, Smt G.deena, Ascj, Atp

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANANTAPURAMU

Present:- Smt. G. DEENA,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu,

FAC- Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Monday, the 14th day of March, 2022.

Original Suit No.54/2020.`

Between:

1) Gurakala Bramhaiah,

2) Golla Chabala Kusuma. ... Plaintiffs.

And

1) Golla Rangamma @ Chabala Rangamma,

2) Golla Rajasekhar,

3) Golla Rangamma.... Defendants.

[as D3 died,no steps taken against her, suit against the defendant No.3 is abated as per the docket order dated 8.3.2022]

This suit is coming on 10.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Bharadwaja Padmanabha Teja, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants No.1 and 2 are remained exparte,

Defendant No.3 reported dead and suit against Defendant No.3 is abated, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiffs filed the present suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their men agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and other reliefs.

2.Aspercontentionoftheplaintiffs,theyare the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. The Defendant

No.1 is the sister of the Plaintiff No.1 and the Defendant No.2 is the son of the defendant No.1. The Defendant No.3 is the paternal Aunt of the 2 plaintiff No.1 and grand mother of the Plaintiff No.2 Originally the plaint schedule property belongs to the Defendant No.3. As the welfare of the

Defendant No.3 looked after by the Plaintiffs, and with love and affection towards the Plaintiffs, the Defendant No.3 has executed a Gift

Deed in favour of the Plaintiffs herein with regard to the plaint schedule property on 05.06.2015 vide Doc.No.1260/2015. The plaintiffs have accepted the said gift on the same day and the same is acted upon.

Since the date of gift, the plaintiffs became absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same in their own right. The names of the plaintiffs are also mutated in the revenue records by taking into consideration of their right, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The

Pattadar pass books were also issued to the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. The 1-B extracts and Adangal extracts are also issued in the names of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also obtained loan by depositing the original gift deed with regard to the plaint schedule property. All the above documents clearly show that the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

The plaintiffs further averred that the Defendant No.3 has filed a suit against the Defendants No.1 and 2 herein in O.S.No.548/2017 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu for declaration of her right and for recovery of possession of another property from the

Defendants No.1 and 2. In the said suit, the Defendant No.3 has clearly admitted the execution of the registered gift deed made by her to the plaintiffs and also the right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property. Further the Defendant No.3 took the original gift deed from the custody of the plaintiffs and filed the same in the said suit and the same 3 is marked as Ex.A.3. The suit filed by the Defendant No.3 against the

Defendants No.1 and 2 is decreed. Now the Defendants have nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. The Defendant No.3 now joined hands with the Defendants 1 and 2 and the Defendants No.1 and 2 laid their evil eye to grab the plaint schedule property as the disputes arose between the plaintiffs and Defendants No.1 and 2 recently. Now the

Defendants are making efforts to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs with regard to the plaint schedule property high handed and also they are provoking the Defendant No.3 to cancel the gift deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs for which they are not entitled. The

Defendants herein have no manner of right, title or possession over the suit property. The Defendant No.3 has no right to cancel the gift deed.

In fact 10 days back the defendants tried to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit schedule property and the same is averted at the intervention of elders timely. Again since 3 days the

Defendants are openly proclaiming in the village that they will not allow the plaintiffs from enjoying the plaint schedule proper5y in one way or other. Under the the above circumstances, the plaintiffs nave no other go except to file the present suit grant of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Hence, the suit.

3. On the other hand, the Defendants No.1 and 2 are remained exparte. The Defendant No.3 is reported dead, no steps taken and suit against the deceased Defendant No.3 is abated.

4. The plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exhibits

A.1 to A.8. Ex.A.1 is Certified copy of Registered Gift deed dated 05.06.2015 executed in favour of plaintiffs. Ex.A.2 is Original Pattadar pass Book stands in the name of Plaintiff No.1. Ex.A.3 is Original 4

Pattadar Pass Book stands in the name of Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A.4 is 1-B extract issued in name of Plaintiff No.1. Ex.A.5 is Adangal extracts (No.2) issued in the name of Plaintiff No.1. Exd.A.6 is 1-B extract issued in the name of the Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A.7 is the Adangal extracts (NO.2) issued in the name of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A.8 is certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.548/2017 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Anantapuramu.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, perused the record.

6. The point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for Permanent

injunction against defendants in respect of suit schedule

property as prayed for ?

POINT:

7.The plaintiffs filed the present suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their men agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and other reliefs. The Defendant No.1 is the sister of the Plaintiff No.1 and the Defendant No.2 is the son of the defendant

No.1. The Defendant No.3 is the paternal Aunt of the plaintiff No.1 and grand mother of the Plaintiff No.2. As per contention of the plaintiffs, they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. Originally the plaint schedule property belongs to the Defendant No.3. As the welfare of the Defendant No.3 looked after by the Plaintiffs, with love and affection towards the Plaintiffs, the Defendant No.3 has executed

Ex.A.1 Gift Deed in favour of the Plaintiffs herein with regard to the plaint schedule property, delivered the possession, same was accepted by the plaintiffs and the same is acted upon on the same day. Since the date of 5

Ex.A.1, the plaintiffs became absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same in their own right. Basing on Ex.A.1, they have been mutated their names in revenue records. ExsA.1 to A.7 evidencing the same. The plaintiffs further pleaded and deposed that the Defendant No.3 has filed a suit against the Defendants No.1 and 2 herein in O.S.No.548/2017 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu for declaration of her right and for recovery of possession of another property from the

Defendants No.1 and 2. In the said suit, the Defendant No.3 has clearly admitted the execution of the registered gift deed made by her to the plaintiffs and also the right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property. Further the Defendant No.3 took the original gift deed from the custody of the plaintiffs and filed the same in the said suit and the same is marked as Ex.A.3 in the above said suit O.S. 548/2017. The above said suit which was filed by the Defendant No.3 against the Defendants

No.1 and 2 was decreed. Ex.A.8 is Certified copy of Judgment. The specific contention of the plaintiffs, now the Defendant No.3 joined hands with the Defendants 1 and 2. And the Defendants No.1 and 2 laid their evil eye to grab the plaint schedule property as the disputes arose between the plaintiffs and Defendants No.1 and 2 recently. They further alleged that the Defendants are making efforts to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs with regard to the plaint schedule property and also they are provoking the Defendant No.3 to cancel the gift deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs. The Defendants herein have no manner of right, title or possession over the suit property. Further contention is, the Defendant No.3 has no right to cancel the gift deed Ex.A.1.

6

8.In support of heir contention, the plaintiffs produced the evidence of PW.1 and Exs. A.1 to A.8. During the proceedings, the plaintiff filed memo that the defendant No.3 died, as there are no other legal representatives to the Defendant No.3 except plaintiffs, requested to abate the suit against the defendant No.3. as plaintiff did not take steps against defendant No 3, the suit against D.3 was abated. Even after service of summons, against them the defendants 1 and 2 did not file any written statement within stipulated period. As they failed to file written statement ever after giving sufficient opportunities, they were set exparte.

9.PW.1 in the evidence categorically deposed that they have been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since execution of Ex.A.1 the documentary evidence i.e. revenue records

Exs.A.2 to A.7 evidencing the same. In her evidence, she categorically deposed that the defendant No.1 is sister of PW.1 and defendant No.2 is the son of defendant No.1 and originally the plaint schedule property belongs to the defendant No.3, as her welfare was looked after by them and with love and affection towards them, ExA1 she has executed a gift deed in their favour with regard to plaint schedule property on 05.06.12015 and they accepted the same on the same day and same is acted upon. PW.1 further deposed that they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and their names are also mutated in the revenue records. The pattadar passbooks and 1-B extracts and Adangals extracts were also issued in their names. All the said documents clearly shows that they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

7

10.PW.1 further deposed regarding the specific acts of defendants 1 to 3 that they are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from plaint schedule property and they are openly proclaiming in the village that they will not allow the plaintiffs from enjoying the plaint schedule property in any way. The unchallenged evidence of PW.1, coupled with documentary evidence Exs.A.1 to A.7 establishes the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. It was further proved by the plaintiffs that the defendants are trying to dispossess them from plaint schedule property and they made efforts to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. As per the memo of plaintiffs, the case against the defendant No.3 is abated as per the docket order

dated 8.3.2022. In view of the above, this court comes to conclusion

that with the aid of evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.8, the plaintiffs are able to establish their lawful and exclusive possession over the plaint schedule property and the allegation that the defendant 1 and 2 are trying to dispossess them. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant 1 and 2.

11.In the result, the Suit is decreed with costs by granting Permanent

Injunction restraining the Defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of March, 2022.

Sd/- G. DEENA.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

FAC-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

8

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiffs: Defendants :

PW.1: G. Bramhaiah. -None-

Exhibits marked for Plaintiffs

Ex.A.1Certified copy of Registered Gift Deed dated 05.06.2015 executed by Golla Rangamma in favour of the plaintiffs.

Ex.A.2Original Pattadar Pass Book stands in the name of Plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A.3Original Pattadar Pass Book stands in the name of Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A.41-B Extract issued in the name of Plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A.5Adangal extracts (2 in number) issued in the name of Plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A.61-B Extract issued in the name of Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A.7Adangal extracts (2 in number) issued in the name of Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A.8Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.548/2017 on the file of

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu dated

01.02.2019.

Exhibits marked for Defendants -Nil-

Sd/- G. DEENA.

FAC-A.S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present:- Smt. G. DEENA,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu,

FAC- Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, the 24th day of March, 2022.

Original Suit No.730/2017

Between:

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief Manager, ADB Branch, Anantapuramu.… Plaintiff.

And.,

Mupparapu Venkata Swamy.… Defendant.

This suit coming on 22.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate for the plaintiff and of

Sri C. Adisesha Reddy, SRi Lakshminarayana Reddy and

Smt. K.Eswaramma, Advocates for the defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a Suit for grant of preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff’s

Bank for Rs.7,54,023/- as per account extract due on Agreement of

Hypothecation dated 18.03.2008 for Rs.2,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff bank and for future interest and costs of the suit.

2.The averments of plaint in brief are as follows :-

The defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- form the plaintiff bank for the purpose of Horticulture on 18.03.2008 and agreed to repay the same in 4 yearly installments at Rs.50,000/- + interest and further agreed to repay the loan amount together with interest at 12.50% per annum subject to fluctuations from time to time as per the directions of the

Reserve Bank of India. The defendant has executed an agreement of

Hypothecation on 18.03.2008. The defendant has executed Registered 2

Mortgage deed No.2026/2009 dated 05.03.2009 in favour of plaintiff bank.

Later, the defendant has failed to repay the loan amount. The plaintiff demanded for the repayment of the above loan amount, but the defendant did not pay either principal or interest. The defendant renewed the loan on 22.02.2011, 20.01.2014 and 21.10.2015. As per the account extract of the plaintiff Bank, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.7,54,023/- with future interest. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement admitting the borroing of

Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff ban k and execution of agreement of

Hypothecation and Registered mortgage deed. Further contended that the renewal letters dated 22.02.2011, 20.1.2014 and 21.10.2015 is not correct.

After obtaining the loan, the defendant never executed any documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. Further contended that the plaintiff demanded the defendant for repayment of the loan amount but the defendants did not pay the amount due is not correct. In fact this defendant has paid entire loan installments as agreed by him to the plaintiff bank under due acknowledgment. The account extract filed by the plaintiff bank clearly shows the payment of installments by the defendant. The defendant was deprived off various benefits extended by the Central Government as well as State Government to the farmers and the plaintiff has not extended the benefits to the defendant. If the Plaintiff bank has correctly applied the rules and benefits provided by the Central Government and State

Government, the alleged amount borrowed ought to have been closed as per the benefits provided by the government. The plaintiff bank ought to have applied all the rules and regulations extending the benefit of

Horticulture/crop loans to his customers, hence the plaintiff bank cannot seek the relief of sale of the plaint schedule property.

The defendant further contended that he is a small farmer, except the plaint schedule property, he has no other properties. The defendant is eking out his lively hood by doing agriculture, his entire family depending on 3 agriculture over the plaint schedule property. In spite of receiving the entire settlement amount, the present suit seeking relief of the plaintiff bank to sell the mortgaged property is highly objectionable, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. The alleged cause of action is not correct and the suit claim is highly excessive and interest is calculated is wrong and plaintiff is not entitled for the same. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settledfor trial :-

1) Whether the renewal letters Dt.22.2.2011,

20.1.2014 and 21.10.2015 are true, valid and

binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the rate of interest is excessive and exorbitant?

3) Whether the statement of account is correct?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled preliminary decree as prayed?

6) To what relief?

5.The Branch Manager of the Plaintiff Bank examined as PW.1 and

Exs.A.1 to A.6 are marked. The defendant did not cross-examine PW.1. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defendant.

6.Heard arguments on both sides.

Issues No.1 to 4 :-

7.The plaintiff bank filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of suit amount based on the Exs.A.1 to A.6 documents. The contention of the plaintiff is that on 18.03.2008 The defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- form the plaintiff bank for the purpose of

Horticulture and agreed to repay the same in 4 yearly installments at 4

Rs.50,000/- + interest and further agreed to repay the loan amount together with interest at 12.50% per annum subject to fluctuations from time to time as per the directions of the Reserve Bank of India. The defendant has executed Ex.A.1 an agreement of Hypothecation on 18.03.2008. The defendant has executed Ex.A.2 Registered Mortgage deed

No.2026/2009 dated 05.03.2009 in favour of plaintiff bank. Later, the defendant has failed to repay the loan amount. The plaintiff demanded for the repayment of the above loan amount, but the defendant did not pay either principal or interest. The defendant renewed the loan on 22.02.2011, 20.01.2014 and 21.10.2015 through Exs.A.4 to A.6. As per Ex.A.3 account extract of the plaintiff Bank, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.7,54,023/- with future interest.

8. In his written statement, the defendant admitted about the obtaining of loan from the plaintiff bank as claimed by the plaintiff and execution of

Exs.A.1 and A.2 agreement of Hypothecation and Registered Mortgage

Deed in respect of said loan. But he denied the execution of Exs.A.4 to A.6 revival letters. Though he pleaded that there is no due amount payable to the plaintiff bank and he had paid entire loan installments as agreed by him to the plaintiff bank under due acknowledgment, he has not filed any oral or documentary proof regarding the repayment. As he admitted the obtaining of loan and execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2, the burden is on the defendant to prove the alleged repayment of entire loan amount through installments.

He pleaded that under due acknowledgment he has paid the amount. But no such acknowledgment proof was filed evidencing his repayment.

9.The defendant further alleged that the plaintiff bank has not provided him the benefit in respect of the Horticulture loan as per the norms of State and Central Governments. Due to the the default of plaintiff bank, the alleged loan amount borrowed by him ought to have been closed as per the benefit provided by the government. Though he has pleaded that he was 5 not provided the benefit extended by the Central and State Government by the plaintiff bank, he has not specifically pleaded which benefits were not extended by the plaintiff bank, under which provision or scheme he is entitled for the alleged benefits. In the absence of above said material information and proof, no conclusion can be drawn against the plaintiff bank.

10. However, as per the pleadings, admission of defendant and evidence on record, plaintiff bank could able to establish that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from plaintiff bank for the purpose of

Horticulture and executed Ex.A.1 and A.2 and with the aid of evidence of

Exs.A.4 to A.6 plaintiff could able to establish that defendant renewed the loan. With the aid of evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A.3 the plaintiff could establish that the defendant did not pay the loan amount and he is liable to pay the suit amount. As the defendant failed to discharge onus of proof that he paid the entire loan amount , his defence cannot be considered.

11. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances and discussion, it can be concluded that That the plaintiff is liable to pay the suit amount as claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, this Issue is answered in favour of the

Plaintiff and against the defendants.

Issue No.5 :-

In view of my finding on issues 1 to4 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed.

12. Issue No.6 :-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.7,54,023/- to the Plaintiff Bank together with subsequent interest at 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a till the date of realization on outstanding amount 6 of Rs.2,50,000/-. Time for Redemption is Three months. Preliminary decree is passed for sale of mortgaged property, if the amount is not paid within 3 months redeeming the mortgaged property; on such failure, Plaintiff-Bank is entitled to apply for final decree for sale of mortgaged property for realization of the decretal amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 24th day of March, 2022.

Sd/- G. DEENA.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

FAC-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff: Defendants:

PW.1: T. Mahalakshmamma. - None –

Documents Marked by Plaintiff Bank

Ex.A.1Agreement of Hypothecation dated 18.03.2008.

Ex.A.2Registered Mortgage deed dated 05.03.2009.

Ex.A.3Account extract.

Ex.A.4Revival Letter dated 22.02.2011.

Ex.A.5Revival Letter dated 20.01.2014.

Ex.A.6Revival Letter dated 21.10.2015.

Exhibits marked by Defendants

- Nil –

Sd/- G. DEENA.

FAC-A.S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANANTAPURAMU

Present:- Smt. G. DEENA,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu,

FAC- Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, the 31st day of March, 2022.

H.M.O.P No.05/2022

Between:

Kammara Raghavendra Achari.... Petitioner.

And

Kammara Sasikala. ... Respondent.

This petition is coming on 29.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. Harinath Reddy, Sri E. Lakshmikanthaiah and Smt. G. Jyothi, Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent is being remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for dissolution of his marriage with Respondent by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

2.The facts of the petition in brief are as follows:

The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage having been solemnized on 03.01.2019 at the residence of Petitioner at Ragadikothuru village B.K. Samudram Mandal, as per the

Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. The petitioner has not received anything either from the respondent or her parents since he married the respondent with love and affection and he incurred marriage expenses. Soon after the marriage, the respondent joined the 2 petitioner at his resident at Regadikothuru village of B.K. Samduram

Mandal and the marriage is also consummated. Out of their wedlock they blessed with son on 16.11.2019 by name K. Devanshu Achari now aged 2½ years. From the date of marriage, the respondent is reluctant towards the petitioner and not co-operated with the petitioner for conjugal obligations. On enquiry, the petitioner was very much surprised that she married the petitioner on the pressure of her parents and other family members only and hence she is staying with the petitioner, since she is having illegal intimacy with one R. Maruthi of

Gooty. Due to said illegal intimacy, the respondent used to go to her parents house now and them and used to stay there for days together, until the petitioner requested the respondent to join him. The petitioner under the impression that the respondent is very much attached to her parents but he never thought that she has illegal intimacy with another person and hence she staying there for days.

The petitioner further contended that since the date of birth to the son, the respondent has not joined with her petitioner till today and the petitioner came to know that from January, 2020 itself, the respondent is living with the said R. Maruthi only along with the child. In this regard, several panchayats held and elders advised the respondent to change her behaviour and attitude and join with the petitioner to continue the marital relationship, but she openly stated that she has no interest to join with the petitioner and wants divorce from him, hence all efforts of petitioner are proved futile. In the above said circumstances, the petitioner was subjected to harassment, mental torture and humiliation in the hands of respondent and his family members. Having no other option, the petitioner approached the court for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. Hence, the petition.

3 3. Notice served to the respondent but the respondent did not appear

before the court and she was set exparte.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 Original Wedding card and Ex.P.2 Photo of the petitioner and respondent.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the record.

6. The point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the decree of

divorce as prayed for ?

POINT:

7. Perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this petition Under Section 13(1)(ia)of

Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty. Cruelty is the main ground to grant divorce to the parties as per Sec.13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. On the other hand, the respondent did not turn up to contest the matter, called absent and she was set exparte. Therefore, this court proceeds with the material available on record that whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Even the respondent is not contesting the matter and remained exparte, it is bounden duty cast upon the petitioner to establish his case by producing cogent and convincing evidence before the Court.

8. To establish his case, the petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and filed his evidence in the form of chief-affidavit reiterating each and every incident and allegations against the respondent as stated in the petition 4 and narrated herein above. From the evidence on record, it is seen that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 03.01.2019 as per

Hindu traditions and customs prevailed in the community and their marriage was consummated and also blessed with one male children on 16.11.2019 out of their wedlock. PW.1 further deposed that from the date of marriage the respondent is reluctant towards her and not co- operated with him for conjugal obligations and she learnt that the respondent married him on the pressure of her parents and family members and hence she is staying with him, since she is having illegal intimacy with one R. Maruthi of Gooty. Due to the illegal intimacy with the said Maruthi, the respondent used to go to her parents house now and them and used to stay there for days together, until he requested the respondent to join him. He is under impression that the respondent is very much attached to her parents but he never thought that she has illegal intimacy with another person and hence she is staying there for days. PW.1 further deposed that Since the date of giving birth to the son, the respondent has not joined with him and he came to know that from January, 2020 itself, the respondent is living with the said R.

Maruthi only along with the child. In this regard he convened panchayats before elders and elders also advised the respondent to change her behaviour and attitude and join with the petitioner to continue the marital relationship but she openly stated that she has no interest to join with him and she wants divorce from the petitioner and hence all his efforts are proved futile. In the said circumstances, he constrained to file present petition for divorce.

9.On a careful consideration of the evidence on record, this court holds that the petitioner has been able to establish that the respondent 5 by her conduct, has caused mental cruelty upon the petitioner and also deserted the petitioner since January, 2020. Being the respondent was set exparte, the evidence of PW.1 is left unchallenged. So, the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce as prayed for. The marriage between the spouses shall be dissolved by decree of divorce with effect from the date of the order.

10. In the result, petition is allowed, the marriage of the petitioner with respondent dated 03.01.2019 is dissolved by way of decree of divorce with effect from 31.03.2022. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31st day of March, 2022.

Sd/- G. DEENA

Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

FAC-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner: Respondent:

PW.1: K.Raghavendra Achari. -None-

Exhibits marked for Petitioner:

Ex.P1: Original wedding card of petitioner and respondent.

Ex.P2: Original photo of the petitioner and respondent.

Exhibits marked for Respondent:

-Nil-

Sd/- G. DEENA

FAC-A.S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANANTAPURAMU

Present:- Smt. G. DEENA,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu,

FAC- Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Tuesday, the 15th day of March, 2022.

Original Suit No.114/2021

Between:

Shaik Rahamthulla.... Plaintiff.

And

Bar Zareena.... Defendant.

This suit is coming on 10.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Seetharama Rao and Sri Murali Mohan,

Advocates for the Plaintiff and the Defendants is remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for recovery of Rs.23,83,150/- being the principal and interest due on four promissory notes i.e. A marked promissory note

dated 10.4.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/-, B marked promissory note dated

10.04.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/-, C marked promissory note dated 06.06.2021 for Rs.5,00,0-00/- and D marked promissory note dated 06.06.2021 for Rs.4,00,000/- and for future interest and costs of the suit.

2.The the contents of the plaint in brief are as follows :

The defendant approached the plaintiff for her and for her family and medical necessities borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.04.2020 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed A marked demand promissory note on the same day after receiving the consideration. Further on the same day the defendant 2 borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on the same day i.e. 10.04.2020 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed B marked demand promissory note after receiving amount from the plaintiff.

Again the defendant borrowed another amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 06.06.2021 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed C marked demand promissory note after receiving amount from the plaintiff. Further the defendant borrowed another amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on the same day i.e. 06.06.2021 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed D marked demand promissory note after receiving amount from the plaintiff. After receiving the total amount of Rs.19,00,000/- the defendant has not paid any amount either towards principal or interest component to the plaintiff in spite of his perennial demands for the payment of amounts due under the promissory notes. Hence, the suit.

The defendant is a business person and she is not entitled for any relief under debt Relief Laws.

3.After filing publication the defendant called absent, no representation on her behalf hence she was set exparte.

4.To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked suit promissory notes as Exs.A.1 to A.4.

5.Heard the counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the defendant executed suit promissory notes on

receipt of consideration, if so, the plaintiff is entitled for

the suit claim?

3

7. POINT :

To prove the due execution of the suit promissory notes by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and other contents, the Plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and he stated that the defendant and for her and her family and medical necessities approached the him and borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.04.2020 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed A marked demand promissory note on the same day after receiving the consideration. Further deposed that on the same day i.e. 10.04.2020 the defendant borrowed another sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- from him agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed B marked demand promissory note after receiving amount from the plaintiff. PW.1 further deposed that again the defendant borrowed another amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him on 06.06.2021 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed C marked demand promissory note after receiving amount from the plaintiff and again on the same day i.e. 06.06.2021 the defendant borrowed another amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from him agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed D marked demand promissory note after receiving amount from the plaintiff. PW.1 further deposed that after receiving the total amount of Rs.19,00,000/- from him on various dates, the defendant neither paid the principal nor interest. After receiving the total amount of Rs.19,00,000/- the defendant has not paid any amount either towards principal or interest component to the plaintiff in spite of his perennial demands for the payment of amounts due under the promissory notes. Even after repeated demands made by him, though she is admitting the liability but evading to pay the same under the demand promissory notes under one pretext or other.

4

8.On the other hand, the defendant did not choose to file her written statement and she is remained exparte. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 is remained Unchallenged. From the Unchallenged Testimony of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.4 suit promissory notes, it is clear that, having borrowed the amounts from PW-1 and having executed Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4

Promissory Notes, the Defendant did not choose to repay the amount.

Hence the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from the Defendant.

Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed against the defendant with costs for total amount of Rs.23,83,150/- (Rs.6,92,900/- + Rs.6,92,900/- +

Rs.5,54,000/- + Rs.4,43,350/-) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the suit till the date of Decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the total

Principal sum of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- +

Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.4,00,000/-).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15th day of March, 2022.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

FAC-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff : Defendant :

PW.1: Shaik Rahamthulla. -None-

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff

Ex.A.1Original ‘A’ marked Suit promissory note dated 10.04.2020 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-.

5

Ex.A.2Original ‘B’ marked Suit promissory note dated 10.04.2020 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-.

Ex.A.3Original ‘C’ marked Suit promissory note dated 06.06.2020 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-.

Ex.A.4Original ‘D’ marked Suit promissory note dated 06.06.2020 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-.

Exhibits marked for Defendants -Nil-

FAC-A.S.C.J.

1

In the court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Present:-Smt.G.Deena,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

F.A.C.Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Wednesday, the 16 th day of March, 2022

O.S.No.190/2016

Between:

1.Badanahal Santhamma

2. Badnahal Anjineya

3. Badanahal Anandamma

4. Badanahal Manjamma

5. Badanahal Ganesh ... Plaintiffs

Vs

1. Kuruba Anjinaiah

2. Kuruba Ramappa

3. Kuruba Siddappa

4. Kuruba Gowdappa

5. Kuruba Pedda Hanumanthappa

6. Kuruba Pooleppa

7. Kuruba Chinna Hanumanthappa

8. Kuruba Pujari Laxamakka

9. Kuruba Hanumanthappa … Defendants

Suit for declaration of right and title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and direct the defendants to deliver vacant land of the plaint schedule property after removing hayrick yard and heaps of cattle dung and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on this day for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri. D.Shyam Sunder, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri.N.R.K.Mohan ,

Advocate for Defendants D1 to D3 and D5 to D9, and D4 remained exparte, and this court made delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff fled memo not pressing the suit. Heard the Plaintiff. The suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open Court this the 16th day of March, 2022.

Sd/- Smt. G.Deena

F.A.C/Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. Appendix of evidence. --NIL—

Sd/- Smt. G.Deena

(F.A.C.) A.S.C.J.