Sri T.V.Rajesh Kumar

1

APGU010003672024

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Present: Sri T.Venkata Rajesh Kumar,

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division).

Friday, the 17 th day of April, 2026

A.S.No.144/2024

BETWEEN :

1. Galla Navamma (Died).

2. Galla Gnana Sekhar S/o.Gnana Prakasam, Christian, aged about 52 years, Contractor.

3. Galla Ramesh S/o.Gnana Prakasam, Christian, aged about 48 years, Employee. (Appellants 2 and 3 are R/o.Yadlapati Nagar, Chebrolu (V) & (M), Guntur District).

4. Mathangi Jayanthi W/o.Rajendra Prasad, Christian, aged about 50 years, cooli.

5. Yathati Sowramma W/o.Venkatappaiah, Christian, aged about 46 years, cooli.

6. Yaram Chinnammai W/o.Anoku, Christian, aged about 44 years, cooli. (Appellants 4 to 6 are R/o.Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District).

7. Moddu Prasanna W/o.Prasad, Christian, aged about 42 years, cooli, R/o.Mannava Village, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District.

...Appellants.

-And-

1. Shaik Riyaz S/o.Ansari, Muslim, Aged about 48 years, R/o.D.No.16-1-181, Old Guntur, Guntur.

2. Majeti Chaitanya Bharathi W/o.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 43 years, R/o.Chebrolu Village & Mandal, Guntur District.

...Respondents.

2 (Appeal preferred against the Decree and Judgment,

dt.07.04.2022 in O.S.No.825/2011 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Guntur).

BETWEEN :

1. Galla Gnana Prakasam (Died).

2. Galla Navamma.

3. Galla Gnana Sekhar.

4. Galla Ramesh.

5. Mathangi Jayanthi.

6. Yathati Sowramma.

7. Yaram Chinnammai.

8. Moddu Prasanna....Plaintiffs.

AND

1. Shaik Riyaz.

2. Majeti Chaitanya Bharathi....Defendants.

This appeal came up before me on 17.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Joseph Ravi Kumar and Sri M.Nageswara Rao, Ld.Counsel for Appellants and of Sri C.Narendra Babu, Ld.Counsel for 2nd Respondent and 1st Respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dt.07.04.2022 in O.S.No.825/2011 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Guntur. This appeal is received by transfer from the Hon’ble III Addl.

District Court, Guntur, as per orders dt.08.01.2024 of Hon’ble Prl. District

Court, Guntur.

02.Appellants are the Plaintiffs 2 to 8 and the Respondents are the

Defendants in the suit. In the present appeal, the parties will be referred to, as arrayed in OS.No.825/2011, for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion.

3

03. The grounds of appeal are that : The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of the appellants and also not considered the admissions made by the Respondents in the cross examination and failed to consider Exs.A1 to A3 and Exs.X1 to X3, which clearly prove that the appellants are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and they are in peaceful and enjoyment of the same. The trial court did not give much importance to Exs.A1 to A3 and Exs.X1 to X3 and evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and did not discuss anything about the same and it is an admitted fact that Ex.A1

B-form Patta issued by the Government in the name of 1st plaintiff in the year 1978 itself shows that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and admission made by CW1 is not fatal to the case of the plaintiffs. The trial court without considering the admissions made by CW1, dismissed the suit and it is an admitted fact that Exs.B1 to B3 are subsequent to 2005 and no document is filed by the defendants prior to 2005. The trial court while discussing that the plaint schedule property and the property of the defendants are one and the same, not taken into consideration that no document prior to 2005 is filed by the defendants and how the defendants have got title prior to 2005. The trial court while discussing that the plaintiffs have not filed any tax receipts and other receipts relating to the plaint schedule property, taken into consideration the tax receipts filed by the defendants for the year 2011 and not given much importance for non filing of the tax receipts from 1978 onwards by the defendants. Hence, the judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside, by allowing this appeal.

04. The factual matrix of the case is that: As per plaint, originally, the plaint schedule site was allotted to the 1st plaintiff by the Government and

B-Form patta was also issued in his name in the month of March, 1978 and since then, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by raising a thatched house without any objection or obstruction from anybody.

Recently, the plaintiffs demolished the thatched house in the plaint schedule 4 property and started construction of a house with zinc sheet roof and the 1st defendant who is not having any manner of right or title over the plaint schedule property, is trying to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and to cause obstruction to the construction of house in the suit schedule property. The 1st plaintiff several times asked the 1st defendant not to disturb his possession, but he did not mend his ways. Hence, the suit is filed for permanent injunction and later converted to one for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and for possession of the same.

05.According to the written statement and additional written statement of the 1st defendant, the suit is barred by limitation and the 1st plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and no proof of document was filed by the 1st plaintiff to show that he is residing in the plaint schedule property and the address given by him is Yadlapati Nagar, Chebrolu, which itself shows that he is not resident of Chebrolu. To the knowledge of this defendant, the 1st plaintiff is residing at Nidubrolu of Ponnuru since long time and not residing at

Chebrolu and the property situated in D.Nos.251/1 and 252/1 originally belongs to one Murikipudi Chinnaiah who executed a registered gift deed vide document No.2968/05 before S.R.O., Chebrolu in favour of his wife/Murikipudi

Manikyam, who in turn sold the property for valid consideration to one Shaik

Rahamthunnisa on 20.10.2005 under registered sale deed and on 29.09.2010, the 1st defendant purchased written statement schedule property to an extent of 242 sq. yards of vacant site out of 484 sq.yards from Shaik Rahamthunnisa for valid consideration under registered sale deed and later, he constructed a residential house therein and since then, he has been enjoying the said property with absolute right and title. After purchase of the property, this defendant constructed a residential house in his property and also got mutated his name before Chebrolu Panchayat and has been paying house tax and also got water tap connection. The 1st plaintiff who is not resident of Chebrolu 5

Village and who had no property, is trying to occupy the plaint schedule property forcibly and filed this false suit and the 1st plaintiff initially filed the suit for permanent injunction as if he was in possession and enjoyment of the property and after his examination as PW1 and also P.Ws.2 and 3 who confirmed that he was not in possession and enjoyment of the property, filed a petition for amendment of plaint seeking that he is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for possession of the same and thus, it is well established that the 1st plaintiff was not in possession of the plaint schedule property. This defendant sold the plaint schedule property to 2nd defendant on 04.09.2014 under registered sale deed. The 1st plaintiff has no title over the plaint schedule property and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

06.According to written statement of 2nd defendant, after due enquiry and on verification of all the documents pertaining to the plaint schedule property, this defendant purchased the same from 1st defendant for valuable consideration and one Murikipudi Chinnaiah is absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 484 sq. yards of site consisting of D.Nos.251/1 and 252/2 of

Chebrolu Village and he gifted the same to his wife/Murikipudi Manikyam under registered gift deed dt.10.10.2005, who in turn sold the same to one

Shaik Rahamtunnisha under registered sale deed dt.20.10.2005, who in turn sold an extent of 242 sq.yards of site to the 1st defendant under registered sale deed dt.29.09.2015 and remaining extent of 242 sq. yards of site was sold to one Shaik Jammer Ahmad under registered sale deed dt.20.09.2015. This defendant purchased an extent of 232 sq. yards of site from the 1st defendant under registered sale deed dt.04.09.2014 and since then, this defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the property and her name was mutated in panchayat records and she has been paying tax and thus, this defendant is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. When this defendant purchased the property, the lis was not pending and the 1st plaintiff initially filed the suit for permanent injunction as if he is in possession and 6 enjoyment over the property and that the 1st defendant is interfering with his possession and forcibly trying to dispossess him and after examination of

PWs.1 to 3, the plaintiffs amended the plaint, seeking reliefs of declaration and possession of the plaint schedule property and the issue of permanent injunction and issue of declaration of title run contrary to each other and as such, the suit is not maintainable. The 1st plaintiff is no way connected to the property purchased by this defendant from the 1st defendant and the 1st plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit and the relief claimed by the 1st plaintiff for declaration of title is hopelessly barred by limitation and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

07. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following

Issues for trial :

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

The trial court also framed the following additional issues on 19.02.2019.

1. Whether the suit is maintainable as the issues for permanent injunction and issues for declaration of title are run contrary to each other?

2. Whether the suit schedule property and the property purchased by D2 from D1 is one and the same or not?

3. Whether the suit is (declaration of title) barred by limitation?

08.During the course of trial before the Trial court, to prove their case, the 1st and 4th plaintiffs were examined as PWs.1 and 4 and plaintiffs also examined 5 other witnesses, who are third parties and exhibited A1 to A3 and

X1 to X3 documents. On the other hand, both the defendants examined themselves as DWs.1 and 2 and exhibited B1 to B7 documents.

7

09.As already stated above, aggrieved by the decree and Judgment of the Trial court, the unsuccessful plaintiffs filed this appeal, contending inter- alia that Decree and Judgment of trial Court is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case and prayed to set-aside the decree and

Judgment of Trial Court and consequently, allow this Appeal.

10.The 1st respondent remained exparte.It is the contention of learned counsel for 2nd respondent that the trial court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and dismissed the suit and there is nothing to interfere with the judgment of the trial court and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11.Heard arguments of learned counsels for the appellants and 2nd respondent.

12. Now, the points for consideration in this appeal are:

1. “Whether the plaintiffs proved that they are the owners of

the plaint schedule property and thereby entitled for the relief of

declaration of title and recovery of possession, as prayed for or not?”

2 . “Whether the Trial Court erred in appreciation of facts and

evidence and as such, Judgment and Decree of Trial Court needs an

interference by Appellate Court or not?”

13. POINT Nos.1 and 2: As already stated above, during trail before

Trail court, the 1st plaintiff filed his chief affidavit as PW1, by reiterating the averments of the plaint. During cross examination, he deposed that he is residing in Ponnur since 15 years and he is having 6 children and they are also residing in the same Town and he is having ration card and voter card in

Ponnur. He further deposed that after knowing that the 1st defendant is constructing house in the plaint schedule property, he objected for the same 8 and the 1st defendant stopped construction and later, the 1st defendant constructed a house in the plaint schedule property before receiving notice in this suit. He further deposed that he did not issue any notice to the 1st defendant to stop the construction. He further deposed that there is no electricity connection, water tap connection and house tax in his name and he never applied for the said connections in his name with regard to plaint schedule property. He further deposed that he filed this suit as the 1st defendant is constructing house in his place. He admitted that the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till date and he did not file any document to show that the schedule property stands in his name. He further admitted that he obtained Ex.A1 ie., duplicate B-form patta about 5 or 6 months back as he lost original and he did not lodge any report with regard to missing of original of Ex.A1.

14.PW2, who is a third party, filed her chief affidavit by supporting the case of the plaintiffs. During cross examination, she deposed that government allotted house site in her name under Indiramma Padhakam and the 1st plaintiff also got patta by the side of her house, but she do not know his patta number and at present, the 1st plaintiff is not residing in the said house. She further deposed that one Muslim person is residing in the plaint schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same.

15.PW3 is also a third party and he filed his chief affidavit by supporting the case of the plaintiffs. During cross examination, he deposed that the 1st plaintiff is residing in Ponnur along with his family and migrated to

Ponnur about 9 or 10 years back along with his family. He further deposed that the government allotted patta to him about 35 years back. He further deposed that at present, one Muslim person constructed house in the plaint schedule property and residing therein.

9

16.The 4th plaintiff filed his chief affidavit as PW4, by reiterating the averments of the plaint. During cross examination, he deposed that PW1 died on 21.11.2015 and except Ex.A1, he did not file any document to show that

B.form patta land was allotted to his father. He further deposed that he did not file any document to show that his house was burnt and the bills and other receipts pertaining to his house were burnt. He further deposed that at the time of filing of the suit, the schedule property is in his possession and 1st defendant took possession from them. He further deposed that he came to know that the 2nd defendant purchased property from 1st defendant when his father is alive, but they did not add him as a party. He further deposed that in the year 2011, construction in the suit schedule property was completed by 1st defendant and he came to know that 1st defendant sold away the suit schedule property to 2nd defendant about 3 or 4 years back. He further deposed that they have shown survey numbers of schedule property as 151/A and 152/A. He admitted that till today, the plaint schedule property is in possession of 2nd defendant.

17.PW5 is also a third party and he filed his chief affidavit, by supporting the case of the plaintiffs. During cross examination, he admitted that for the last 20 years, 1st plaintiff is not residing at Chebrolu and residing in

Ponnur along with his family members and presently, the property is in possession of 1st defendant from the last 10 years. He further deposed that he do not know whether the 1st defendant purchased the property or not, but he is the owner of suit schedule property.

18.PW6 is also a third party and he filed his chief affidavit, by supporting the case of the plaintiffs. During cross examination, he deposed that he cannot say in whose possession the suit schedule property is, and that the 2nd defendant purchased the property from the 1st defendant. He admitted that the 1st defendant constructed house in the suit schedule property.

10

19.PW7 is Junior Assistant in Tahsildar office, who was summoned on petition and he produced original file pertaining to plot No.17 which is in the name of one Galla Gnana Prakasam S/o.Kotaiah and exhibited X1 i.e.,

Beneficiary list and he also exhibited duplicate patta, marked as Ex.X2 and letter issued to MRO, marked as Ex.X3. During cross examination, he deposed that the serial number will be the plot number and there is no mention in the records that the serial number is plot number and no boundaries are mentioned to plot No.17 patta in 1978 record. He further deposed that there is no proof to show that 1st plaintiff is pattadar for plot No.17.

20.The 1st defendant filed his chief affidavit as DW1, by reiterating the averments of his written statement. During cross examination, he deposed that he do not know whether plaint schedule property was originally belonged to government or not and prior to purchase of suit schedule property, he enquired and also saw the documents. He further deposed that one Shaik

Rahamtunnisa purchased the property from wife of Chennaiah Panthulu and

Chennaiah Panthulu acquired the property from his ancestors. He further deposed that he cannot say the boundaries or measurements of the suit schedule property and he purchased the same as vacant site and he did not survey the suit schedule property through surveyor and he did not apply for approved plan from panchayat for construction of house. He further deposed that the property was sold away to 2nd defendant on 04.09.2014 and he do not know whether or not the government issued B-form patta in the name of 1st plaintiff in the year 1978.

21.The 2nd defendant filed her chief affidavit as DW2, by reiterating the averments of her written statement. During cross examination, she deposed that she purchased the suit schedule property from 1st defendant in the year 2014 and by that time, she do not know whether the suit is pending or not and at the time of her purchase, she was given link documents. She further 11 deposed that one Chinnaiah gifted his property to his wife Manikyamma and the said Manikyamma sold her property to Rahamtunnisa and said

Rahamtunnisa sold the property to 1st defendant. She further deposed that she purchased suit schedule property with asbestos shed which was constructed by 1st defendant and she got constructed a building in the adjacent site which was purchased by her husband. She further deposed that at the time of her purchase, she took EC, but did not enquire anybody and after purchase of site, she got constructed house and staying in that house.

22.The record discloses that the suit was initially filed for the relief of permanent injunction, however, the plaint was later amended and the suit was converted into one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The trail court appreciated the evidence on record, more particularly, the admissions of the parties and the evidence of PW7, who was summoned on petition and who produced original file pertaining to plot No.17 and exhibited Beneficiary list and duplicate patta and letter issued to the MRO and found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case and dismissed the suit, which is now challenged by way of appeal.

23.The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that, the plaint schedule property has been assigned to the 1st plaintiff by the government under B.form patta and the 1st defendant tried to occupy the same and as such, the suit for permanent injunction is filed and subsequently, during pendency of suit, the 1st defendant occupied the plaint schedule property and then, the plaintiffs filed an application to amend the plaint for the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession and the evidence on hand clearly established the right and title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and therefore, the suit is to be decreed.

24.The contention of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent i.e., 2nd respondent is that the plaintiffs have no manner of right or 12 title over the plaint schedule property and they are never in possession and enjoyment over the same and they filed this suit to grab the plaint schedule property and the plaintiffs approached the court with unclean hands and filed suit for permanent injunction without being in possession and they are not entitled for any relief.

25.Notably, the plaint is amended after the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, whose evidence discloses that the plaintiffs are not in possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. On perusal of the evidence on hand, PW1 deposed that he is not residing in the plaint schedule property and residing in Ponnur. The evidence of other witnesses of plaintiffs also discloses that the plaintiffs are residing in Ponnur, but not in the plaint schedule property. The admissions of PW1 goes to show that as on the date of filing of the suit, the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Inspite of that, the suit is filed for permanent injunction, stating that the plaintiffs are in possession over the plaint schedule property and apprehending interference of the 1st defendant.

26.In this case, the evidence of PW7, who is working in Tahsildar office and who appeared before the court on receipt of summons, is very important. According to his evidence, no serial number of Ex.A1 B-form patta is available in their office and no boundaries are mentioned to plot No.17. His evidence further discloses that there is no evidence to show that the 1st plaintiff is the owner of plot No.17. Indisputably, the plaint schedule nowhere discloses that it pertains to plot No.17.

27.The contents of the plaint that a patta was issued to the 1st plaintiff in March, 1978 and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment over the same by raising a thatched house and recently, he demolished the same and started construction of a house with zinc sheet, is nothing but untrue, in 13 view of the admissions made by the witnesses of the plaintiffs including the 1st plaintiff. According to PW1, the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till date and there is no documentary proof to show that the schedule property stands in his name and that he filed the suit

as 1st defendant is constructing house in his place. The evidence of PW2 is

that the 1st plaintiff is not residing in the plaint schedule house and that one

Muslim person is residing in the plaint schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Even according to PW3, one Muslim person constructed house in the plaint schedule property and residing therein.

According to the version of PW4, who is 4th plaintiff, in the year 2011, construction in the suit schedule property was completed by 1st defendant and he came to know that 1st defendant sold away the suit schedule property to 2nd defendant about 3 or 4 years back and that till today, the plaint schedule property is in possession of 2nd defendant. As per the version of PW5, the property is in possession of 1st defendant from the last 10 years and the 1st defendant is the owner of suit schedule property. According to PW6, the 2nd defendant purchased the property from the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant constructed house in the suit schedule property. As seen from the above evidence, it is crystal clear that the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and that the 1st defendant is the owner of the schedule property and he sold the same to the 2nd defendant.

28.The evidence of PW1 is that, after knowing that the 1st defendant is constructing house in the plaint schedule property, he objected for the same and the 1st defendant stopped construction and later, the 1st defendant constructed a house in the plaint schedule property before receiving notice in this suit. The above evidence of PW1 clearly established that 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The approach of the plaintiffs before this court stating that they are in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as 14 on the date of filing of the suit and that the 1st defendant is trying to interfere with their possession and as such, suit is filed for permanent injunction, itself shows that the plaintiffs approached the court with unclean hands with false contention. On the other hand, the defendants filed all relevant documents including gift deed, sale deeds, house tax receipts and photographs to show that the property originally belonged to 1st defendant and he sold the same to the 2nd defendant for a valid consideration and since then, the 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment over the same. The plaintiffs cleverly, filed an application for amendment of the plaint to covert the reliefs from permanent injunction to declaration of title and recovery of possession in view of admissions of plaintiffs witnesses. However, the initial approach of the plaintiffs

before this court amounts to suppression of material facts, which is nothing but

approaching with unclean hands.

29.The law is well settled that the parties shall approach the court with clean hands, but not with ‘unclean hands’ and shall not misrepresent the facts. There are catena of decisions on this aspect. Hon’ble Supreme court in

Kishore Samrite vs State of U.P. & Ors on 18 October, 2012, reported in

(2013) 2 SCC 398, held that - Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with ‘unclean hands’. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief. It was further held that, ‘t he obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.’

30.The evidence of PW7 is very clear that there is no evidence to show that the 1st plaintiff is the owner of plot No.17. The contention of the ld.counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs that the trail court failed to consider

Exs.A1 to A3 and Exs.X1 to X3, which clearly prove that the appellants are the 15 absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and they are in peaceful and enjoyment of the same is not tenable. The documents produced by the plaintiffs no way proves their title over the plaint schedule property and as such, they utterly failed to prove their title over the plaint schedule property. In view of the oral and documentary evidence available on hand and in view of the above cited judgment, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs sought for. The trial court discussed all the relevant aspects in proper perspective and rightly dismissed the suit with costs and there is nothing to interfere with the findings of the trial court. Therefore, the present appeal, which is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the points are answered.

31. IN THE RESULT, the appeal is dismissed with costs, by confirming the judgment and decree dt.07.04.2022 in OS.No.825/2011 on the file of III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side in this Appeal.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side in this Appeal.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

IV A.C.J (SD).

Copy to: The III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

APGU010006842024 APGU010009842024

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Present: Sri T.Venkata Rajesh Kumar,

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division).

Tuesday, the 16 th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.11/2024 & H.M.O.P.No.70/2024

H.M.O.P.No.11/2024:

Between:

Thakkellapati Kallam Sireesha W/o.Thakkellapati Chandrasekhara Reddy, aged 33 years, Hindu, Reddy, Outsourcing employee, R/o.Door No.1-9 Nambur Village, Pedakaakni (M), Guntur Dt.

... Petitioner.

-And-

Thakkellapati Chandra Sekhara Reddy S/o.Gopi Reddy, aged 40 years, Hindu, Reddy, Private electrician, R/o.Door No.1-185, Каzа Village, Mangalagiri (M), Guntur Dt.

... Respondent.

H.M.O.P.No.70/2024:

Between:

Thakkellpati Chandra Sekhara Reddy S/o.Gopi Reddy, Hindu, electrician, aged about 40 years, R/o.Door No.1-185, Kaza village, Mangalagiri manda, Guntur District..

... Petitioner.

-And-

Thakkellapati alias Kallam Sireesha W/o.Chandra Sekhara Reddy, Hindu, housewife/employee, residing with her parents at Door No.1-9, Nambur village, Pedakakani mandal, Guntur District.

... Respondent.

2

These two petitions came up on 09.04.2026 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri B.Sambi Reddy, Ld.Counsel for the Petitioner

in HMOP.No.11/2024 and Ld.Counsel for the Respondent in

HMOP.No.70/2024 and Sri D.Srinivasa Rao, Ld.Counsel for the Respondent in

HMOP.No.11/2024 and Ld.Counsel for the Petitioner in HMOP.No.70/2024,

and upon perusing the material on record, this Court made the following :

C O M M O N O R D E R

HMOP No.11/2024:

The present petition is filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband, praying the court to grant decree of divorce, by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent dt.24.04.2016 on the ground of cruelty.

02. The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows:

The petitioner is a postgraduate in MCA and the respondent did

ITI in electrical branch and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 24.04.2016 at Kaza village at the respondent's place as per Hindu rites and custom and the marriage was consummated and as per the demand of the respondent and his parents, the petitioner's parents presented Rs.5 lakhs towards dowry, Rs.3 lakhs worth of gold ornaments, bracelet of 4 sovereigns and a gold ring of half sovereign and Rs.1 lakh worth of household articles and the petitioners parents incurred Rs.5 lakhs towards their share of marriage expenses. After marriage, the petitioner and respondent lived together for about 4 months and thereafter, the respondent who is addicted to all sorts of vices including drinking and debauchery, used to come home late in nights in a drunken state and pick-up quarrels with the petitioner and used to beat the petitioner indiscriminately for questioning about his habits and the respondent's parents also used to support the respondent and harassed the petitioner by demanding additional dowry for doing business in electricals and when the petitioner expressed her inability, the respondent and his parents used to treat the petitioner with cruelty by abusing her in filthy language and also by stating that the respondent will give divorce to the 3 petitioner and get another marriage. They also used to accost the petitioner for not having begotten any child and the respondent and his parents sent away the petitioner from their house within 6 months from the date of marriage to her parents’ house. On mediation of well-wishers, the petitioner was allowed to join the respondent in June, 2022 and the respondent put up a house on rent at

Chinakakani village, but there also, the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and on that, the petitioner lodged a report with Mangalagiri police, but, even then also, the respondent did not mend his ways and ultimately drove away the petitioner from Chinakakani house also during October, 2022 and since then, she has been under the shelter of her parents and the petitioner filed DVC case. Hence, this HMOP is filed for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on the ground of cruelty.

03.The respondent filed his counter, resisting the averments of the petition. The averments of the counter, in brief, are that: The respondent is doing electrician work in and around Guntur and the petitioner has higher educational qualification than the respondent and after the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent for family life at his parents’ house in Kaza village, which is adjacent to petitioner's parents’ place of Nambur village and the petitioner was in good spirits with respondent for few months only, and thereafter, there was change in the petitioner's attitude and she started nagging with the respondent for one reason or the other on petty issues, stating that she does not like to live in the village as she wanted to marry a person with higher education than her education with high salary living in a big city like Hyderabad, but at the instance of her parents, she was forced to marry the respondent. Inspite of efforts made by the respondent to change the petitioner's attitude, the petitioner did not change her outlook towards the respondent and his parents. The parents of the respondent are suffering with illness since long time and he has to look after their day to day needs and the petitioner many times bluntly stated that she will not look after her in-laws and she did not attend her in-laws daily needs. The allegation made by the 4 petitioner that they gave dowry amount to the respondent is totally false and moreover, the petitioner's family is not having such financial capacity to give much dowry amount as stated by the petitioner. The respondent and his parents presented 10 sovereigns of gold articles to the petitioner at the time of marriage and the petitioner started demanding the respondent to put up separate family in Guntur or at her parents’ place at Nambur, but the respondent did not accept for the same. On 20.10.2016, when the respondent went to his daily work, the petitioner went away from her matrimonial home to her parents’ home without any intimation and after knowing about the same, the respondent immediately contacted her on phone, but she did not receive the phone call and on that, the respondent and his parents went to her parents’ home and requested her to come back, for which, the petitioner bluntly refused and upon mediation, the petitioner joined him after one month in Kaza village, and the petitioner was in good spirits for 10 days only and again, she started saying that she does not like to live with the respondent and his parents. The petitioner developed aversion towards the respondent and started suspecting his character and whenever the respondent comes home in late hours as part of his electrical work, the petitioner used to shout and insult him by stating that he is moving with other ladies. On 15.12.2016, the petitioner went away to her parents’ place in Nambur and on the intervention of elders, the petitioner came back on 04.07.2022 and the respondent put up family in a rented house in Chinakakani village and 2 months thereafter, again, the petitioner started harassing the respondent by suspecting his character. As per the demands made by the petitioner, the respondent purchased gold articles worth of Rs.22,000/-. At the insistence of the petitioner to learn

Beautician training course, the respondent arranged an amount of Rs.50,000/- to her and at present, she is doing job and after four months of joining him, the petitioner deserted the respondent voluntarily without any reasonable cause.

The petitioner gave a report to Pedakakani police against the respondent with all false allegations and the police advised the petitioner to join the 5 respondent, but she refused and filed CC.No.1009/2024 under Sec.498-A of

IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of VI Addl. Civil

Judge (Junior Division), Guntur and the same is pending. The respondent is

still having love and affection towards the petitioner and he is ready and willing to continue family life by forgetting all the past misunderstandings in between them and inspite of efforts made by the respondent, his parents and family elders, the petitioner is not co-operating with him for coming back for family life. The respondent filed HMOP.No.70/2024 on the file of this court against the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and the petitioner with malafide intention to obtain divorce somehow or other, filed the present petition with all false averments. Therefore, this HMOP is liable to be dismissed.

HMOP No.70/2024:

04.The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the husband against the respondent, who is the wife, praying the court to grant decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

05.The averments of the petition and the counter averments in

HMOP.No.11/2024 are one and the same. It is further submitted that even

though, the respondent became pregnant two times, she voluntarily underwent abortion without knowledge of petitioner and inspite of the past misunderstandings between them, the petitioner is still having love and affection towards the respondent and he is willing to continue happy marital life with the respondent. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking restitution of conjugal rights with the respondent.

06.The respondent filed her counter, resisting the averments of the petition. The averments of counter and the averments of her petition in

HMOP.No.11/2024 are one and the same. It is further submitted that the cause

of action mentioned in the petition is unacceptable. It is true that the respondent filed CC.No.1009/2024 on the file of VI Addl. Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Guntur and DVC.No.51/2024 on the file of Special Mobile 6

Magistrate, Guntur and HMOP No.11/2024 on the file of this court and there is

no possibility of re-union between the petitioner and the respondent.

Therefore, this HMOP is liable to be dismissed.

07.Both parties filed IA.No.1/2025 in HMOP.No.70/2024, praying the court to club HMOP.No.11/2024 and HMOP.No.70/2024 and to record evidence in HMOP.No.11/2024 and to pass common order in both cases and the said petition is allowed on 24.03.2025. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in HMOP.No.11/2024.

08.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner herself was examined as PW1 and exhibited P1 and P2 documents i.e., wedding invitation card and 3 photographs along with CD. The petitioner examined her mother as PW2.

On the other hand, the respondent himself was examined as RW1 and exhibited R1 to R3 documents i.e., wedding card, certified copy of FIR in

Cr.No.27/2023 of Pedakakani P.S and copy of Aadhar card of the respondent.

The respondent examined his cousin as RW2.

09.Heard arguments of both sides.

10.Now, the points that arises for determination are :

1. Whether the petitioner/wife in HMOP.No.11/2024 suffered

cruelty in the hands of respondent/husband and is entitled for a decree

of divorce on the ground of cruelty, as prayed for?

2. Whether the respondent/wife withdrawn from the society of

petitioner/husband in HMOP.No.70/2024 without reasonable cause and as

such, the petitioner/husband is entitled for a relief of restitution of

conjugal rights, as prayed for?

3. To what Relief?

11. POINT Nos.1 and 2: As already stated above, during enquiry, to prove her case, the petitioner herself was examined as PW1 and she filed her chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of the petition. During cross 7 examination, she deposed that she did MCA in 2014 and by the date of their marriage, the respondent did ITI and working as private employee and he also worked as cable operator. She further deposed that her parents and parents of respondent equally incurred marriage expenses and they gave Rs.5 lakhs towards their share. She further deposed that she is well qualified than the respondent in education and by the date she joined the respondent to lead marital life, the father of respondent underwent a major surgery and staying at home without any work and income of respondent and his mother were sufficient for the maintenance of their family and the respondent and his parents are having own house. She further deposed that as on the date of filing of her chief examination affidavit, there are two cases pending between her and the respondent ie, criminal case under Sec.498-A of IPC and DVC.

PW1 denied the suggestions that she used to pick up quarrels with the respondent on the ground that she is well educated than him and she had an intention to marry a person with equal educational qualification and working in cities like Hyderabad, etc., and after joining the respondent in the year 2016, she got pregnancy and in the early months of pregnancy, she got aborted without informing the respondent and that the grounds shown by her are not sufficient to seek divorce. Notably, during cross-examination, a specific question was put to PW1: whether she would join the respondent, who is ready to take her back to lead a conjugal life. PW1 answered 'no,' saying that the respondent repeating the same attitude every time.

12.PW2 is mother of PW1 and she filed her chief affidavit by supporting the case of the petitioner. During cross examination, she deposed that she do not know the number of cases pending between petitioner and respondent before this court and she did not file any proof showing purchase of gold ornaments mentioned in her chief affidavit. She denied the suggestions that they spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- only towards marriage expenses and respondent never demanded any additional dowry for doing electrical business and the petitioner became pregnant and voluntarily left conjugal society of 8 respondent without intimation. PW2 being the mother of the petitioner, naturally supports the case of the petitioner. However, her evidence goes to show that she did not file any proof to show the purchase of gold ornaments said to be given to the respondent at the time of marriage.

13.The respondent as RW1 filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of his counter. During cross examination, he deposed that the marriage was performed at their house and they incurred Rs.5 lakhs towards marriage expenses and not taken any amount from his father-in-law towards marriage expenses. He admitted that the petitioner gave report against him in

Mangalagiri P.S while they were staying in Chinakakani and police gave counseling to both of them. He further deposed that his father-in-law informed him that the petitioner got aborted her pregnancy twice and he informed the same to elders and he will examine the said elders. He denied the suggestions that he addicted to alcohol and also a womanizer and addicted to bad vices and himself and his parents harassed the petitioner and treated her with cruelty.

14.RW2 is cousin of the respondent and he filed his chief affidavit by supporting the case of the respondent. During cross examination, he deposed that he do not know the educational qualification of the petitioner and he do not know when the petitioner and respondent started their conjugal life and respondent informed him that the petitioner stayed for some period after marriage and later, left the house, but he do not know the period of stay of petitioner with the respondent. He further deposed that the respondent did not state to him that the petitioner wanted to marry a person with higher education with high salary living in cities like Hyderabad. He further deposed that he do not know the name of parents of petitioner and also about the dowry said to be given at the time of marriage and he came to know that dowry harassment case is filed against the respondent. As seen from the above, RW2 expressed ignorance regarding most of the questions and did not have basic information 9 about the family affairs of the parties, as such, his evidence in no way helps the respondent's case.

15.The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner and respondent lived together for about 4 months after their marriage and the respondent who was addicted to all sorts of vices including drinking, debauchery, used to come home late in nights in drunken state and used to pick up quarrels with the petitioner and used to beat her indiscriminately for questioning his habits and respondent's parents used to support the respondent and also used to harass the petitioner by demanding her to bring

additional dowry and when the petitioner expressed her inability to get the

demanded amount, the respondent and his parents used to treat her with cruelty by abusing in filthy language and also by beating her and also stated that they would obtain divorce from her to get the respondent married to another girl for money and they used to abuse her for not being pregnant and ill-treated her to maximum possible extent. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no possibility for reunion, as the petitioner is unable to bear the cruelty of the respondent and hence, divorce may be granted.

16.On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the contents in the petition are all false and no dowry is given to the respondent as alleged and the parents of the petitioner do not have financial capacity to give dowry and the respondent never harassed the petitioner and the petitioner does not like the respondent from the beginning of the marriage, as she intended to marry a highly educated person, doing job at cities like Hyderabad and after few months of marriage, the petitioner went to her parents’ house without intimation to the respondent and even though, a separate family has been set up at Chinakakani, the petitioner did not change her attitude and left home without any information and moreover, she filed false criminal cases against the respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent is still having love and affection towards the 10 petitioner and as such, he filed HMOP.No.70/2024 for restitution of conjugal rights and there are no special grounds to pass decree of divorce and therefore, HMOP.No.11/2024 may be dismissed and restitution of conjugal rights may be ordered.

17.The wife filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under

Section-13(1)(ia) of H.M.Act. The word cruelty is not defined, but it includes behaviour causing mental, emotional, or physical pain that makes living together impossible. On the other hand, the husband filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section-9 of H.M.Act., Sec-9 allows a spouse to file petition, if the other partner has withdrawn from their society without reasonable excuse, aiming to restore marital life.

18.It is well settled law that burden of proof lies on the petitioner, however, the degree of probability is not one beyond reasonable doubt, but of preponderance. On perusal of entire evidence on hand, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that after 4 months of marriage, the respondent who is addicted to all sorts of vices including drinking and debauchery, used to come home late in nights in drunken state and picked up quarrels with the petitioner and used to beat her indiscriminately and the respondent and his parents used to demand the petitioner for additional dowry and treated her with cruelty. They also threatened her that the respondent would obtain divorce and marry another girl. The above grounds of the petitioner that were mentioned in the petition as well as in the chief affidavit of PW1 are not denied by the respondent anywhere in the entire cross-examination of PW1. There is no denial of the above contentions of the petitioner anywhere in the cross- examination of PW1.

19.It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondent and his parents frequently subjected her to mental harassment on the ground that she could not conceive. The specific contention of the respondent on this aspect is that in the year 2016, the petitioner conceived pregnancy and during 11 early months of pregnancy, she got aborted without informing the respondent.

However, the respondent did not choose to adduce any evidence to prove the said aspect. During his cross examination as RW1, he simply deposed that his father-in-law i.e., father of petitioner informed him about conceiving pregnancy by the petitioner twice and also aborting the same, which is quite unbelievable.

During cross examination of PW2, who is mother of petitioner, similar question has been put forth that the petitioner became pregnant and voluntarily left conjugal society of respondent without intimation, for which, she denied the same. Notably, the respondent has not denied the nature of harassment attributed against him by the petitioner in the petition and in the affidavit-in- chief.

20.According to the respondent, the petitioner used to pick up quarrels on the ground that he was less educated than her and she had an intention to marry an equally educated person working in big cities like

Hyderabad, etc. This part of contention of respondent is quite inconsistent with his pleadings in the counter. According to the counter of the respondent, after marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent to lead conjugal life and the petitioner was in good spirits with him for few months and slowly, there was change in the petitioner's attitude. If really the petitioner is not interested to marry the respondent on the ground of his educational qualification, how could the petitioner be in good spirits for some months after the marriage. Even according to RW2, after marriage, the petitioner and respondent lived happily for some time and thereafter, the petitioner’s attitude changed. Hence, the contention of the respondent on this aspect is unbelievable. Further, the respondent contended that the marriage was performed at their house and they incurred Rs.5 lakhs towards marriage expenses and not taken any amount from his father-in-law towards marriage expenses. But, during cross- examination of PW2, who is the mother of the petitioner, a suggestion was put forth to her that they spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- only towards marriage expenses, which is denied by her. The inconsistent stands of the respondent 12 show that on one hand, he contends he took no money for marriage expenses, yet on the other, he states, his in-laws spent only Rs.1,50,000/-, thus exposing his falsehoods.

21.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the allegations made by the petitioner about harassment are general allegations and insufficient to establish cruelty and she is not justified in staying away from the respondent. He relied on a case law reported in AIR 2014 (AP) p.24 between V.Venkateshwarlu Vs. Smt.V.Mamatha, wherein

Hon’ble High Court of AP held that “general allegations of harassment and

separate living are insufficient to establish cruelty.” He relied on another case law reported in AIR 2009 (2) (Bom) p.827 between Smt.Manju Kamal Mehra

Vs. Mr.Kamal Pushkar Mehra, wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that “in the case of restitution of conjugal rights, where Family Court found wife was not justified in staying away from husband and had withdrawn without reasonable excuse, decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of husband was rightly passed.”

22.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife is that she is justified in staying away from the respondent/husband due to unbearable harassment. In this case, the attributions made by the wife against the husband with regard to the cruelty are well established with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and further, there is no denial of the attributions made in the petition, but the respondent simply contended that he is still having love and affection towards her and ready to lead marital life by forgetting the previous misunderstandings. No wife is expected to stay with the husband by facing such a high degree of physical and mental agony. Hence, with due respect, the precedents cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/husband are not applicable to the present case.

23.The law is well settled that in divorce cases on the ground of cruelty, cruelty refers to physical or mental abuse that makes living together 13 unsafe and unbearable, which is a key ground for dissolution of marriage. In this case, the undenied contention of the petitioner is that, the respondent who is addicted to vices including drinking and debauchery, used to come home late in nights and pick up quarrels with the petitioner and used to beat her indiscriminately for questioning about his habits and used to harass her to fetch additional dowry and treated the petitioner with cruelty by abusing her for not conceiving and also by beating her. The evidence on hand disclosed both physical and mental cruelty.

24.In total, the evidence on hand demonstrates that the respondent harassed the petitioner to the extent that she suffered physical and acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for her to lead marital life with the respondent and that there is no possibility of reunion and living together as wife and husband. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce under Sec.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. On the other hand, the respondent who filed HMOP.No.70/2024 under Sec.9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act failed to prove that the petitioner has withdrawn from their society without reasonable excuse and as such, he is not entitled for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. Accordingly, both points are answered.

25. POINT No.3: In view of above findings, the petitioner/wife in

HMOP.No.11/2024 is entitled for a decree of divorce and the

HMOP.No.70/2024 filed by the respondent/husband is liable to be dismissed.

IN THE RESULT, HMOP.No.11/2024 filed under Sec.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is allowed, by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 24.04.2016, and a decree of divorce is granted thereto.

14

HMOP.No.70/2024 filed under Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 16 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner :

PW1-Thakkellapati alias Kallam Sireesha. PW2-Kallam Venkayamma.

For Respondent :

RW1-Thakkellapati Chandra Sekhara Reddy. RW2-Eda Jayarami Reddy.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner :

Ex.P1-wedding invitation card.

Ex.P2-3 photographs along with CD.

For Respondent :

Ex.R1-wedding card. Ex.R2-certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.27/2023 of Pedakakani P.S. Ex.R3-copy of Aadhar card of the respondent.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

IV ACJ (SD).

1

APGU010005912022

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION), GUNTUR

Present: Sri T.Venkata Rajesh Kumar,

IV Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

Monday, the 27 th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.243/2022

BETWEEN :

B.Nagi Reddy S/o.Basivi Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 48 years, Business, R/o.Kollipara, temporarily r/o.Flat No.403, Maheswari Complex, Lecturers' Colony Rood, Ganganammapet, Tenali, Guntur District. …Plaintiff AND

Kommareddy Bhaktavatchala Reddy S/o.Butchi Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, Business, 1/5 Extn. Sri Siva Sai Sadan, Vidya Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District. …Defendant

This suit came up before me on 21.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Rama Krishna, Ld.Counsel for Plaintiff, and Sri G.Seetha Rami Reddy, Ld.Counsel for 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 ::

The present suit is filed to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for the suit amount of Rs.20,81,686/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs.

02. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are that :

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.13,47,000/- on 03.06.2019 from the plaintiff for his business purpose and executed 'A' and 'B' marked promissory notes i.e., one for Rs.6,57,000/ and the other for Rs.6,90,000/- in 2 favour of the plaintiff at Guntur, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.

Subsequently, despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay any amount. Apart from these amounts, the defendant also taken amounts on promissory notes from the father of the plaintiff and regarding this, some disputes were also taken place and a case vide C.C.No.126/2021 on the file of

II Addl. Civil judge (Junior Division), Tenali was also pending. Hence, this suit is filed.

03. The defendant filed his written statement, resisting the averments of the plaint. The averments of the written statement, in brief, are that :

The plaintiff's brother by name Venkata Reddy is doing Job at USA and he purchased properties in Tadepalli area, Guntur District and the defendant is also having properties at Tadepalli and the said Venkata Reddy intended to develop one of his properties at Tadepalli and contacted the defendant who is his neighbouring owner by phone to suggest the name of the builder and after enquiry, the defendant suggested the builder ‘Samruddhi Nexa’ and the defendant also intended to give his property for development to the said builder and said Venkata Reddy after negotiations with the said builder by phone, agreed to give his property for development and the builder agreed to give an amount of Rs.13,47,000/- towards advance at the time of starting construction and he also requested Venkata Reddy to give attorney to anybody for entering into written development agreement and accordingly,

Venkata Reddy executed attorney in favour of the defendant and in turn, the defendant executed development agreement in favour of Samruddhi Nexa in respect of the property of Venkata Reddy and the defendant requested the said Venkata Reddy to arrange money of Rs.13 lakhs for his family necessities, for which, Venkata Reddy asked the defendant to execute promissory note in the name of his brother ie., plaintiff and take amount from the builder and accordingly, the defendant executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and requested the builder to give the amount of

Rs.13,47,000/-, but the builder unable to give the said amount due to change 3 of Government policies. The defendant intimated the same to Venkata Reddy and also to the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to return back the promissory notes which were executed by the defendant, but the plaintiff has been postponing the same on one pretext or other and as such, the suit promissory notes are devoid of consideration. The plaintiff is an income tax assessee and if really, he paid the consideration amount to the defendant, he would have shown the same in his income tax returns and the plaintiff is doing money lending business without licence and as such, the suit is not maintainable under A.P. Money Lenders Act, 2017. The plaintiff foisted false case against the defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

04. Based on the pleadings of both parties, this Court settled the following Issues for trial:

1. Whether the suit A and B promissory notes, dated 03.06.2019 are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim, as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

05.During trail, in order to prove his case, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and exhibited A1 to A3 documents. The plaintiff also examined PWs.2 and 3, who according to the plaintiff are attestors of Exs.A1 and A2. On the other hand, the defendant himself was examined as DW1 and no document is exhibited on defendant’s side.

06.Heard arguments.

07. ISSUE No.1: As already stated above, during trail, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and he filed chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint. During cross examination, he admitted that he did not lend any amount to the defendant on 03.06.2019. He further deposed that the suit promissory notes were re-executed by the defendant for the promissory notes relating to the year 2016. He further admitted that he did not mention in his plaint or in his chief affidavit that the suit promissory notes were 4 re-executed by the defendant for the promissory notes relating to the year 2016. He further deposed that he did not issue any legal notice to the defendant prior to filing of the suit and he is not an income tax assessee and his father filed criminal case against defendant and 3 others at Hyderabad on the ground that they forcibly took promissory notes from him. He denied the suggestion that he is doing finance business and deposing false.

08.PWs.2 and 3 filed their chief affidavits, wherein it was mentioned that on 03.06.2019, the defendant executed two demand promissory notes in favour of plaintiff towards debt due to him at Guntur and that they were present at the time of execution of suit promissory notes. During cross examination,

PW2 admitted that it was not mentioned in the suit promissory notes that they were executed in favour of plaintiff towards debt due to him by the defendant.

PW3 deposed that the defendant executed Exs.A1 and A2 for money transactions took place earlier between plaintiff and defendant, but the same is not mentioned anywhere in Exs.A1 and A2.

09.The defendant examined himself as DW1 and he filed chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of his written statement. During cross- examination, he deposed that he executed promissory notes for

Rs.13,47,000/- on 03.06.2019 on the instructions of Venkata Reddy who is brother of plaintiff. He admitted that he did not issue any legal notice to the plaintiff or to the said Venkata Reddy, asking them to return his promissory notes dt.03.06.2019. He further admitted that there are prior money transactions between himself and family members of plaintiff. He denied the suggestions that prior to 2016, he used to pay debts taken from the family members of plaintiff and subsequent to 2016, he started avoiding payment of debts due to them and that the contents of his chief affidavit are false and he is liable to pay the suit claim to the plaintiff.

10.The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant borrowed amounts from the plaintiff and in token of the same, he executed

Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes on 03.06.2019 and later, he failed to repay the said amounts, for which, the plaintiff filed this suit.

5

11.On the other hand, the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant is that, the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff on 03.06.2019 as contended by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's brother by name

Venkata Reddy purchased properties at Tadepalli area, Guntur and agreed to give his property for development to the builder by name Samruddhi Nexa for an amount of Rs.13,47,000/- towards advance at the time of starting construction and he executed attorney in favour of the defendant and in turn, the defendant executed development agreement in favour of Samruddhi Nexa in respect of the property of Venkata Reddy and defendant requested Venkata

Reddy to arrange money of Rs.13 lakhs for his family necessities, for which,

Venkata Reddy asked the defendant to execute promissory note in the name of his brother ie., plaintiff and take amount from the builder and accordingly, the defendant executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and requested the builder to give the amount of Rs.13,47,000/-, but the builder unable to give the said amount due to change of Government policies and then, the defendant intimated the same to Venkata Reddy and also to the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to return back the promissory notes, but he has been postponing the same on one pretext or other and the suit promissory notes are devoid of consideration, but the plaintiff filed this false suit for wrongful gain.

12.The specific contention of the plaintiff in the plaint as well in the chief affidavit of PW1 is that on 03.06.2019, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.13,47,000/- from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes i.e., Exs.A1 and A2 for Rs.6,57,000/- and Rs.6,90,000/- respectively. During cross examination of PW1, he categorically admitted that he did not lend any amount to the defendant on 03.06.2019 and that the defendant re-executed suit promissory notes for the promissory notes relating to the year 2016. This part of admissions of PW1 clearly goes to show that the contention of the plaintiff in the plaint as well as his chief-affidavit that on 03.06.2019, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.13,47,000/- from the plaintiff and 6 executed two promissory notes for Rs.6,57,000/- and Rs.6,90,000/- respectively is nothing but untrue.

13.According to the plaintiff, PWs.2 and 3 are the attestors of suit promissory notes. The evidence affidavits of PWs.2 and 3 are cleverly drafted, stating that the defendant executed two promissory notes towards the debt due to him at Guntur. Admittedly, the suit promissory notes do not contain any recital that the same are being re-executed in connection with a previous promissory note debt.

14.A Promissory note is a negotiable instrument and presumption under Sec-118 of N.I.Act would be in favour of plaintiff, subject to discharging of his initial burden with regard to execution of promissory note, however, the said presumption is rebuttable. The initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the suit promissory notes by the defendant, upon which a presumption of consideration arises, shifting the onus to the defendant to disprove passing of consideration.

15.According to the plaint, the defendant borrowed amounts from the plaintiff on 03.06.2019 and executed suit promissory notes. As per the version of PW1, no consideration has been passed under suit promissory notes on 03.06.2019, but the defendant re-executed suit promissory notes for the promissory notes relating to the year 2016. As per the version of PWs.2 and 3, the defendant executed suit promissory notes towards the debt due to him at

Guntur. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that there is no pleading in the plaint that the defendant re-executed suit promissory notes for previous debts and the law is well settled that without pleadings, no amount of evidence can be looked into. He relied on a case law reported in 2002(3) ALT 785 (AP),

between Chereddy Subbamma and another Vs. Chereddy Nuchamma

and another, wherein it was held in para-15 that “ no evidence can be looked into without a foundation in the pleading”. He relied on another case law reported in 2025 SAR (Civ) 1041 between Deep Nursing Home and another 7

Vs. Manmeet Singh Mattewal and others, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para-29 that “ it is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found.” It is well settled law that without pleadings, no amount of evidence can be looked into.

16. In this case, the admissions of PW1 clearly demonstrate that he did not lend any amount to the defendant on 03.06.2019 and that the suit promissory notes were re-executed for promissory notes relating to the year 2016, which is quite contrary to the pleadings in the plaint and the contents of the chief-affidavit of PW1. There might be some money transactions between the defendant and the plaintiff and his family members and the defendant might have executed promissory notes relating to some other transactions, but it is for the plaintiff to approach the court with clean hands and mention all the material facts in his plaint, but he cannot approach the court with unclean hands by misrepresenting the facts. The law is well settled that the parties shall approach the court with clean hands, but not with ‘unclean hands’ and shall not misrepresent the facts. There are catena of decisions on this aspect.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs State of U.P. & Ors on 18

October, 2012, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 398, held that - Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with ‘unclean hands’. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief. It was further held that, ‘the obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.’

17.In view of the evidence available on hand, it is clear that the plaintiff did not lend any amount to the defendant on 03.06.2019. Hence, it can be concluded that the suit promissory notes are not true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

8

18. ISSUE No.2:

In view of the findings in the issue No.1 and above cited judgments, the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit claim. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

19. ISSUE No.3:

In view of the above findings, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed with costs.

D D ictated to ictated to Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this, the 27 th and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this, the 27 th day of April, 2026. day of April, 2026.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(SENIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR. (SENIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:

PW1-Bonthu Nagi Reddy.PW1-Bonthu Nagi Reddy.

PW2-Vanga Seshi Reddy.PW2-Vanga Seshi Reddy.

PW3-Rangisetty Nagesh.PW3-Rangisetty Nagesh.

For Defendant:

DW1-Kommareddy Bhaktavatchala Reddy.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1-’A’ marked promissory note dt.03.06.2019. Ex.A2-’B’ marked promissory note dt.03.06.2019. Ex.A3-Certified copy of Development Agreement cum Irrevocable GPA document dt.29.11.2017.

For Defendant:-Nil--Nil-

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar, Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

IV A.C.J (SD). IV A.C.J (SD).

1

APGU010002022025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Present: Sri T.Venkata Rajesh Kumar,

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.29/2025

Between:

Naresh Babu Doppalapudi S/o.Doppalapudi Uma Maheswara Rao, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Beside Ramalayam, Thikkarajupalem village, Gollapudi Grama Panchayati, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District.

... Petitioner.

-And-

Avanthi Jampani W/o.Naresh Babu Doppalapudi, D/o.Sambaiah, aged about 38 years, Hindu, R/o.2-45, BC Colony, Palaparru village, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

... Respondent.

This petition came up before me on 27.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sarvasri M.Syamala and K.Konda Reddy, Ld.Counsels for the Petitioner and the Respondent remained exparte, and upon perusing the material on record, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

The present petition is filed under Sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, praying the court to grant decree of divorce, by dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 11.06.2015.

02. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent 2 solemnized on 11.06.2015 as per Hindu rites and custom at Sri Malleswara

Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Pedakakani, Guntur District and at the time of marriage, parents of the petitioner presented a gold chain weighing 3 tulas to the respondent and incurred all the marriage expenses and no dowry was demanded or given by either party as their marriage is a love marriage. The marriage was consummated and out of wedlock, they were blessed with a female child. The respondent often subjected the petitioner to physical abuse by beating him without any cause and also subjected him to mental cruelty by using abusive and derogatory language and the respondent is continuously harassing the petitioner and failed to show any respect towards the petitioner's parents. The respondent openly declared that she is unwilling to reside in the matrimonial home along with the petitioner's parents and insisted the petitioner to live separately. The respondent frequently criticized the petitioner by stating that she is a highly educated woman, having completed her MCA, while the petitioner is merely a 10th standard pass, which amounts to mental cruelty and the petitioner requested the respondent to mend her ways, but she did not heed his words. On 05.01.2018, the respondent picked up quarrel with the petitioner without any cause and voluntarily left the matrimonial home along with their daughter. The respondent deserted him without any reasonable cause and has willfully withdrawn his company since 05.01.2018 and the petitioner even contacted the respondent's father to ascertain her whereabouts, who stated that he had no knowledge of her location and on that, the petitioner lodged complaint at Parchur Police Station in March, 2018 and during inquiry by the police, the respondent categorically stated that she had no intention of rejoining the petitioner and also refused to hand over the custody of the minor child to him and her conduct not only amounts to mental cruelty, but also constitutes willful desertion. The petitioner's father died on 04.05.2019, but respondent has not attended funerals of his father. The efforts made by the petitioner for their reunion through mediators ie., Gummadi

Sambasivarao, Nimamgadda Sureshbabu, Doppalapudi Subbarao and 3

Doppalapudi Muralikrishna proved futile. Hence, this petition is filed.

03.Though notice was issued to the respondent, she did not choose to appear before the court and therefore, she was set exparte.

04.To prove his case, the petitioner was examined himself as PW1 and exhibited P1 to P3 documents.

05.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused record.

06.Now, the point that arises for determination is :

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce

under Sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as prayed for?”

07. POINT: To prove his case, the petitioner filed his chief affidavit, by reiterating the averments of his petition and exhibited P1 to P3 documents ie.,

Ex.P1-wedding card of petitioner and respondent, Ex.P2-copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner and Ex.P3-marriage photograph with CD. The testimony of

PW1 coupled with Exs.P1 and P3 goes to show that his marriage with the respondent took place on 11.06.2015 at Sri Malleswara Swamy vari

Devasthanam, Pedakakani, Guntur District as per Hindu rites and custom and their marriage was consummated and out of wedlock, they were blessed with a female child. According to the petitioner/PW1, the respondent subjected the petitioner to physical abuse by beating him without any cause and also subjected him to mental cruelty by using abusive and derogatory language and the respondent continuously harassed the petitioner and failed to show any respect towards the petitioner's parents and also openly declared that she is unwilling to reside in the matrimonial home along with the petitioner's parents and insisted the petitioner to live separately and also frequently criticized the petitioner by stating that she is a highly educated woman, while the petitioner is merely a 10th standard pass and on 05.01.2018, the respondent picked up quarrel with the petitioner without any cause and voluntarily left the matrimonial home along with their daughter and did not return back and she 4 even did not attend funerals of his deceased father and all the efforts made by him for their reunion proved futile. From the evidence of PW1, it can be inferred that the respondent harassed the petitioner both physically and mentally and deserted him without any cause, left her matrimonial home on 05.01.2018 and did not return back.

08.The petitioner with his evidence has proved his pleadings and there is no rebuttal evidence to the evidence adduced by him, as the respondent, for the reasons best known to her, did not choose to contest the case and remained exparte. The testimony of PW1 remains unchallenged and as such, the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce, as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

09. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed, by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 11.06.2015 under Sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and a decree of divorce is granted thereto. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner :

PW1-Doppalapudi Naresh Babu.

For Respondent : -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner :

Ex.P1-Wedding card of petitioner and respondent. Ex.P2-Copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner. Ex.P3-Marriage photograph with CD.

For Respondent : -Nil-

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

IV ACJ (SD).

5

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR

Present: Sri T.Venkata Rajesh Kumar,

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.29/2025

Between:

Naresh Babu Doppalapudi S/o.Doppalapudi Uma Maheswara Rao, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Beside Ramalayam, Thikkarajupalem village, Gollapudi Grama Panchayati, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District.

... Petitioner.

-And-

Avanthi Jampani W/o.Naresh Babu Doppalapudi, D/o.Sambaiah, aged about 38 years, Hindu, R/o.2-45, BC Colony, Palaparru village, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

... Respondent.

The present petition is filed under Sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying the court to grant decree of divorce, by dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 11.06.2015, on which, a fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Article 1, Schedule (ii) of APCF and SV Act, 1956.

This petition came up before me on 27.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sarvasri M.Syamala and K.Konda Reddy, Ld.Counsels for the Petitioner and the Respondent remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and decree as follows:

(i) That the petition be and hereby is allowed, by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 11.06.2015 under Sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and a decree of divorce be and hereby is granted thereto.

(ii) That both parties do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

Memo of Costs

-Nil-

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

IV ACJ (SD).

1

APGU010009432014

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION), GUNTUR

Present: Sri T.Venkata Rajesh Kumar,

IV Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

Monday, the 27 th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.750/2014

BETWEEN :

Challa China Saidulu S/o.Yallamandaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, R/o.Door No.18-42-83, Vadderajula Gudem 3rd lane, Sangadigunta, Guntur.

…Plaintiff AND

Mahankali Venkateswarlu S/o.Appalah, Hindu, aged about 56 years, R/o.Door No.18-42-67, 3rd lane, Vadderajulagudem, Sangadigunta, Guntur.

…Defendant.

This suit came up before me on 21.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Kantharao, Ld.Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

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

The suit is filed for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.3,99,156/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit till realization and for costs.

02. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are that :

On 02.03.2012, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed promissory note in favour of 2 the plaintiff at Guntur, agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.

Subsequently, despite repeated requests, the defendant failed to discharge the debt and on the other hand, he is making hectic efforts to sell away his immovable property so as to escape from his liability. Hence, this suit is filed.

03. The defendant filed his written statement, resisting the averments of plaint. The averments of written statement, in brief, are that: The defendant's younger son by name Mahankali Dhanunjaya Rao was given in marriage to the daughter of plaintiff and subsequently, some disputes arose between the couple and the daughter of the plaintiff gave a false complaint to

SHO, Lalapet P.S against the son of the defendant and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.282/2012 under Sec.498-A of IPC and the said case was ended in acquittal by the IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur on 12.08.2013 and later, the caste elders of both sides tried to settle the matter, but proved futile and thereafter, the elders of both sides advised the couple to take divorce and at that juncture, they settled the matter that the son of the defendant has to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh towards full and final settlement to his wife and at that time, defendant requested some time to pay the amount and then, the plaintiff obtained signatures on empty promissory note, non judicial stamps and original B-Form patta relating to the property of the defendant from the defendant towards security purpose and stated that the plaintiff will return the same after payment of the said amount of Rs.1 lakh and later, the defendant and his son paid Rs.1 lakh to the plaintiff and his daughter and asked the plaintiff to return the above said documents, for which, the plaintiff stated that after completion of criminal case, he will handover entire documents. After the criminal case was ended in acquittal, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to hand over the blank pronote and stamp papers, but plaintiff gave evasive replies and demanded another sum of

Rs.1 lakh and defendant refused to pay the same and on that, plaintiff filed this false suit by using the aforesaid documents with a malafide intention to 3 grab the property of the defendant and the defendant never borrowed any amounts muchless the alleged amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The petition schedule property is a patta land and as such, the said property cannot be attached and it is not transferable and cannot be alienated. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

04. Based on the pleadings of both parties, this Court settled theBased on the pleadings of both parties, this Court settled the following Issues for trial:following Issues for trial:

1. Whether the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- on 20.03.2012 from the plaintiff and executed the suit

promissory note?

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

3. To what relief?

05.While the suit was at the stage of trial, it was dismissed for default on 27.04.2016 and later, as per orders in IA.No.47/2023, dt.28.11.2025, the suit was restored to file. Notice issued to the defendant, but the defendant was called absent and hence, he was set exparte. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and exhibited A1 document i.e., original promissory note dt.02.03.2012 for Rs.2,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff also examined one of the attestors of Ex.A1 as PW2.

06.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the Plaintiff.

07. ISSUE Nos.1 and 2: The plaintiff filed his chief-affidavit as PW1.

The evidence of PW1 discloses that the defendant borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- on 02.03.2012 from him and executed Ex.A1/suit promissory note, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, but later, he did not choose to discharge the pronote debt, despite repeated requests. The evidence of PW2, who is one of the attestors of Ex.A1 suit promissory note, 4 well supported the case of the plaintiff with regard to Ex.A1/ Promissory note transaction.

08.The plaintiff exhibited original Promissory Note/Ex.A1, said to be executed by the defendant in his favour to show that the same is a genuine document. With the oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiff established that the defendant borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from him under Ex.A1 promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and inspite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the principal and interest. Further, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is unchallenged by the defendant, as he remained exparte. Though the defendant initially filed his written statement raising several pleas, but later, he did not choose to appear

before the court and did not cross examine PWs.1 and 2 and did not adduce

any evidence on his behalf and remained exparte. Hence, the plaintiff proved his case that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 20.03.2012 from him and executed the suit promissory note and as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount, as prayed for. Accordingly, the issues are answered.

09. ISSUE No.3: In view of the findings in above issues, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree, as prayed for.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs, for a sum of

Rs.3,99,156/- (Rupees Three lakhs, ninety nine thousand, one hundred and fifty six only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees

Two lakhs and fifty thousand only) due under suit promissory note.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar, Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(SENIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR. (SENIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

5

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Plaintiff:

PW1-Challa China Saidulu.PW1-Challa China Saidulu.

PW2-Marella Srinu.PW2-Marella Srinu.

For Defendant: .. None ..

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1-Original promissory note dt.02.03.2012 for Rs.2,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

For Defendant: ..Nil ..

Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar, Sd/- T.V.Rajesh Kumar,

IV A.C.J (SD). IV A.C.J (SD).