabhakar, age 24 yrs, member.

6. Shambhavi w/o Shankaraiah, age 26 yrs, member

7. Padma w/o Bala nagaiah, age 47 yrs, member.

8. Laxmi w/o Prabhakar s/o 28 yrs, member.

9. Bharathi w/o Renu,, age 31 yrs, member

10. Nasreen w/o Syed, age 25 yrs, member All are r/o Nagarkurnool town and Mandal.

… Defendants.

The suit is coming up before me on 12.4.2018 for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Baleeshwaraiah, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of the defendant set ex-parte having stood for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount of

Rs. 1,05,078/- with interest @ 11.5% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization with costs from the defendant.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are as follows:

The defendants are the borrowers of the plaintiff bank.

2

Defendant No.1 to 10 have formed a Mahila Sangham under the name of Indiramma Mahila Sangam. Defendant No.1 and 2 are the president and secretary respectively of the said sangham. On 31.12.2010 the defendant no.1 and 2 have jointly approached the plaintiff bank and requested for sanction of loan of Rs.1,02,000/-.

Accordingly, the plaintiff bank sanctioned the said loan of

Rs.1,02,000/- on 21-1-2011 against the personal guarantee of all the defendants. The said loan is repayable in 60 equal monthly installments starting from 01.07.2011. It is also evident that the defendant after availing the loan made certain part payments to the plaintiff bank. Therefore the plaintiff bank has filed the present suit against the defendants for recovery of amount along with interest.

3.After receipt of summons, neither the defendants appeared

before this court nor filed the written statement and hence they were

set ex-parte.

4.In support of his claim, the plaintiff bank examined its Branch

Manager B.Stalin Rose as PW1 and Ex A1 to A6 are marked on his behalf. Ex.A1 is the Loan application dated 31.12.2010, Ex.A2 is the

Resolution passed by the Self Help Group dated 21.01.2011, Ex.A3 is the Arrangement letter dated 21.01.2011, Ex.A4 is Articles of agreement for financial self help group dated 21.01.2011, Ex.A5 is the

Inter Se Agreement dated 21.01.2011, Ex.A6 is the Statement of account dated 30.06.2016.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

6.Point: The contention of the plaintiff bank is that the bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.1,02,000/- @ 11.75% per annum to the defendants. The bank further contended that after availing of entire loan amount, the defendants failed to pay the installments to the plaintiff bank despite of demands made by the bank authorities.

3

7. To prove the contention of the plaintiff bank, the branch

Manager of the plaintiff bank is examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A6 are marked in support of banks’ claim. In his chief examination, PW1 reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint. On perusal of Ex.A1 to A6 coupled with the oral evidence of PW1 it is evident that the plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.1,05,000/- to the defendants. It is also evident that the defendants after availing the loan failed to repay the same as agreed. In this case, the defendants neither appeared nor filed any written statement on their behalf to disprove the contention of the plaintiff bank. Hence, it can be said that the plaintiff bank proved its claim against the defendants.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff bank directing the defendants to pay the suit amount i.e., a sum of Rs. 1,05,078/- with future interest @ 11.75% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal sum adjudged.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of April, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NAGARKURNOOL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS

4

PW-1K.Mange naik, branch manager.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS : -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1 is the Loan application dated 31.12.2010,

Ex.A2 is the Resolution passed by the Self Help Group dated 21.01.2011,

Ex.A3 is the Arrangement letter dated 21.01.2011,

Ex.A4 is Articles of agreement for financial self help group dated 21.01.2011,

Ex.A5 is the Inter Se Agreement dated 21.01.2011,

Ex.A6 is the Statement of account dated 30.06.2016

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS : -NIL-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NAGARKURNOOL.

5

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018.

Present: Smt.Shalini Shakelli, Junior Civil Judge. Nagarkurnool.

O.S.No. 247 of 2016

BETWEEN:

State Bank of India ADB Branch, Nagarkurnool Represented by its Branch Manager. … Plaintiff.

And

Indiramma Mahila Sangam, Ramnagar colony, Nagarkurnool, Represented by its President and Secretary.

1. Lalitha W/o Mallaiah, age 35 yrs, Occu: President,

2. Balamanemma w/o Kumara swamy, age 45 yrs, Secretary.

3. Chinnamma w/o Venaiah, age 33 yrs, member.

4. Indiramma w/o Narayana, age 25 yrs, member.

5. Padmavathi w/o Prabhakar, age 24 yrs, member.

6. Shambhavi w/o Shankaraiah, age 26 yrs, member

7. Padma w/o Bala nagaiah, age 47 yrs, member.

8. Laxmi w/o Prabhakar s/o 28 yrs, member.

9. Bharathi w/o Renu,, age 31 yrs, member

10. Nasreen w/o Syed, age 25 yrs, member All are r/o Nagarkurnool town and Mandal.

… Defendants.

Sub:- Suit for recovery of money.

Date of Presentation:18.07.2016

Date of Institution:18.07.2016

Cause of action:31.12.2010 at Nagarkurnool

Value of the Suit:The Suit is valued for Rs.1,05,078/- and Court Fee of Rs.3526/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.

* * * *

The suit coming before me for hearing and for disposal in the presence of Sri S.Baleeshwaraiah, Advocate for the plaintiff, and defendants set exparte, having stood over for consideration till this day the Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1. That the suit is decreed with costs infavour of the plaintiff bank directing the defendants do pay a sum of Rs.1,05,078/- with future interest @ 11.75% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal sum adjudged.

6

2. That the defendants do pay a sum of Rs.3,593/- towards the cost of the suit.

Given under my hand the seal of this Court, this the 26th day of April, 2018.

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

Particulars of the Cost

Sl. ParticularsPlaintiffDefendant No.

1.Stamp on plaint3,526-00--

2.Stamp on Vakalat2-00--

3.Stamp on Process65-00-

4.Stamp on Exhibits---

5.Pleader’s Fee ---

6.Miscellaneous Fee --- (Cost memo not filed)

TOTAL: 3,593-00 --

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

NOTE:- The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all documents (exhibits) which they may wish to preserve as the records will be liable to destruction after three years from this date.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NAGARKURNOOL

Friday, this the 19th day of October, 2018

Present: Smt. Shalini Shakelli Judl. Magistrate of First class, Nagarkurnool

C.C. No.470 of 2013

Between: The State represented through Sub-Inspector, Nagarkurnool …Complainant

And

Dendi Venkat Ram Reddy s/o Krishna Reddy, age 45 yrs, Caste: Reddy, Occu; Business & Single window president, R/o Allapur village of Tadoor Mandal, now at Nagarkurnool town.

...Accused

Section of law: Section 448, 354-A (2) IPC

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 448, 354-A (2)IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.PC.

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of learned APP, on behalf of prosecution and Sri

M.Srinivas Guptha, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused has arraigned before this court for the offence punishable under Section 448, 354-A (2) IPC.

2

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

(a) The Sub Inspector, police station, Nagarkurnool has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging therein that on 18-9-2013 at about 19.00 hours upon PW1 came to the police station and lodged a written complaint stating that on 06-09-2013 at about 4.30 pm, the accused trespassed into her house and enquired about her husband and told that he likes her and that he shall take care of her. That Pw.1 telephoned to Pw.2 who is the friend of her husband and when Pw.2 came to the house of PW.1 the accused fled away.

(b) During the course of investigation, registered this case against the accused vide crime No.206/2013, submitted the case papers before this court. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 448, 354-A (2) IPC

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.PC.

5. The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.PC for the offence punishable under Section 448, 354-A (2) IPC. A charge has been framed for the said offence, read over and explained the contents of the same in Telugu for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 on its behalf.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in 3 the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for defence and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

9. Now, the point that arises for consideration herein is: ‘whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the above said offence’?

10 Point: PW.1 S.Swapna deposed that she does not know the accused and PW.2 and 3. She further stated that four years ago an altercation took place at Om nagar colony with regard to water and that in the said altercation she fell down and sustained injuries. She further stated that she signed on some papers with regard to the said incident at the instance of her neighbours and that she does not know the contents of the said papers. She further stated that no one harassed her and that the police never examined her.

11.PW.2 /M.Chandrshekar rao and PW3 /E.Rukmegadar deposed that they do not know anything about the case filed by PW.1 against the accused and that they do not know anything about the harassment faced by Pw.1.

12.PW.4C.Shiva kumar and Pw.5/V.Sridhar Goud has deposed that the police have never conducted any panchanama in their presence and that they have signed on some papers without 4 knowing its contents.

13.Pw.6/S.Dayakar Reddy who is the husband of Pw.1 deposed that he does not know anything about the case filed by PW.1 against the accused.

14.Pw.7/G.Rajeshwar goud that received a complaint from Pw.1 on 18-9-2013 at about 1900 hours and that he recorded the statement of PW.1 and 6 at the police station and that he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pw.4 and 5. During the course of his cross examination he stated that he received a complaint from PW.1 and recorded the statement of Pw.1 to 3 and 6.

15.Pw.1 who is the complainant herein stated that she has never lodged any complaint against the accused. Pw.6 who is her husband PW.1 also stated that he does not know anything about the complaint lodged by PW.1 against the accused Pw.2 and 3 who are the eye witnesses have stated that they do not know anything about the case filed by PW.1 against the accused. Pw.4 and 5 who are the panch witnesses also in their evidence stated that no panchanama was conducted in their presence.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed before this Court and in view of the above appreciation of evidence, it can be said that there is no sufficient material to sustain the conviction against the accused. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

5

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 448, 354-A (2) IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond and surety bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled subject to Section 437-A Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 19th day of October, 2018.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:

PW.1 Smt.S.Swapna PW.2 M.Chandra shekar Rao PW.3 E.Rukmemgadar Pw.4 C.Shiva kumar PW.5 V.Sridhar goud Pw.6 S.Dayakar Reddy PW.7 G.Rajeshwar Goud, SI of policel

Defence: -None-

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on complaint.

Ex.P2 is 161 statement of PW.2

Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P5 is scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P6 is the rough sketch map.

6 Ex.P7 is the scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P8 is the rough sketch map

Ex.P9 is 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.6

Ex.P10 is the FIR

Ex.P11 is the scene of offence panchanama.

Defence: - Nil-

Material Objects marked Nil.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool.