Smt.T.Jaya Lakhimi,

[1]

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARAYNPET

This the 11th day of February, 2019.

Present: Smt. T.Jaya Lakshmi, B.Com., M.L,

Senior Civil Judge,

Narayanpet

Original Suit No.37 of 2014

Between: Elite Muralimohan S/o Babu Rao, age:38 years, Occu:agriculture, R/o H.No.225, Devasugur village of Raichur taluka and District, Karnataka.

…Plaintiff. A N D

Karuturi Venkateshwara Rao S/o Narsanna, age:48 years,Occu:agril., H.No.9-18, Checkpost, Gudeballur village of Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Defendant.

The above suit was coming on 06.02.2019 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri Adem Srinivasulu, Advocate for the

Plaintiff and Sri Mallikarjun, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,98,500/- basing on the mortgage deed,dated 7.7.2011 and for the sale of the mortgaged property for recovery of Rs.5,98,500/- along with interest @ 24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.4,50,000/- with costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that: the plaintiff and defendant are close friends and having good acquittance and due to the said acquaintance on 7.7.2011 the defendant approached the plaintiff at Devasugur village of Karnataka State and requested him to lent hand loan of Rs.4,50,000/- for his family and agricultural necessities and for which, the plaintiff asked the defendant until and unless he mortgaged his property he will not give the loan amount and the defendant accepted for the same and mortgaged his open [2] plot which is situated in Sy.No.789/Aa admeasuring 617.01 Sq.yards by executing registered mortgage vide document No.1360 of 2011 at

Makthal Register Office in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of the witnesses S.Madhu and K.Ranganna and received the Rs.4,50,000/- and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 12% per annum within one year i.e., 6.7.2012 and after completion of the one year the plaitniff approached the defendant and requested him to repay the mortgaged amount with interest and the defendant requested for one more year to repay the same and on oral request the plaintiff waited till 6.7.2013 and thereafter he approached the defendant for payment but the defendant prolonged the time on one or other pretext and finally on 28.8.2013 the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested for repayment of the said mortgaged amount and the defendant openly refused to repay the same and by lost his hope on 9.9.2013 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding him to repay the loan amount and the same was received by the defendant and he approached the plaintiff and requested him to give six months time but the defendant did not pay single paisa and the plaintiff lost his hope and hence the suit is filed.

3. the defendant filed the Written statement by contending that in fact, no payment was received by the defendant and the defendant only due an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff which is time barred debt and by multiplying the interest @ 5% forcibly obtained the signature of the defendant and the registered mortgaged deed for Rs.4,50,000/- and on the same day the defendant approached the police and lodged the complaint and the police called the plaintiff and in the presence of the village elders a panchayath [3] was held and in that panchayath he assured that he is going to collect half of the amount and will not file any suit but contrary to that assurance from that day onward the plaintiff was out of station and stopped the receiving the phone calls from the defendant and several efforts were made by the defendants proved futile for repayment of the assured amount in the panchayath and surprisingly, the defendant received summons from this Hon’ble Court and no point of time the plaintiff approached the defendant for payment of the amount as stated by him and the defendant himself wandered around the plaintiff to make the half of the amount which was assured in the panchayath but the defendant did not come forward to collect the amount and in fact, the defendant received the notice and even after the receipt of the notice, he tried to secure the present plaintiff in order to repay the amount but the plaintiff is always tried to go away to the reach of the defendant, keeping in view to claim wrongful gain and the suit is not maintainable and hence the suit may be dismissed.

4.There was no element of settlement U/s.89 of C.P.C and so that basing on the pleadings the following issues have been settled.

1. Whether the mortgage deed vide document No.1360/11, dt:07-07- 2011 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the

amount by way of sale of the mortgaged plot?

3. To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff PW-1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked. On behalf of the defendant DW-1 and 2 were examined, and no documents were marked.

[4]

6.Heard both sides and perused the entire material on record.

7.ISSUE No.1: Whether the mortgage deed vide document No.1360/11, dt:07-07- 2011 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

As per the case of the plaintiff, due to the good acquaintance with the plaintiff and defendant on request of the defendant, the plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the defendant and the defendant executed the mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on 7.7.2011 vide document No.1360/2011 and the same was witnessed by S.Madhu and K.Ranganna.

In contra, the defendant contended that the document was obtained forcibly for the time barred debt of Rs.1,00,000/-.

In order to prove the mortgage deed No.1360/2011, dated 7.7.2011 the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and one of the attestor as PW.2 and the said document was marked as Ex.A1. Pw.1 in his chief examination deposed that after payment of Rs.4,50,000/- only the defendant executed the Ex.A1 mortgage deed. One of the attestor of the Ex.A1 was examined as PW.1 he corroborated with the evidence of the PW.1 that after the receipt of Rs.4,50,000/- only in his presence the defendant executed the Ex.A1 mortgage deed. Though the defendant taken the plea that Ex.A1 was obtained forcibly but without pleadings it was tried to elicit that on the pressure of one

Ganapathi Raju, the defendant executed the mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff. But nothing was elicited from the cross examination of the Pws 1 and 2 that the Ex.A1 mortgage deed was obtained forcibly.

With the oral evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and Ex.A1 the plaintiff proved that the Ex.A1 document is genuine one. Then the burden shifts on the defendant to prove that Ex.A1 is obtained forcibly he got [5] examined himself as DW.1 and one of the known villager as DW.2.

Though the DW.2 stated in his chief examination that the Ex.A1 was obtained forcibly but in the cross examination he stated that one

Ganapathi Raju filed the suit against the defendant which clearly shows that he does not know about the case. And moreover, the defendant pleaded that after executing the Ex.A1 he approached the

Police and the Police held the panchayath and in the panchayath the plaintiff assured that he will take half of the amount. But contrary to that the defendant adduced the evidence stating that he owed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- Ganapathi Raju and he obtained the Ex.A1 mortgage deed and then he approached the Police and in the presence of the Police the said Ganapathi Raju agreed to take

Rs.1,00,000/-. Dw.2 also stated the same thing and in the cross examination Dw.2 stated that he cannot say when did the panchayath was held and in that panchayath himself Ganapathi Raju and defendant were only present. But as per the pleadings, panchayath was held in the presence of the village elders. The evidence of the

DW.1 and 2 is contrary to the pleadings of the defendant and even the defendant failed to discharge the burden that Ex.A1 was obtained even by Ganapathi Raju forcibly. Therefore, the defendant failed to rebut the case of the plaintiff that the Ex.A1 registered mortgage deed was obtained forcibly.

Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the amount by way of sale of the mortgaged plot?

As per the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and defendant are having good acquaintance and due to that acquaintance the [6] defendant approached the plaintiff for loan of Rs.4,50,000/- and the plaintiff lent that amount after the defendant executing the Ex.A1 mortgage deed and in the presence of the Madhu and Ranganna and he paid that amount to the defendant. In order to prove that the plaintiff got examined the witness as PW.2 and he clearly and categorically deposed that in his presence Rs.4,50,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in the cross examination nothing was elicited against this. With the oral evidence of PW.2 that the plaintiff discharged his initial burden that Rs.4,50,000/- lent to the defendant.

As per the case of the defendant, no amount was lend by the plaintiff and the plaintiff forcibly Ex.A1 mortgage deed for time barred debt of Rs.1,00,000/-. Contrary to his pleadings, the defendant tried to establish that he owed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to

Ganapathi Raju and for that amount the Ex.A1 was forcibly obtained and after execution of Ex.A1 he immediately approached the Police and in the panchayath the said Ganapathi Raju agreed to take

Rs.1,00,000/- but as per the case of the plaintiff in the Police Station a panchayath was held and the plaintiff was agreed to take half of the amount. The evidence lead by the defendant is contrary to the pleadings which is not tenable and even then he failed to establish that the Ganapathi Raju is the back behind of the suit. Therefore, the defendant failed to rebut the case of the plaintiff i.e., the plaintiff did not lent Rs.4,50,000/-. In issue No.1 it was found that Ex.A1 mortgage deed is genuine one. Coupled with the findings of the issue

No.1 it can be hold that after receipt of the Rs.4,50,000/- only the defendant executed the Ex.A1 mortgage deed and therefore, the defendant is entitled for recover of the same by selling of the property [7] covered under the mortgage deed.

Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.Issue no.3: To What Relief?

In view of the findings given on issue No.1and 2 the suit has to be decreed.

In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed along with costs against the mortgaged property of the defendant for

Rs.5,98,500/- with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on the

principal sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of

the realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of February, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARAYANPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(Witnesses Examined)

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

PW.1:Elite MuralimohanDW.1:K.Venkateshwar Rao PW.2:S.MadhuDW.2:Gundi Shivaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Original registered mortgage deed

Ex.A2:Office copy of Legal notice

Ex.A3: Original Postal receipt

Ex.A4:Original Postal acknowledgment card

For the Defendant:

-Nil-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARAYANPET.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARAYANPET

Dated this the, 12th day of February, 2019

Present: Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmy, B.Com., M.L,

Senior Civil Judge,

Narayanpet

H.M. O.P. NO. 8 of 2018

Between:-

P.Radha W/o P.Nagaraju D/o Krishnaiah, Age:35 years, Occu:Housewife, R/o H.No.1-98, Amerchantha village of Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District. … Petitioner

A n d

Pothu Nagaraju S/o Pothu Narayana Police, Age:45 years, R/o C/o H.No.2-3-82, Akkali Hanmanthu House, Brahmanwada, Narayanpet village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

... Respondent

This petition was coming before me on 08-02-2019 in the presence of Sri Adem Srinivasulu, Advocate for the Petitioner and since the Respondent was set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 13 (1)(ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by way of Decree of divorce.

2.The brief contents of the petition are that: the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was performed on 2.2.1995 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs at Markendaya

Temple at Narayanpet and at the time of the marriage, the parents of the petitioner were given an amount of Rs.20,000/- net cash, two thulas of gold and household articles worth of

Rs.50,000/- to the respondent on his demand and immediate 2 after the marriage, the petitioner joined with the respondent and both of them lived happily for six years and blessed with two male children by name Pothu Naveen Kumar,aged about 14 years, Pothu Lokesh, aged about 11 years and after six years, the respondent abusing the petitioner and came in a drunken state and beat her and also developed illegal contacts with other woman and completed ignored the petitioner and her children in providing minimum needs of food, cloths, education and medicines and as there was no other go, when the petitioner went to coolie work, the respondent suspected her character and harassed her and therefore, for the last two years since 20.9.2015 the petitioner is residing with her parents at

Amarachintha village and many pancyayaths also held for the respondent did not heard the words of the panchayath elders and never turn up to join the conjugal life and on that last occasion on 15.11.2017 a panchayath was held and the respondent did heard the elders of the panchayath in joining with the petitioner and hence this petition.

3.The respondent after receipt of the summons, appeared through his counsel sri S.Narayana, Advocate and failed to attend for re-conciliation and also failed to file the counter though several adjournments was granted and conditional order was passed and the respondent called absent and set exparte.

3

4.In order to prove his case, the petitioner got examined herself as PW-1 by filing the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and got marked as Ex.P1 to P5.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the entire material before the Court.

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with

cruelty and also deserted her since 20.9.2015 without

any reasonable cause? and if so the divorce be

granted to the petitioner?

7. POINT:

The petitioner is in her affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief has deposed as pleaded in the petition and prayed the court to grant her divorce. The petitioner specifically and categorically deposed in her chief affidavit that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was performed on 2.2.1995 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs at Markendaya Temple at

Narayanpet and at the time of the marriage, the parents of the petitioner were given an amount of Rs.20,000/- net cash, two thulas of gold and household articles worth of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent on his demand and immediate after the marriage, the petitioner joined with the respondent and both of them lived happily for six years and blessed with two male children by name

Pothu Naveen Kumar,aged about 14 years, Pothu Lokesh, aged about 11 years and after six years, the respondent abusing the petitioner and came in a drunken state and beat her and also 4 developed illegal contacts with other woman and completed ignored the petitioner and her children in providing minimum needs of food, cloths, education and medicines and as there was no other go, when the petitioner went to coolie work, the respondent suspected her character and harassed her and therefore, for the last two years since 20.9.2015 the petitioner is residing with her parents at Amarachintha village and many pancyayaths also held for the respondent did not heard the words of the panchayath elders and never turn up to join the conjugal life and on that last occasion on 15.11.2017 a panchayath was held and the respondent did heard the elders of the panchayath in joining with the petitioner and hence this petition. In support of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner filed Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

Ex.P1 is the marriage photograph. Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 are the Xerox copies of the Aadhar Cards of the petitioner and her two children and Ex.P5 is the Xerox copy of the family member card.

Ex.P1 marriage photograph established that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. In the chief affidavit the petitioner clearly and categorically stated that six years after the marriage, the petitioner started harassing the petitioner both mentally and physically and abused her in filthy language and beat her by coming into the house in the drunken state and also developed illegal contacts with other ladies and failed to provide minimum needs to the petitioner and her son and suspected her character whenever she attended for the coolie work which amounts to cruelty. Since 20.9.2015 i.e., two 5 years prior to the filing of the petition, the respondent living away with the petitioner without any reasonable cause which amounts to desertion. The said evidence of the petitioner establishes the cruelty and desertion of the respondent against the petitioner.

The version of the petitioner attributes cruelty and desertion of the respondent without any valid reasons which is remained unchallenged. The respondent by remaining exparte has impliedly admitted the claim of the petitioner. Since it is proved that the respondent subjected the petitioner with cruelty and deserted her without any reasons and hence the petitioner is entitled for divorce.

Thus this point is answered.

In the result, the petition is allowed, dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent by decree of divorce.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of February, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARAYANPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined)

For Petitioner For Respondent

PW.1:P.Radha Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

Ex.P1:Original Marriage colour photograph 6

Ex.P2: Aadhar Card of petitioner

Ex.P3: Aadhar Card of 1st son of petitioner and respondent

Ex.P4: Aadhar card of 2nd son of petitioner and respondent

Ex.P5: Ration Card of petitioner and respondent

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARAYANPET.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARAYANPET

Dated this the 8thday of February, 2018.

Present:- Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi, B.Com., M.L,

Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet.

O.S No.111 of 2018.

Between:-

B.Narsimulu S/o Late Dattappa, aged about 50 years, Occupation:agriculture, R/o H.No.3-55, Kollur village of Utkoor Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. … Plaintif

And

1.Bodi Narsimulu S/o Late Narsappa, aged about 40 years, Occupation: agriculture,

2.Eddula Yesaf @ Vasu S/o Late Eddula Bheemanna, aged about 50 years,

Both occupation:agriculture, R/o Kollur village of Utkoor Mandal, District Mahabubnagar.

… Defendants.

This suit was coming before me on 07-02-2019 in the presence of Sri.S.Narayana, and Sri B.Venkataraju, Advocates for the Plaintif and Defendants were set exparte 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 filed by the plaintif for perpetual injunction against the defendants, their men, agents and also other family members restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit house i.e., G.P Door No. 3-55 and its open place total admeasuring an extent of 136 Sq.yards in Sy.No.160, shown in plaint sketch map in red colour, situated at Kollur village under

Utkoor Mandal, Mahabubnagar District in the interest of justice.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are: one Bodi Ramulu is the father of the petitioner who was landless poor person and recognized his 2 poorness belongs to SC community the Government of Andhra Pradesh alloted 136 Sq.yards in Sy.No.160 through File NO.A9/5171 of 82, dated 9.5.1983 and handed over the possession to him and later, the

Government was also constructed two rooms ad measuring east to west 15’ feet and north to south 20’ feet and remaining place was kept vacant as court yard and thereafter, by leaving behind the plaintif as his sole successor he was passed away and in the year 2001 and recently the

Gram Panchayath authority mutated the suit house in his name by deleting the father’s name and also issued the ownership certificate and the original patta was lost and so that xerox copy of the patta certificate was filed and the ownership certificate issued by the Gram Panchayath authorities clearly establishes that the plaintif is the absolute owner fo the suit schedule property and due to the enmity, the defendants though they no way concerned with the suit schedule property on 14.8.2018 came to the suit house and made an attempt to measure the court yard and the gathered people and well wishers prevented the illegal acts of the defendants and again on 21.8.2018 the defendants tried to mark the court yard with an intention to make over the construction in that place and with great difficulty with the help of the well wishers the plaintif could resist the illegal acts of the defendants and while leaving the place the defendants direly threatened that any cost they will occupy the court yard of the plaintif and on 25.8.2018 the plaintif approached the SHO and lodged a complaint and they called the defendants and advised them not to interfere but again the defendants tried to mark the land and again he approached the police and the police advised the plaintif approached 3 the court of law and the photographs and CD also establishes the interference of the defendants and hence the suit.

3.The summons and defendant No.1 was served personally and called absent and set exparte. Registered post summons of the defendant

NO.2 returned with endorsement “Refused” which is deemed service and defendant No.2 called absent and set exparte.

4. On behalf of the Plaintif, Plaintif was examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4.

5. Heard learned counsel for the Plaintif. Perused the entire material pleased before the Court.

6.Now the point for consideration is that

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction

against the defendants as prayed for ?

7.POINT:

In order to prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif got examined himself as PW.1 by filing the chief affidavit and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The oral evidence of PW.1 is nothing but replica of his pleadings. The oral evidence of the PW.1 coupled with the Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 proves that the plaintif is the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendants without any right tried to mark the court yard of the schedule house with an intention to make construction.

The evidence of the plaintif stood unchallenged as the defendants not participated in the proceedings. Therefore, the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants.

4

Hence, this point is answered.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction against the defendants, their men, agents and also other family members restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit house i.e., G.P

Door No. 3-55 and its open place total admeasuring an extent of 136 Sq.- yards in Sy.No.160 situated at Kollur village under Utkoor Mandal, Ma- habubnagar District.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 8TH day of February, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARAYANPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DEFENDANTS

PW.1:B.Narsimulu -exparte-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: House site patta certificate, dated 9-5-1983 issued by Thasildar, Makthal. Ex.A2: Ownership Certificate dated 28-8-2018 issued by Panchayath Secretary, G.P.Kollur Ex.A3:Ownership Certificate of the plaintif issued by the G.P authority

dated 6-9-2018

Ex.A4:3 sets photos of suit house along with CD dated 14-8-2018

FOR THE DEFENDANTs:

-Nil-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARAYANPET.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARAYANPET

Dated this the 11th day of February, 2019

Present: Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi, B.Com., M.L,,

Senior Civil Judge,

Narayanpet.

H.M. O.P. NO. 30 of 2018

Between:-

1.Sri Y.Sharath Kumar S/o Y.Venakatramulu, age:36 years, Occupation:Employee, R/o H.No.1-6-42/5/5, Gayatrinagar, Narayanpet town, Dist:Mahabubnagar.

2.A.Tejaswini D/o A.Narsimulu, age:22 years, Occupation:Household, R/o H.No.1-6-62/1/2, Ashoknager, Narayanpet town and Mandal, Dist:Mahabubnagar. … Petitioners

Claim: Petition filed U/s.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Dissolution of Marriage by Mutual consent.

***

This petition was coming before me on 11-02-2019 in the presence of Sri T.Ramchandraiah, Advocate for the Petitioners and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

Both parties are present and conciliatory efforts are made and failed.

1. This is a petition filed Under Section 13 B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, by the Petitioners jointly who are husband and wife respectively seeking divorce by mutual consent.

2.This petition is filed on 24-08-2018 and the parties were counseled also before the bench on 08-02-2019 and they have stated that the differences between them have reached a point of no return 2 and are irreconcilable due to which they have decided to seek divorce by mutual consent.

3.Even reconciliatory efforts made by this Court on 08-02- 2019 have also yielded no result as the parties have stated that there is no possibility of their staying together as husband and wife.

4.Since the parties have submitted that they have filed this petition voluntarily and have not withdrawn their consent and also stated that their re-union is not possible as their relationship is irretrievably broken down and the Petitioner No.2 also received

Rs.1,51,000-00 and 2 ½ thulas of gold towards her permanent alimony, this Court holds that the marriage between the parties shall be dissolved by passing a decree of divorce Under Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

5. In the result the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage between the parties dated:02.05.2014 and granted decree of divorce by in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of February, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARAYANPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined)

For Petitioners

PW.1:Y.Sharath Kumar

PW.2:A.Tejaswini 3

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERs.

Ex.P1:Wedding Card

Ex.P2: Two marriage Photos

Ex.P3:Aadhar Card of the petitioner NO.1(compared with the original

and

returned back to the witness)

Ex.P4:Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.2 (Compared with the original

and

returned back to the witness)

SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE

NARAYANPET.