T.Murali Mohan

Page No. 1 of 10 Dated: 19.02.2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 19th day of February, 2026

Present :- T.Murali Mohan, II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

OS.No. 258 of 2024

(Old OS.No.462 of 2016)

Between:

1. Badavath Mothilal (died), S/o.Mangithya, Age: 61 yeas, Occu: Employee in SBH, Khammam, R/o.H.No.4-2-484, Rotarynagar, Khammam Town and District.

2. Badavath Jitendra Kumar, S/o.Late Motilal, Age: 34 years, Occu: Business,

3. Badavath Jayanth Kumar, S/o.Late Motilal, Age: 32 years, Occu: Business.

4. Badavath Raviteja Naik, S/o.Late Motilal, Age: 29 years, Occu: Business.

Plaintiff No.2 to 4 are R/o.H.No.15-8-647, Sri Nagar Colony, Police Housing Lane, Opp.Mamatha Medical College, Khanapuram Haveli Urban, Khammam District.

(Amended as per Orders in IA.No.1/2022 dated 30.08.2022 impleaded as plaintiff No.2 to 4) .…Plaintiffs

AND

Gugulothu Rammurthy, S/o.Harla, Age: 46 years, Occu: Business, R/o.V.V.Palem Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District. ….Defendant

This suit is coming on 27.01.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri.G.Satya Prasad, Counsel for the plaintiffs and of Sri.K.L.Narasimha Rao, Counsel for defendant; upon perusing the material papers available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of lease deed bearing

Doc.No.8028/2013 dated 11.10.2013 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property.

O.S.No.258 of 2024 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No. 2 of 10 Dated 19.02.2026

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of RCC building bearing house No.4-2-484 constructed in an extent of 450 square yards consisting of one shutter measuring 12 x 14 square feet approximately situated at Rotary Nagar, Khammam Town (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property)

3.The plaintiff and the defendant are acquainted with each other as they belong to same community. The defendant informed the plaintiff that he made an application for

H.P Gas dealership and the same is under process and that as per the norms of HPCL, the defendant need to submit a registered lease deed before HPCL for appointment of distributor, therefore, the defendant had requested the plaintiff to execute a registered lease deed in respect of the suit schedule property and also agreed that in the event of non getting dealership he would cancel the lease deed, accordingly, the plaintiff has executed a lease deed bearing document No.8028/2013, dated 11.10.2013 in favour of the defendant in respect of suit schedule property.

4.It is submitted that the plaintiff No.1 also tried for the dealership on the same terms, for which the defendant executed a lease deed on the same day in favour of the son of the plaintiff through a Registered lease deed bearing document No.8029/2013

dated 11.10.2013. The plaintiff and the defendant have made their own attempts for

getting dealership, in which, the son of the plaintiff got dealership and he is running his business in the name of Sri Venkata Laxmi Prasanna H.P Gas Agency, in the premises of the defendant by virtue of lease deed bearing document No.8029/2013 executed by defendant.

O.S.No.258 of 2024 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No. 3 of 10 Dated 19.02.2026

5.It is submitted that the lease deed bearing document No.8028/2013 executed by plaintiff in favour of the defendant was not acted upon and the vacant possession of the same was not delivered to the defendant, as such, no amount was paid by the defendant till date, therefore, the plaintiff on several occasions demanded the defendant for cancellation of lease deed bearing No.8028/2013 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, but the defendant avoided the same on one pretext or the other. The defendant bore grudge against the son of the plaintiff since he got dealership on his name and the defendant did not get the dealership, as such, he tried to evict the son of the plaintiff from the leased property covered under lease document bearing

No.8029/2013, therefore, the son of the plaintiff filed OS.No.234/2016 on the file of

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Khammam and it is pending. The defendant under the guise of lease deed bearing document No.8028/2013 dated 11.10.2013 harassing the plaintiff

No.1 by influencing the police who are calling him to the police station and pressing to deliver the vacant possession of the premises covered under lease deed bearing

Doc.No.8029/2013 or alternatively to vacate the same. Hence, the suit.

6.On the other hand, the defendant has filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking cancellation of lease deed bearing Doc.No.8028/2013 dated 11.10.2013 is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of RCC building bearing house No.4-2-484 at Rotary

Nagar, Khammam with consisting of one shutter. The defendant denied the plaint averments that he informed the plaintiff that he is intending to get H.P Gas dealership

O.S.No.258 of 2024 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No. 4 of 10 Dated 19.02.2026 from the Central Government and made an application and it is under process and as per the HPCL norms, he need to submit a Registered Lease Deed before the HPCL

Company for appointment of Distributor and requested the plaintiff to execute registered lease deed and also agreed that in the event of non getting of the dealership by the defendant, he would cancel the registered lease deed.

7.The defendant also denied the averments made by the plaintiff in Para No.1 to 9 of the plaint and submitted that the defendant is the owner and possessor of agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.3.02 gts in and out of Sy.Nos.400/A, 400/AA and 400/E situated at Ammapalem Revenue Village of Chinna Munagala Village, G.P, Konijerla

Mandal, Khammam District. The plaintiff has approached the defendant and negotiated for lease in respect of the land to an extent of 1000 Sq.yards out of the above referred land within the boundaries of East: Government Donka, West: Part of the land of the defendant, North: Road leading to Rajya Thanda from Ammapalem, South: part of the land of defendant for a period of one year. At the time of registration the plaintiff got prepared the lease document and the period of lease mentioned as 15 years from 11.10.2013 to 10.10.2028 and when the defendant questioned regarding the same, the plaintiff orally informed and assured that it is nominal deed to obtain Gas Agency and assured that the plaintiff will vacate the premises after one year by handing over the vacant possession to the defendant. The defendant believing the words of the plaintiff, had executed a registered lease deed bearing Doc.No.8029/2013 dated 11.10.2013 and handed over the possession of the leased land to the plaintiff on the same day within the boundaries mentioned supra.

O.S.No.258 of 2024 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No. 5 of 10 Dated 19.02.2026

8.It is also submitted that subsequently, the defendant noticed some unauthorized constructions on the northern side of the land and on enquiry, the defendant came to know that the plaintiff without consent of the defendant obtained permission from the

Gram Panchayat by producing lease deed and started construction of godown by occupying the northern portion of the land of the defendant to an extent of 1500

Sq.Yards which is not leased to the plaintiff. The defendant immediately approached the plaintiff and questioned about the illegal construction made and asked to remove the structures, but the plaintiff did not come forward to remove the unauthorized constructions and on the other hand with a malafide intention to harass the defendant filed OS.No.234/2016 by misrepresenting the facts and obtained status quo orders.

9.It is also submitted that the plaintiff has violated the lease agreement and constructed godown which compelled the defendant to issue eviction notice demanding for removal of unauthorized constructions made on the northern side of the land of the leased premises and to hand over the vacant possession of the same and filed

OS.No.23/2017 pending on the file of this court for adjudication.

10.It is submitted that though the defendant entered into lease in respect of the suit schedule property, but the plaintiff never permitted the defendant to occupy the leased land and on the other hand, the plaintiff with an oblique motive, sub let the said property to third party and they occupied the suit schedule property and they are not allowing the defendant into the suit schedule property, therefore, the plaintiff suppressed the real facts and purposefully filed the suit to harass the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit, therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.

O.S.No.258 of 2024 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No. 6 of 10 Dated 19.02.2026

11.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed.

1. Whether the defendant can be directed to cancel of lease deed No.8029/2013

dated 11.10.2013 registered in the office of SRO, Khammam?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek concerned office for cancellation of lease deed dated 11.10.2013?

3. To what relief?

12.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked

Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. The defendant is examined as DW1, but no documents were got marked on his behalf.

13.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant.

ISSUE No.I:

14.The claim and the evidence of the plaintiff who is examined as PW1 which categorically reveals that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff had let out the suit schedule property to the defendant through a registered lease deed bearing document NO.8028/2013, dated 11.10.2013 for submitting the same before the HPCL Company for obtaining HPCL Dealership, but the defendant did not get HPCL dealership, as such, the plaintiff demanded for cancellation of Ex.A.1, but the defendant had postponed the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff in support of his evidence has got marked Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. On scrutiny of

Ex.A.1 certified copy of lease deed bearing Doc.No.8028/2013 which is dated 11.10.2013 executed in between Badavath Mothi Lal as lessor/plaintiff and Gugulothu Ram

Murthy/defendant as lessee in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.A.2 certified copy

O.S.No.258 of 2024 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No. 7 of 10 Dated 19.02.2026 of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.8029/2013 dated 11.10.2013 would show that it was executed by G.Rammurthy/defendant as lessor and Badavath Jithendra Kumar as lessee in respect of 1000 Sq.yards in Sy.No.400/A, 400/AA and 400/E in Ammapalem

Revenue Village, Chinna Munagala G.P, Konijarla Mandal, Khammam District within the boundaries as mentioned therein.

15.On the other hand, the evidence of DW1 categorically reveals that the plaintiff is owner of suit schedule property and the plaintiff has executed lease deed under Ex.A.1, but the plaintiff never delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant, therefore, the lease deed under Ex.A.1 was not acted upon.

16.On appreciation of the evidence of PW1 and DW1 coupled with Ex.A.1 which categorically establish that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the defendant, therefore, it is held that there is no dispute as to ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the jural relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant.

17.The evidence of PW1 further reveals that, the document bearing No.8028/2013 executed by plaintiff in favour of the defendant in respect of suit schedule property was not acted upon, as such, when the defendant was requested for cancellation of the same, the defendant has postponed the same on one reason or the other. The evidence of the defendant, on the other hand, establish that Ex.A.1 was not acted upon, as the possession of the suit schedule property was not delivered in his favour. As contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, DW1 in his cross examination categorically

O.S.No.258 of 2024 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No. 8 of 10 Dated 19.02.2026 admitted that he do not know the relief sought for in this suit. DW1 has not taken any property on lease from the plaintiff, but he was asked to vacate. It is also evident from his cross examination that he do not know from which property he as to vacate and that he is no way concerned with the said document. Further, the entire cross examination of

PW1 on behalf of the defendant is in respect of the document bearing No.8029/2013

dated 11.10.2013, marked as Ex.A.2 which is not the subject matter of this suit. The

defendant has got elicited any material through the cross examination of PW1 in respect of the document bearing No.8028/2013, dated 11.10.2013.

18.So, considering the above discussion and the cross examination of DW1 establish that Ex.A.1 executed by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property was not acted upon as the possession of the suit schedule property was not delivered to the defendant under Ex.A.1. It is also establish that except the jural relation between the plaintiff and the defendant as per Ex.A.1, the recitals of Ex.A.1 was not acted upon since from the date of its execution, therefore, the said document deemed to be dead document, as such, the same cannot be continued, hence, this court is of considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of the document bearing No.8028/2013 dated 11.10.2013. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.II:

19.The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the registered document cancelled by the decree shall be informed to the Registrar for making necessary entry in

O.S.No.258 of 2024 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No. 9 of 10 Dated 19.02.2026 the relevant register in the office of Registering Authority. In order to appreciate the above contention, it is appropriate to draw the attention to Rule 149 of Civil Rules of

Practice.

Decree or order for cancellation of Registered Instrument:-

Where any instrument effecting immoveable property registered under the Registration Act, 1908, is set aside discharged or cancelled an order of decree of a Civil Court, the court shall forthwith cause a copy of the decree or order drawn upon on plain paper to be forwarded to the registering office. Provided where such order or decree is modified, set aside or reversed, copies of further orders or decree shall also be forwarded to the registering officer.

20.On bare reading of the above rule position, it is clear that the Court shall forward the copy of the Order or Decree of the registered document which is canceled by the court under the Order or Decree, for making necessary entries in the relevant register maintained at the office of the Registering Authority. So, considering the above Rule

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

Issue No.III:

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs. Consequently, the lease deed

Document bearing No.8028/2013 dated 11.10.2013 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is hereby canceled. The defendant is directed to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of this judgment, failing which the plaintiff shall be at liberty to take possession in accordance with due process of law.

O.S.No.258 of 2024 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No. 10 of 10 Dated 19.02.2026

The office is directed to send the copy of decree to the Joint Registrar-II,

Khammam for making necessary entries in concerned registers with regard to cancellation of lease deed bearing Doc.No.8028/2013 and send acknowledgment to this court.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me, in the open Court on this the 19th day of February, 2026.

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANT

PW-1Badavath Jitendra KumarD.W.1Guguloth Ram Murthy

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl.No.Date of DocumentDescription of Document Ex.A-111.10.2013CC of lease deed No.8028/2013 dated 11.10.2013 Ex.A-211.10.2013CC of lease deed No.8029/2013, dated 11.10.2013

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

-Nil-

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

O.S.No.258 of 2024 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No.1 of 9 Dated : 20.02.2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 20th day of February, 2026

Present :- T.Murali Mohan, II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

OS.No. 281 of 2013

Between:- Yelabaka Venkata Seetha Rama Chari, S/o.Venkaiah @ Venkateswarlu, Age: 32 years, Occu: Coolie, R/o.Ashanagurthi Village of Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. .…Plaintiff

AND

1. Yelabaka Venkaiah @ Venkateswarlu (died), S/o.Muthaiah, Age; 50 years, Occu: Agriculture,

2. Yelabaka Ramaiah, S/o.Muthaiah, Age; 40 years, Occu: Agriculture

3. Bandaru Veerabhadram, S/o.Veeraiah, Age: Adult, Occu: Agrl

4. Bandaru Nagulu, S/o.Hussain, Age: Adult, Occu: Agril

5. Savalla Laxmaiah, S/o.Pitchaiah, Age: Adult, Occu: Agril

6. Visram Venkata Ramana, W/o.Venkateswarlu, Age: 39 years, Occu: Household

7. Ravoori Aruna, W/o.Ram Chary @ Ramaiah, Age: 35 years, Occu: Household, R/o.Kakaravai Village of Vastavai Mandal, Krishna District.

8. Yelabaka Koteswaramma, W/o.late Venkateswarlu, Age: 60 years, Occu: Household (Defendant No.8 is added as per Orders in IA.No.2 of 2023, dated 13.06.2023) Defendants No.1 to 5 and 8 are residents of China Gopathi Village of Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.

9. Yelabaka Varamma, W/o.Ramachary @ Ramaiah, Age: 55 years, Occu: Coolie

10. Gundoju Swathi, W/o.Chandrasekhar, D/o.Yelabaka Ramachary @ Ramaiah, Age: 28 years, Occu: Coolie.

11. Mandugula Nirosha, W/o.Harikrishnachary, D/o.Yelabaka Ramachary @ Ramaiah, Age: 30 years, Occu: Housewife. (Defendants No.9 to 11 are R/o.Chinnagopathi Village of Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District. (Defendant No.9 to 11 were added as per Orders vide IA.No.4/2023,

dated 31.01.2025)

….Defendants

This suit is coming on 27.01.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Ravi Kumar, Counsel for the plaintiff and of SriH.Sree Rama Rao, Counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 and the defendants No.3 to 11 remained exparte;upon perusing the material papers available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

O.S.No.281 of 2013 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No.2 of 9 Dated : 20.02.2026 :: J U D G M E N T ::

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of item

No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property into (08) equal shares and allot 1/8th share to the plaintiff with metes and bounds.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are that, one Yelabaka Muthaiah is the paternal grand father of the plaintiff. The said Yalabaka Muthaiah had land admeasuring Ac.12.00 gts which includes the suit schedule property situated at

Chinagopathi Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District and the said Yelabaka

Muthaiah died about 20 years back leaving behind Yelabaka Janardhan, Yelabaka

Krishnaiah, the defendant No.1 and 2 as his sole legal heirs, therefore, they succeeded the property of Yelabaka Muthaiah. Later, Yelabaka Janardhan and

Yelabaka Krishnaiah have separated from the joint family by taking their share from the said property equally, accordingly, each got Ac.3.00 gts of land. They sold their respective share of property and Yelabaka Janardhan settled at

Seetharampuram Village of Konijerla Mandal and Yelabaka Krishnaiah settled at

Khammam Town. The defendants No.1 and 2 remained in joint possession for the remaining land of Ac.6.00 gts as coparceners which is received from their ancestor

Yelabaka Muthaiah. (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property).

3.The defendant No.1 married the mother of the plaintiff i.e., the defendant

No.8 about 40 years back and due to differences in between them, the defendant

No.1 had driven out defendant No.8. The plaintiff and his two sisters i.e., defendant No.6 and 7 along with their mother/defendant No.8 under the shelter of their grand parents at Ashnagurthy village, Wyra Mandal. The defendant No.8 performed the marriages of the defendant No.6 and 7.

O.S.No.281 of 2013 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No.3 of 9 Dated : 20.02.2026

4.It is also submitted that due to wretched plight of the plaintiff and her mother, they approached the elders at Chinna Gopathi village in the Month of

December, 2012 and requested the defendant No.1 to maintain the mother of the plaintiff as well as demanded for partition of the suit schedule property, but the defendant No.1 and 2 bluntly refused to cause partition of the suit schedule property, despite the advise of the elders, therefore, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendant No.1 to 5 on 08.05.2013 demanding for partition of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.3 to 5 are being the prospective purchasers are added as necessary parties. The defendants inspite of the said notice, did not come forward for partition of the suit schedule property, instead they are trying to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 to 5 by depriving the rights of the plaintiff and other coparceners, therefore, the plaintiff left with no other option except to approach this court. Hence, the suit.

5.On the other hand, the defendant No.1 has filed his written statement denying the averments made in Para No.1 to 3 of the plaint and submitted that the defendant No.1 married one Koteswaramma/defendant No.8, who is daughter of Narayana of Proddutur Village about 45 years back at Chinna Gopathi Village as per rites and customs prevailing in Hindu community. The said Koteswaramma joined the defendant No.1 and led marital life for a period of three months only, thereafter she left to her parents house without informing to the defendant No.1 or his parents. The efforts made by the defendant No.1 and his parents including brothers, relatives and well-wishers for restitution of their conjugal life were went in vain, as a result, the said Koteswaramma did not turn up and started living of her life of her own choice. The defendant No.1 and his family conducted a panchayat in the village of Koteswaramma and inspite of the advice given by the

O.S.No.281 of 2013 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No.4 of 9 Dated : 20.02.2026 elders by name Savalla Narasimha, Thadde Kotaiah and Potlapalli Lalaiah of

Chinagopathi Village, the said Koteswaramma did not turn up, inturn she shown her interest to take customary divorce from the defendant No.1, accordingly, she took customary divorce in the presence of above elders and one G.Krishmurthy of

Chinna Gopathi Village, Kaparthi Ramanatham of Khammam about 40 years back and since then the defendant No.1 and Koteswaramma have been living separately and there is no relationship between the defendant No.1 and

Koteswaramma as husband and wife and no cohabitation between them since more than 40 years.

6.It is also submitted that according to the plaintiff his age is shown as 32 years, as such, the question of the plaintiff born to defendant No.1 does not arise, as there is no cohabitation in between defendant No.1 and Koteswaramma since 40 years. It is also submitted that the plaintiff and defendant No.6 and 7 were not born through defendant No.1 and they might have born to Koteswaramma through a unknown person, therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant No.6 and 7 are not the joint family members of defendant No.1, as such, they are not entitled to any share.

7.It is also submitted that item No.1 of the suit schedule property was acquired by the Government for laying Chinnagopathi to Botlakunta Village road, therefore, item No.1 property is not in existence. The property under item No.2 measuring to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts is in possession of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1, 2 and Krishnaiah alienated item No.3 of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.3 to 5 about 15 years back. The defendant

No.1 has denied that the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant No.1 and 2, therefore, the defendant No.1 and 2 have not got issued any reply. The

O.S.No.281 of 2013 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No.5 of 9 Dated : 20.02.2026 plaintiffs have no cause of action to file this suit since the plaintiff, defendant No.6 and 7 are not the joint family members and that the defendant no.1 is ready to undergo DNA test to prove his paternity on them, hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

8.The defendant No.2 has filed his adoption memo, adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1 on his behalf.

9.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed.

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree partition for the allotment of 1/8th share to the plaintiff, over the suit schedule property?

2.If so, to what relief?

10.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A10. One Pagadala Madhusudhan Rao is examined as PW2 in support of the evidence of PW1.

11.During the course of trial, the defendant No.1 and 2 have died. The legal heirs of defendant No.2 were brought on record as defendant No.9 to 11, but they did not appear before this court, as such, they were set exparte. The legal heirs of defendant No.1 who were shown as defendant no.6, 7, 8 did not contest the suit, therefore, they were also set exparte. Defendant No.3 to 5 prospective purchasers were also set exparte, therefore no witnesses were examined and no documents were got marked on behalf of the defendants.

12.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.1:

12.The claim and the evidence of the plaintiff who is examined as PW1 that the plaintiff, defendant No.1, 2, 6 to 11 are the joint family members being the legal heirs of Yelabaka Muthaiah who had land admeasuring Ac.12.00 gts including the

O.S.No.281 of 2013 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No.6 of 9 Dated : 20.02.2026 suit schedule property situated at Chinna Gopathi Village, Konijerla Mandal,

Khammam District. The said Yelabaka Muthaiah died, leaving behind Yelabaka

Janardhan, Yelabaka Krishnaiah, defendant No.1 and 2 as his legal heirs, therefore, after his death the property held by Yelabaka Muthaiah have succeeded by his sons as his sole legal heirs. It is also the evidence of PW1 that out of his four sons, two sons by name Yelabaka Janardhan and Yelabaka Krishnaiah have separated from the joint family by receiving their share of land i.e., Ac.3.00 gts each and settled at Seetharampuram Village, Konijerla Mandal and Khammam Town respectively. The evidence of PW1 further categorically reveals that the defendant

No.1 is the father of the plaintiff, defendant No.6 and 7 and husband of defendant

No.8. The marriage of defendant No.1 with defendant No.8 was solemnized about 40 years back, but due to the disputes between them, defendant No.8 along with the plaintiff, defendant No.6 and 7 took shelter at her parents house, therefore, the plaintiff had demanded for partition of the suit schedule property, but the defendant No.1 and 2 have refused the same. PW2 examined on behalf of plaintiff has supported the evidence of plaintiff in all material aspects i.e., the plaintiff, defendant No.6 and 7 are children of defendant No.1 and defendant No.8, as such, they constitute joint family and that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant No.1, 2, 6 to 11. The plaintiff in support of the evidence of PW1 and 2 have got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. On scrutiny of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 certified copies of pahanies which categorically reveals that item No.1 to 3 are standing in the name of Yelabaka Muthaiah. ExA.4 is the office copy of legal notice alleged to have issued to defendant No.1 demanding for partition of suit schedule property. Ex.A.5 to Ex.A.10 are the postal receipts.

O.S.No.281 of 2013 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No.7 of 9 Dated : 20.02.2026

13.On the other hand, the defendants though did not examine any witnesses and no documents got marked on their behalf, but on perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant No.1 and 2 which categorically reveals that the defendant No.1 had denied the paternity of plaintiff, defendant No.6 and 7 and also the relationship with defendant No.8 and also claimed that he is ready for DNA test to disprove the claim of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not adduce any evidence or bring any material on record or taken any steps to prove his relationship with defendant No.1 in order to substantiate his claim that the plaintiff, defendant No.6 to 8 are from the joint family of defendant No.1 and 2.

The plaintiff not even taken any steps either to produce the legal heir certificate or family member certificate or did not take any steps to prove his paternity with defendant No.1 as claimed by the defendant in his written statement. So, in the absence of any documentary evidence, this court held that the claim of the plaintiff that he is member of the joint family of the defendant No.1 and 2, is found not on sound lines.

14.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties, therefore, the plaintiff being the member of joint family is entitled to share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff in order to establish that the suit schedule property is the ancestral one and it is liable for partition, has relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. The evidence of PW1 and 2 categorically reveals that the suit schedule properties are standing in the name of Yelabaka Muthaiah who is his paternal grand father and that the said properties have been succeeded by the defendant

No.1 and 2, as such, the same is liable for partition between the plaintiff, defendant No.1, 2, defendant No.6 to 11. On the other hand, the defendant No.1

O.S.No.281 of 2013 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No.8 of 9 Dated : 20.02.2026 through his written statement submitted that item No.1 of the suit schedule property was acquired by the Government for laying a road between Chinna

Gopathi to Botlakunta Village and Item No.3 of the suit schedule property was sold by defendant No.1, 2 and one Krishnaiah to defendant No.3 to 5 about 15 years back and that item No.2 of the suit schedule property is remained in possession of defendant No.1.

15.It is settled legal position that in a suit for partition, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and they are available for partition.

16.The learned counsel for the plaintiff though claimed that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property, but the defendants specifically pleaded that

Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was acquired by Government for Chinna

Gopathi – Bollakunta Village road, and Item No.3 of suit schedule property was sold about 15 years, therefore, this court is of opinion that the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that Item No.1 and Item No.3 are the ancestral properties and available for partition but the plaintiff except Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 certified copies of pahanies no other documents are brought on record to disbelieve the claim of the defendant. Further, the plaintiff except Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 certified copy of pahanies.

It is settled legal position that revenue records cannot be considered to prove title of the parties in respect of subject property. So, considering the above discussion and also the discussion made supra holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish that plaintiff, defendant No.6 to 8 are members of joint family of defendant No.1, therefore, this court is of considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge his burden in establishing that he is entitled to any share in the suit schedule property. Hence, this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

O.S.No.281 of 2013 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No.9 of 9 Dated : 20.02.2026

Issue No.2:-

In the result, the suit is dismissed with no costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 20th day of February, 2026.

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANT

PW-1Yelabaka Venkata Seetha -Nil- Rama Chary PW-2Pagadala Madhusudhan -Nil- Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl.No.Date of Description of Document Document Ex.A-1-C.C of pahani for the year 1422 fasli w.r.t Sy.NO.166/AA obtained through Meeseva Ex.A-2-C.C of pahani for the year 1422 fasli w.r.t Sy.NO.207/3 obtained through Meeseva Ex.A-3-C.C of pahani for the year 1422 fasli w.r.t Sy.No.139/3AA obtained through Meeseva Ex.A-408.05.2013Office copy of legal notice dated 08.05.2013 Ex.A-5-Postal receipt pertaining to defendant No.1 Ex.A-6-Postal receipt pertaining to defendant No.2 Ex.A-7-Postal receipt pertaining to defendant No.3 Ex.A-8-Postal receipt pertaining to defendant No.4 Ex.A-9-Postal receipt pertaining to S.Narsaiah Ex.A-10-Postal receipt pertaining to Sub-Registrar

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

-Nil-

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

O.S.No.281 of 2013 II ASCJ, KMM

Page No. 1 of 7 Dated 31.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 31st day of March, 2026

Present :- T.Murali Mohan, II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

OS.No.532 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.729 of 2019)

Between:-

Deepala China Nageshwar Rao, S/o.Late Subba Rao, Age: 63 years, Occu: Rtd.BSNL Employee, R/o.Srinivasa Nagar locality, Khammam City, Khammam District. .…Plaintiff

AND

Brahmadevara Somaiah, S/o.Rajamouli, Age: 56 years, Occu: Employee, Senior Superintendent, O/o G.M.Telecom District, Raparthi Nagar, Khammam City and District. ….Defendant

This suit is coming on 03.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.A.Qayyum, Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri.K.Srinivasu, Counsel for the Defendant; upon perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T::

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.6,73,933/- from the defendant with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and costs.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that, the plaintiff and the defendant are well acquainted with each other and out of said acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff at his residence at Khammam and borrowed an amount of

Rs.5,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.12.2018 as a hand loan to meet his family

O.S.No.532 of 2024 II ASCJ, Khammam

Page No. 2 of 7 Dated 31.03.2026 necessities. The defendant after receipt of the said hand loan, had executed a demand promissory note on 27.12.2018 in favour of the plaintiff with a promise to repay the borrowed amount together with interest thereon @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff made many oral demands for repayment of the borrowed amount, but the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff finally demanded the defendant to pay the due amount, therefore, the defendant has issued a cheque bearing No.438232 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Z.P Branch, Khammam on 30.10.2019 towards part payment of the due amount and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured, as such, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant under the provisions of N.I Act on 08.11.2019. The defendant has received the said notice on 15.11.2019, but failed to repay the borrowed amount or gave any reply to the said notice. The defendant is a BSNL Employee and that the BSNL Department has announced VRS Scheme to its employee, as such, the defendant had applied for voluntarily retirement and very soon sanction would be accorded in his favour, therefore, the plaintiff having no other option to recover the borrowed amount without the help of this court. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, the defendant has filed his written statement denying the averments made in para No.1 and 2 of the plaint stating that the averments of the plaint that the defendant approached the plaintiff on 27.12.2018 and borrowed Rs.5,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note on 27.12.2018 in favour of the plaintiff

O.S.No.532 of 202 4 II ASCJ, Khammam

Page No. 3 of 7 Dated 31.03.2026 with a promise to repay the same with interest thereon @ 24% per annum, are all false, baseless and invented for the purpose of this suit. It is also submitted that the plaintiff never demanded the defendant for repayment of the alleged amount. The defendant never borrowed the alleged amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.12.2018, as such, the question of execution of promissory note on the alleged date does not arise and that the suit document is created and fabricated by the plaintiff in collusion with the scribe and attestor. It is also submitted that the defendant never saw the face of the plaintiff at any point of time, as such, the question of borrowing amount and execution of promissory note and demanding by the plaintiff for repayment of debt does not arise, therefore, the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed.

1.Whether the suit promissory note dated 27.12.2018 is true, valid and binding upon the defendant?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recover of the suit amount?

3.To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. One Sutrapu Venkatarajam is examined as PW2 in support of the evidence of PW1. The defendant examined himself as DW1, but no documents were got marked on his behalf. The defendant also got examined DW2 and 3 on his behalf, but as they did not turn up for their cross examination, therefore, the evidence of DW2 and 3 is eschewed.

O.S.No.532 of 202 4 II ASCJ, Khammam

Page No. 4 of 7 Dated 31.03.2026

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendant did not advance arguments on behalf of the defendant inspite of granting sufficient time therefore, the arguments on behalf of the defendant, is treated as heard.

7.ISSUE No.1 and 2:

The claim and the evidence of the plaintiff, who is examined as PW1 which reveals that the defendant having acquaintance with the plaintiff and out of such acquaintance, the defendant had approached the plaintiff on 27.12.2018 and borrowed Rs.5,50,000/- to meet his family necessities and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note with a promise to repay the borrowed amount with interest @ 24% per annum, but failed to repay the borrowed amount. It is also the evidence of PW1 that when the plaintiff demanded for repayment of the due amount, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.438282 for Rs.6,00,00/- drawn on State Bank of India, Z.P Branch, Khammam. It is also the evidence of PW1 that the said cheque when presented for encashment, the same got dishonored, therefore, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 08.11.2019. The evidence of PW2 is that Ex.A.1 was scribed by him and that the defendant after receipt of the hand loan amount from the plaintiff had signed Ex.A.1 with a promise to repay the borrowed amount with interest @ 24% per annum. Ex.A.1 got marked on behalf of plaintiff, would show it was executed on 27.12.2018 for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is also evident from Ex.A.1 that PW2 signed on the said document as scribe of Ex.A.1 along with one Venkanna as attestor.

O.S.No.532 of 202 4 II ASCJ, Khammam

Page No. 5 of 7 Dated 31.03.2026

8.On the other hand, the defendant to disprove the claim of the plaintiff, has examined the defendant as DW1 and his evidence categorically reveals that he had no acquaintance with the plaintiff and that he never executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff and he never borrowed Rs.5,50,000/- from the plaintiff.

9.On appreciation of the evidence of PW1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A.1 which categorically establish that the defendant borrowed Rs.5,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.12.2018 under Ex.A.1 and the evidence of DW1 though reveals that he never executed

Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and that he never borrowed

Rs.5,50,000/- from the plaintiff, but as contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the defendant in his cross examination admitted that he used to work in BSNL

Department, Khammam and he retired from his service. It is also evident from his cross examination that the plaintiff also used to work in BSNL Department, Khammam and the plaintiff retired from his service after his retirement. The cross examination of PW1 reveals that defendant was his colleague, worked as Superintendent in BSNL Office and he used to sit beside his seat, which establish that the plaintiff and the defendant were the colleagues in BSNL Department, therefore, the claim and the evidence of DW1 that he had no acquaintance with the plaintiff, is found not on sound lines.

10.The defendant though denied that he had no necessity to borrow the suit amount from the plaintiff and denied to have executed the promissory note under Ex.A.1, but the cross examination of DW1 categorically establish that plaintiff got issued legal notice prior to filing of this suit and he admitted his signature on Ex.A.3 Postal acknowledgment

O.S.No.532 of 202 4 II ASCJ, Khammam

Page No. 6 of 7 Dated 31.03.2026 of the legal notice. The cross examination of DW1 also establish that he did not got issue any reply to legal notice got issued on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant though denied his signature on Ex.A.1 promissory note, but as admitted by him there are 9 to 10 casesvideC.C.No.124/201/,C.C.No.668/2018,CC.NO.226/2020,

C.C.No.4075/2019,OS.No.418/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khamma,

OS.No.9/2018 on the file of Hon’ble Prl.District Court, Khammam, OS.No.256/2020 on the

file of this court, OS.No.100/2020 on the file of II ADM Court, Khammam and

OS.No.362/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam are pending against him.

11.Further, the cross examination of PW2 categorically establish that on 27.12.2018 the defendant took him to the house of the plaintiff which is behind Ayyappa Swamy

Temple, Khammam and that the transaction took place at 5.30 PM in the house of plaintiff and the plaintiff gave cash to the defendant. One Venkanna, plaintiff, defendant and himself were present at the time of the suit transaction and it took approximately half an hour to complete the transaction. The cross examination of PW2 also reveals that the defendant put his signature on the revenue stamp and signed below the revenue stamp in brackets and only one stamp is affixed on the promissory note and that he scribed the said promissory note and it was attested by two attestors. The defendant through the cross examination of PW1 and 2 has not elicited any material contradictions in order to disbelieve and the claim and the evidence of PW1 and 2, therefore, this court is of considered opinion that the plaintiff has discharged his burden in establishing that

Ex.A.1 was executed by the defendant for valid consideration, therefore, the plaintiff is

O.S.No.532 of 202 4 II ASCJ, Khammam

Page No. 7 of 7 Dated 31.03.2026 entitled to recover the suit amount. Hence, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3:

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to pay

Rs.6,73,933/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Three

Only) to the plaintiff with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum adjudged to Rs.5,50,000/-.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me, in the open Court on this the 31st day of March, 2026.

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW-1Deepala China Nageshwara DW.1Brahmadevara Somaiah Rao PW-2S.Venkat RajamDW2Bobbili Srinivasa Rao --DW3Allam Durga Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl.No.Date of DocumentDescription of Document

Ex.A-127.12.2018Original promissory note dated 27.12.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A-208.11.2019Copy of legal notice issued to the defendant

dated 08.11.2019.

Ex.A-315.11.2019Postal acknowledgment dated 15.11.2019

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

:: NIL ::

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

O.S.No.532 of 202 4 II ASCJ, Khammam

Page No. 1 of 6 Dated 31.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 31st day of March, 2026

Present :- T.Murali Mohan,

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

OS.No.846 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.390 of 2017)

Between:-

1. Dade Pullaiah (Died)

2. Dade Aruna, W/o.Late Pullaiah, Age: 54 years, Occu: Housewife.

3. Mayara Navya, D/o.late Pullaiah, Age: 33 years, Occu: Housewife

4. Gajjela Srivani, D/o.Late Pullaiah, Age: 33 years, Occu: Housewife. All are R/o.Pedda Munagala Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District. (Amended as per Orders vide I.A.No.3 of 2025 dated 02.07.2025) .…Plaintiffs

AND

Yerra Rama Rao, S/o.Venkaiah, Age: 45 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o.Tanikella Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District. ….Defendant

This suit is coming on03.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.P.Satyanarayana Rao, Counsel for the plaintiffs and of Sri.B.Ramesh, Counsel for the Defendant; upon perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T::

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,13,900/- from the defendant with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and costs.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that, the plaintiff and the defendant are well acquainted with each other being the residents of nearby villagers and out of said acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of

Rs.67,000/- on 14.07.2014 to meet his family necessities and executed a promissory note

O.S.No.846 of 2024 II ASCJ, Khammam

Page No. 2 of 6 Dated 31.03.2026 in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of Sk.Laljani and B.Venkateswarlu and it was scribed by Y.Chiranjeevi. The defendant has promised to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or on his order on demand. Later, the plaintiff demanded the defendant for repayment of the borrowed amount, but the defendant dodged the matter on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant has indebted several persons in and around Konijerla Village, Wyra Mandal, therefore, the plaintiff demanded the defendant for repayment of the above amount and got mediated through the mediators, but the defendant kept silent. It is also submitted that during the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff No.1 died on 16.12.2023, leaving behind the plaintiff No.2 to 4 as his sole legal heirs, therefore, the plaintiff No.2 to 4 impleaded in this suit. The defendant has liability to pay the borrowed amount, but the defendant avoided the repayment of amount. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, the defendant has filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit and that the cause of action as shown in the plaint is imaginary and self invented for the purpose of this suit. The allegations of the plaintiff as made in the plaint that he had acquainted with the defendant and that the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed Rs.67,000/- on 14.07.2014 from him to meet his family necessities and executed a promissory note with a promise to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or on his demand, are all false and baseless. The allegations that the promissory note was executed by the defendant in favour of the

O.S.No.846 of 2024 II ASCJ, Khammam

Page No. 3 of 6 Dated 31.03.2026 plaintiff and that it was scribed by Y.Chiranjeevi in the presence of Sk.Lal Jani and

B.Venkateswarlu as witnesses, is also false and baseless.

4.It is also submitted that the defendant has no necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has created a fake promissory note with the assistance of his henchmen with an intention to extract money from the defendant. The defendant has also denied that the plaintiff had orally demanded the defendant for repayment of the borrowed amount with interest, but the defendant kept silent and submitted that the plaintiff never approached the defendant and demanded for repayment of any money. The defendant also denied that he indebted to several persons in Konijerla and Wyra. The defendant has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, therefore, the defendant has no liability to repay the alleged borrowed amount. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed.

1.Whether the suit promissory note dated 14.07.2014 is true, valid and binding upon the defendant?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recover of Rs.1,13,900/ with future interest from the date of suit till the date of realization?

3.To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one of the attestor was examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.A.1 on their behalf. The defendant examined himself as DW1, but no documents were got marked on his behalf.

O.S.No.846 of 2024 II ASCJ, Khammam

Page No. 4 of 6 Dated 31.03.2026

7.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendant did not advance arguments on behalf of the defendant inspite of granting sufficient time from 17.10.2025, therefore, the arguments on behalf of the defendant is treated as heard.

ISSUE No.1 and 2:

8.The claim and the evidence of plaintiff who is examined as PW.1, which categorically reveals that the defendant having acquaintance with the plaintiff had borrowed Rs.67,000/- from the plaintiff on 14.07.2014 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in the presence of Shaik Lal Jani and B.Venkateswarlu and it was scribed by

Y.Chiranjeevi. The defendant has promised to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum, but failed to repay the borrowed amount. The evidence of PW.2 is that, he is one of the attestor to promissory note dated 14.07.2014 under Ex.A.1 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.67,000/- which took place in the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in support of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 has got marked Ex.A.1 original promissory note dated 14.07.2014.

9.On the other hand, the evidence of defendant is that he never borrowed the suit amount from the plaintiff and also denied execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note. It is also the evidence of DW1 that Ex.A.1 promissory note was forged and created by the plaintiff with the help of the attestors and scribe in order to extract the money from the defendant.

O.S.No.846 of 2024 II ASCJ, Khammam

Page No. 5 of 6 Dated 31.03.2026

10.On appreciation of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 which reveals that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.67,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 promissory note. On scrutiny of Ex.A.1 it is noticed that it was executed on 14.07.2014 for

Rs.67,000/- by Yerra Rama Rao, defendant herein in favour of Dade Pullaiah, plaintiff herein and it was attested by two attestors under the signature of the scribe by name

Y.Chiranjeevi. The defendant though denied the claim of the plaintiff, but DW1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that the signature on Ex.A.1 belongs to him.

DW1 testified that one Karunakar S.I of Police, Konijerla had obtained his signature in coercive manner. The defendant though claimed that his signature was obtained in coercive manner by the S.I of Police, Konijerla, but he admitted that he did not got mention in his written statement that his signature was obtained by the S.I of Police on

Ex.A.1 in coercive manner. The cross examination of DW1 also categorically reveals that one Sk. Lal Jani, is the one of the attestor, was MPTC at that time and he know him, but he do not know the another attestor by name Venkateswarlu. Further, the defendant through the cross examination of PW1 and 2, could not elicit any material contradictions to establish that Ex.A.1 demand promissory note was obtained in coercive manner with the help of the then S.I of Police, Konijerla and that the Ex.A.1 is forged and fabricated.

So, the discussion made supra, establish that the defnedant has admitted his signature on Ex.A.1 and also identified one of the attestor of Ex.A.1, therefore, the claim and evidence of the defendant that Ex.A.1 was forged and obtained by coercive mode by S.I of Police, Konijarla, is found not on sound lines, hence, this court held that the plaintiff

O.S.No.846 of 2024 II ASCJ, Khammam

Page No. 6 of 6 Dated 31.03.2026 through the evidence of PW1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A.1 promissory note has established that Ex.A.1 promissory note was executed by defendant for valid consideration, therefore, the defendant has liability to repay the borrowed amount to the plaintiff.

Hence, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3:

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to pay

Rs.1,13,900/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred Only) with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum adjudged to Rs.67,000/-.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me, in the open Court on this the 31st day of March, 2026.

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW-1Dade Pullaiah DW.1 Yerra Rama Rao PW-2Shaik Lal John--

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl.No.Date of DocumentDescription of Document

Ex.A-114.07.2014Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dated 14.07.2014

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

:: NIL ::

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

O.S.No.846 of 2024 II ASCJ, Khammam

1 of 5Dated 20.02.2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 20th day of February, 2026

Present :- T.Murali Mohan, II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

O.S.No.340 of 2025

BETWEEN:

M/s. Shriram Finance Limited, Khammam-I, Branch, Represented by its GPA holder and Authorized Signatory. …Plaintiff AND

1. Arun Kumar Korlakanti, S/o.Balaswamy, Age: 40 years, R/o.H.No.8-54, Opposite Ammapalem Road, Thanikella Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Korlakanti Swathi, W/o.Arun Kumar, Age: 33 years, R/o.H.No.8-54, Opposite Ammapalem Road, Thanikella Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.

3. Nandigama Rajesh, S/o.Raju, Age: 35 years, R/o.H.NO.7-50/2, Cheruvumadharam Village, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District. …Defendants

This suit is coming on 20.01.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Harendar Reddy, Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendants are remained set exparte and upon hearing arguments, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.17,50,291/- with interest @ 36% per annum from 17.04.2025 till date of realization with costs.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are that, the plaintiff is a Non Banking Finance company doing finance business in the name and style of M/s. Shriram Finance Limited,

O.S.No.340 of 2025 II ASCJ, Khammam.

2 of 5 Dated 20.02.2026

Khammam-I, Branch. The plaintiff provides enterprise finance loans (cash loans) to the applicants for their business expansion on their furnishing the required documents. The defendant No.1 had approached the plaintiff and submitted the loan application. The plaintiff having satisfied the same, had sanctioned enterprises finance of Rs.8,00,000/- to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 while obtaining the said loan had produced the defendant No.2 and 3 as guarantor co-borrower, accordingly, the defendants have entered into an agreement with the plaintiff company on 27.10.2022 agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest @ 27.3% per annum in 60 installments which commence from 10.12.2022 and the last EMI payable on 10.11.2027 vide agreement

No.KHMAMTF2210270013. The defendant No.1 to 3 have executed necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 deposited and delivered the title deeds of the suit schedule property as security through equitable mortgage for the above said loan. The monthly installment is fixed at Rs.24,613/- for 60 installments on 27.10.2022.

The defendants have executed an agreement and promissory note and issued (60)

ECS/ACH/Post-dated cheques in favour of the plaintiff towards install amount. On dishonor of these cheques, the defendant is liable to pay penal interest @ 27.3% per annum from each dishonored cheque and also agreed to pay Rs.1000/- towards cheque return charges.

3.It is submitted that the payment schedule is revived due to grant of moratorium to the loan account as per guidelines of RBI due to Covid-19 Pandemic, but the interest was computed at the same rate as shown in statement. It is also submitted that as on 17.04.2025 the installments including the advance EMI is amounting to Rs.7,13,777/- but

O.S.No.340 of 2025 II ASCJ, Khammam.

3 of 5 Dated 20.02.2026 the defendant paid Rs.24,613/- only and failed to pay the balance amount of

Rs.6,89,164/- and committed default, therefore, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 20.07.2024 demanding for repayment of loan amount together with incidental charges, but the defendants neither paid the amount nor give any reply to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

4. Summons were issued to defendant and the same is served on the defendants, but the defendants failed to appear before this court, hence defendants set as exparte 03.12.2025.

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.9 got marked.

6.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the entire record.

7.Now the point for determination is:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money an amount of Rs.17,50,291/- as prayed for ?

(ii)“To what relief”?

POINT No.(i):

8.The contention of the counsel for the plaintiff is that the defendant had approached the plaintiff, for enterprises loan and submitted the loan application, accordingly, the plaintiff having considered the loan application of the defendant No.1 had sanctioned Rs.8,00,000/- to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 and 3 have stood as guarantors for the above loan and executed an agreement and promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, but the defendant No.1 has failed to repay the loan amount,

O.S.No.340 of 2025 II ASCJ, Khammam.

4 of 5 Dated 20.02.2026 therefore, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 20.07.2024 and inspite of the said notice, the defendants have failed to repay the loan amount. The plaintiff in support of their contention have examined the authorized signatory cum GPA holder of the plaintiff finance company as PW1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. On scrutiny of Ex.A.1 the application of the borrower and co-borrower which categorically reveals that the defendant had applied for the enterprises finance loan and Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.5 categorically reveals the sanction of the loan amount in favour of the defendant No.1 and execution of the agreement and promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.6 is the certified copy of memorandum evidencing the deposit of title deeds Doc.No.3983/2022. Ex.A.8 shows repayment of loan by defendant, Ex.A.7 shows that the plaintiff has got issued a legal notice. So, considering the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 which categorically establish that the defendants having availed the enterprises finance loan from the plaintiff, have failed to repay the loan amount, therefore the evidence of PW1 is found unrebutted. Hence, this court is of considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover of the loan amount.

POINT No.(ii) : To what relief?

In the result, a preliminary decree is passed on the mortgage property directing the defendants to pay Rs.17,50,291/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Two Hundred and

Ninety One Only) with interest @ 12% per annum on the adjudged principal sum of

Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) from the date of suit till the date of redemption with future interest @ 6% per annum on the adjudged principal sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. The time for redemption of mortgage property is fixed to three months.

O.S.No.340 of 2025 II ASCJ, Khammam.

5 of 5 Dated 20.02.2026

In the event of payment made by the defendants, the plaintiff shall return the title document bearing No.3983/2022 dated 27.10.2022 to the defendant or the person appointed on his behalf.

In the event of failure of the defendants in payment of the decretal amount, the plaintiff is entitled for sale of the mortgage property. The plaintiff is entitled for the suit costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 20th day of February, 2026.

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW-1Md.Imam Pasha:: EXPARTE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl.No. Date of Description of Document Document Ex.A-127.10.2022Application of borrower and Co-borrower dated 27.10.2022. Ex.A-227.10.2022Loan Agreement dated 27.10.2022 Ex.A-327.10.2022Schedule of loan agreement -1 dated 27.10.2022 Ex.A-427.10.2022Promissory note dated 27.10.2022 Ex.A-527.10.2022Sanction advice dated 27.10.2022 Ex.A-627.10.2022.Certified copy of memorandum evidencing the deposit of title deeds Doc.No.3983/2022 dated 27.10.2022. Ex.A-720.05.2024.Office copy of notice dated 20.05.2024 Ex.A-817.04.2025Statement of account dated 17.04.2025 Ex.A-919.01.2023C.C of General Power of Attorney dated 19.01.2023.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

:: NIL ::

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

O.S.No.340 of 2025 II ASCJ, Khammam.