T.v.s.s. Prakash

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TENALI

Present :: Sri T.V.S.S. Prakash. I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali.

Monday this the 15th day of June, 2020.

CALENDAR CASE No.338 of 2018

Between :

State :: Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Tenali. … Complainant

And

1.Perumala Salmanraju S/o Venkateswarlu, 28 years Mala, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District.

2.Penumala Vijayakumari W/o Venkateswarlu, 40 years, Mala, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District.

3.Thumati Parwathi W/o Suri, 47 years, Mala, Railway Quarters, Tenali, Guntur District. ….Accused

This case is coming up before me today for disposal in the presence of Learned Senior Asst. Public Prosecutor for Complainant and of

Sri Ch.Michale, Advocate for the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the matter having heard on 03.06.2020 and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town P.S., Tenali filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of

Dowry and Prohibition Act.

02.The case of prosecution is as follows :-

Thecontentionoftheprosecutionisthat

Lw.1/Smt.Nemalikanti Anusha / defacto-complainant / victim came to police station on 14.05.2018 and lodged report stating that on 2 05.02.2018 the parents of the defacto-complainant / victim i.e. Lw.2 Sri

Nemalikanti Koteswara Rao and Lw.3/Smt.Nemalikanti Koteswaramma performed her marriage with A1. At the time of marriage on the demand of A1 to A3, parents of the defacto-complainant / victim presented two sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.3 lakhs of cash towards pasupu- kumkuma to the defacto-complainant / victim and the same has been handed over to A1. After marriage the defacto-complainant / victim joined the marital house. The accused No.1 spent away all the money i.e.

Rs.3 lakhs given by the parents of the defacto-complainant / victim for his bad vices. Then, A1 started harassing the defacto-complainant / victim both mentally and physically to bring additional dowry and A2 who is the mother of A1 and A3 who is the paternal aunt of A1 used to support A1 in harassing defacto-complainant / victim. In the event the parents of the defacto-complainant / victim unable to pay additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh, the accused demanded to give share in the site pertaining to the father of the defacto-complainant / victim. It is further contended by the prosecution the accused used to abuse the defacto-complainant / victim and she is unable to bear torture made by the accused and in unavoidable circumstances, the defacto-complainant / victim is constrained to lodge report before the police to take ncessary action.

03.Basing on the aforesaid report Lw.6/H.C.1999 registered the case vide Crime No.298 of 2018 U/s.498-A of IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P. Act and investigated the matter to the maximum extent and thereafter he has handed over the C.D. file to Lw.7/S.I. of Police and he inturn he verified the investigation done by his subordinate and found it on correct lines and after completion of his investigation, as his investigation reveals that the 3 accused committed this offence and he filed charge sheet against them

U/s.498-A of IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

04.This court has taken cognizance of this offence against A1 to

A3 under section 498-A of IPC and issued summons to the accused and after their appearance they were furnished with copies U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

and they were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. and charge was framed

U/s.240 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and the allegations made by the prosecution has been read over and explained to the accused in telugu language and they denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

05.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 on its behalf. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence of prosecution against the accused have been read over and explained to them in Telugu language and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

06.Arguments heard.

07.Now, the point for consideration is :-

Whether the accused Nos.1 to 3 harassed the defacto- complainant / victim both mentally and physically demanding for additional dowry as contended by the prosecution and whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

08.P O I N T :- The case of the prosecution is that Lw.1/

Smt.Nemalikanti Anusha / defacto-complainant / victim who was examined as P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 report before Lw.6 H.C.1999 who was examined as P.W.4 stating that on 05.02.2018 the parents of P.W.1 i.e.

Lw.2 Sri Nemalikanti Koteswara Rao, who was examined as P.W.2 and 4

Lw.3 Smt. Nemalikanti Koteswaramma performed the marriage of P.W.1 with A1. At the time of marriage on the demand of A1 to A3 who are the husband, the mother-in-law and the relative of A1 & A2 respectively of the defacto-complainant / victim presented Rs.3 lakhs cash and two sovereigns of gold ornaments to P.W.1 as pasupu-kumkuma and the same has been handed over to A1. After marriage P.W.1 joined the company of

A1 and lived happily for few days in the in-laws house at Tenali and A1 has spent away cash of Rs.3 lakhs for his bad vices which is presented by the parents of P.W.1. Thereafter, the accused No.1 started harassing

P.W.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh from the parents of P.W.1 and

A2 & A3 used to support A1 in harassing P.W.1. Inspite of adjustment of

P.W.1 to lead happy marital life with A1, she has bare all the torture with a fond of hope that one day or other the accused may change their attitude and in spite of her tolerance, the accused has not mend their attitude and they necked out P.W.1 from the matrimonial house and in unavoidable circumstances, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 report before the police to take necessary action against the accused.

09.The above said contention of the prosecution categorically deposed by P.W.1 in her examination in chief and through her Ex.P1 report is marked. The learned counsel for the accused has cross- examined P.W.1 and it is the defence of the accused that they never harassed P.W.1 either mentally or physically demanding for additional dowry at any point of time and P.W.1 has filed this false case against them who are innocent and the said suggestion has been denied by P.W.1. A glance of the evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that she is working by time of marriage as a Probationary Officer in a Co-Operative Bank at Tenali and 5 she is in probationary period during that time and even the accused asked her to stop to going to job, she has not heeded their words as leave can not be granted during probationary period. In such circumstances, the accused developed grouse against P.W.1 and they started harassing by stating that if A1 is married to any other lady he would have get Rs.5 lakhs as dowry and A1 has agreed to marry P.W.1 by giving Rs.3 lakhs only and by marrying P.W.1 the accuse has lost Rs.2 lakhs. It is also contended by P.W.1 that whenever A1 used to rise galata with P.W.1 in demanding of additional dowry he used to sleep in another room with his mother instead of sleeping with P.W.1 and the accused day-in-day-out are harassing P.W.1 for one reason or the other demanding for additional dowry. As can be seen from the case of the prosecution that A3 has settled the marriage between P.W.1 and A1 and she with a good motive has settled the said marriage and thereafter she has not participated in any of the matrimonial affairs of P.W.1 and A1 as she is residing elsewhere. Actually, there is no case made out against A3 who is the paternal aunt of A1 and she has not harassed P.W.1 at any point of time after marriage. The king pin for this case is A1 who has agreed to marry

P.W.1 and after few-days of marriage, A1 developed grouse against P.W.1 and started harassing her. The mother of A1 who is A2 herein eventhough living in the same house she might have tried her best to pacify the disturbances in between P.W.1 and A1 and inspite of her efforts the differences between P.W.1 and A1 could not be settled. As can be seen from the very allegations of the prosecution coupled with the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that A1 is harassing P.W.1 both mentally and physically demanding for additional dowry. Immediately after lodging of

Ex.P1 report, the police referred the matter to Family Counseling Center 6 at Tenali and five adjournments were given by said Center and tried their best to patch up the differences between P.W.1 and accused and no fruitful result has been evolved and in the said circumstances, they have returned back the report vide Ex.P1 to the police concerned in order to register the case and investigate into the matter. It is also deposed by

P.W.1 that after filing at charge sheet before this court, while the matter is pending the elders of the accused has came forward to take back P.W.1 to the conjugal fold of A1 and the parents of P.W.1 along with P.W.1 has agreed for the same and taken P.W.1 to the matrimonial house and left

P.W.1 with A1. At that time already P.W.1 filed maintenance case against

A1 and the said maintenance case has came up for first hearing at time of joining P.W.1 with A1 during the pendency of this case and in the the said circumstances, as Pw.1 & A1 having together, the said maintenance case has been not pressed, believing that A1 will look after P.W.1 with love and affection. After few-days of staying happily with A1, again A1 started harassing P.W.1 demanding for additional dowry and in the said circumstances, eventhough this case has been referred to Lok Adalat and the said Lok Adalat has adjourned the matter for three months as observation period and in the meantime A1 has not looked after P.W.1 properly in the matrimonial house and therefore, P.W.1 is prosecuting this case. Eventhough the first maintenance case has been not pressed by

P.W.1, she has filed another maintenance case against A1 as P.W.1 has stopped going for her job and she has no means to maintain herself and she is living at the mercy of her parents. The above said series of events clearly shows that A1 in order to see that P.W.1 should not press the cases which are filed against him and the other accused is pretending

before P.W.1 and her elders, that he repented for the acts done by him in

7 the past and he will look after P.W.1 with love and affection and eventhough P.W.1 is taken to the company of A1, her desire to live with

A1 could not be fruitful as the attitude of A1 has not been changed in harassing P.W.1 in one way or the other demanding for additional dowry.

10.The other witness who was examined on behalf of the prosecution is P.W.2 who is none other than the father of P.W.1 and he is working as a Government Pharmacist. P.W.2 blessed with three daughters and one son and P.W.1 is the last daughter of P.W.2. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.2 he has reiterated all the events that took place in the life of P.W.1 regarding her marriage and the subsequent events after the marriage. There is no documentary proof to show that P.W.2 has given

Rs.3 lakhs as pasupu-kumkuma to P.W.1 and gold ornaments to P.W.1 and

A1 at the time of their marriage. It is a common phenomena that there will not be any documentary proof to show that the parents of bride has presented gold ornaments and cash at the time of marriage to their son- in-law anticipating that their life will lead to complications. As usual P.W.2 might have presented the amount as stated by the prosecution and presented gold ornaments to his daughter as well as to his son-in-law i.e.

P.W.1 and A1 respectively. In any view of the matter the post marriage life between P.W.1 and A1 has been completely disturbed due to the adamant attitude of A1 and the thirst of demanding additional dowry by

A1 has been increased day-by-day. No father of a girl will see that his son-in-law should be punished unless and until the attitude of his son-in- law towards his daughter is so harassing and in the present case on hand the evidence of P.W.2 also clearly shows the pain that he is suffering due to harassment by A1 against P.W.1 and unable to meet the demand of A1 8 to pay additional dowry and in unavoidable circumstances, they resorted to file this case.

11.The prosecution has examined one of the neighbours of P.W.2 house and she has deposed before this court that she came to know about the harassment made by A1 against P.W.1 through the parents of

P.W.1 and as she being the neighbor she could know those acts and she came before this court and deposed accordingly. P.W.3 has also attended the marriage in between P.W.1 and A1 and the said marriage has been performed in Chavas Grand Kalyana Mandapam, Tenali. It reveals from the evidence of P.W.1 inspite of the harassment made by A1 against

P.W.1, the parents of P.W.1 used to console P.W.1 to adjust herself with A1 as the things will set-right in the course of time. The above said piece of evidence clearly shows either P.W.1 or her parents are not interested to punish the accused, but at the same time they wanted to see that P.W.1 and A1 should lead a happy marital life. Eventhough, the evidence of

P.W.3 is a hearsay evidence, it clearly shows that the disturbances between P.W.1 and A1 has reached heights and in unavoidable circumstances only P.W.1 resorted to lodge Ex.P1 report before police.

12.The first Investigating Officer who registered the case after receiving Ex.P1 report from P.W.1 and issued Ex.P2 FIR. During the course of investigation P.W.4 has prepared the rough sketch of the scene vide

Ex.P3 which is the house of A1. No doubt the major portion of the investigation has been done by P.W.4 only and he has handed over the

C.D. file to Lw.7/S.I. of Police and he in turn verified the investigation done by P.W.4 and filed charge sheet. The entire investigation has been 9 done by P.W.4 only and the charge sheet alone has been filed by Lw.7/S.I.

of Police who is not examined before this court. The evidence of P.W.4 discloses that he can identify the signatures of Lw.7/S.I. of Police as he worked under him and accordingly he has identified the same and the part of the investigation done by Lw.7/Sub-Inspector of Police also deposed by P.W.4 who is the first investigating Officer. There are no contradictions or omissions elicited by the learned defence counsel. As can be seen from the investigation done by the Investigating Officers they have arrayed a third party i.e. Ex.A3 who is no way connected to the matrimonial affairs between P.W.1 and A1 and she participated only at the time of marriage talks in between them. The mother of A1 who is A2 herein is also innocent and she has not harassed P.W.1 either mentally or physically as per the evidence placed before this court by the prosecution and the allegations of the prosecution that A2 & A3 used to support A1 in harassing P.W.1 is not believable. The main culprit in this crime is A1 only and his intention is to squeeze as much amount as he can from his in- laws by harassing by P.W.1, which acts should be condemned. The prosecution could establish the guilt of A1 regarding the offence charged against him U/s.498-A of IPC and this court is of considered view that there is no case made out against A2 & A3 for the offence U/s.498-A of

IPC.

13.Taking into consideration the over all circumstances of the case, the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 for the offence charged against him beyond reasonable doubt and it is clear from the evidence of

Pws.1 to 3 that A1 harassed P.W.1 both mentally and physically demanding for additional dowry and inspite of greatest adjustment of 10

P.W.1 to live with A1, the accused No.1 could not shower love and affection towards P.W.1 and many mediations has taken place in between them prior to filing of this case and subsequent to the filing of this case and all those mediations remained futile. As already stated above, case against A2 & A3 for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC has not been proved and therefore they are entitled for acquittal.

14.In the light of the above discussion, I answered this point in favour of the prosecution pertaining to A1 and against the prosecution pertaining to A2 & A3.

15.In the result, A2 & A3 are found not guilty and they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of IPC for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC. The bail bonds of A2 & A3 shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

A1 is found guilty and he is convicted U/s.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 15 th day of June, 2020.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali.

16.When questioned about the quantum of sentence, the accused No.1 pleaded for mercy. He further stated that he is only son of his mother and he has to look after her at this old age. This is not a case where P.O. Act can be applied and no lenient view can be taken.

11

Hence, the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and also to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH for the offence under section 498-A of I.P.C.

The period of remand if any by A1 shall be entitled for set-off

U/s.428 Cr.P.C.

The accused No.1 informed that he got right of appeal against the judgment passed by this Court and the Calendar and Judgment is made ready in order to receive the same by the accused No.1.

18.The accused No.1 informed that he got right of appeal against the judgment passed by this court and the Calendar and Judgment is made ready in order to receive the same by the accused No.1.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 24 th day of June, 2020.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution :

P.W.1 :- Smt. Perumala Anusha

P.W.2 :- Sri Nemalikanti Koteswara Rao

P.W.3 :- Smt.Tirumala Nageswari

P.W.4 :- Sri Y.Srinivasa Rao, Head Constable, III Town Police Station,

Tenali.

12

For the Defence : - NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Prosecution :-

Ex.P1 :- Dt.14.05.2016: Report of P.W.1 given to Police.

Ex.P2 :- Dt.14.05.2018: First Information Report in Crime No.298 of 2018 of III Town Police Station, Tenali U/s.498-A I.P.C.

Ex.P3 :- –----: Rough Sketch of the Scene of offence

For the Defence :- - N I L -

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali.

13

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of cases tried by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class :: Tenali.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.338 of 2018

Nature of Offence :: U/s.498-A I.P.C.

Date of Judgment :: 24.06.2020.

OffenceReport ofCommen ApprehensioDate ofReleaseClosureSentence or on orcomplainace-ment n of accusedremandon bailof trialorder prior tontof trial Prior toSec.41-A of 14.05.18-13.11.1927.02.2024.06.2020 14.05.18Cr.P.C. Explanation for the delay :: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses in time.

Complainant :: State :: Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Tenali.

Name ofFather's Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal accused name

1.Perumala Salmanraju S/o Venkateswarlu,28 years Mala, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District.

2.Penumala Vijayakumari W/o Venkateswarlu, 40 years, Mala, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District.

3.Thumati Parwathi W/o Suri, 47 years, Mala, Railway Quarters, Tenali, Guntur District FINDING :- GUILTY. SENTENCE :- A2 & A3 are found not guilty and they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of IPC for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC. The bail bonds of A2 & A3 shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. A1 is found guilty and he is convicted U/s.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC. Hence, the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. The total fine amount is Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only).

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali Copy submitted to :-

1.The Hon’ble Chairman, D.L.S.A – cum – Principal

District Judge, Guntur.

2.The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. NOTE :- The total fine amount is paid by the accused No.1.

14

As per the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.599 of 2020, dated 24.06.2020 filed under section 389 (3) Cr.P.C., the sentence of accused No.1 is suspended temporarily till 08.07.2020.

// True Copy //

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Tenali.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

TENALI

Present :: Sri T.V.S.S. Prakash I Additional Junior Civil Judge :: Tenali.

Tuesday, this the 23rd day of June, 2020

O.S.No.16 of 2017

Between :

Avula China Venkateswarlu, Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder - Ghantasala Brahmeswara Rao S/o Yangaiah, Hindu, Retd. Employee, Aged about 55 years, R/o Raghavendra Colony, Kudbullapur, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, being rep. By his Power of Attorney Holder Ghantasala Brahmeswara Rao S/o Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 70 years, Hindu, R/o 2-9, Opp: Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Emani Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District.…Plaintiff

And

1.Gandikota Nagulu S/o.mba Siva Rao, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cloth Merchant, R/o D.No.17-7-21, Madineni Vari Street, Islampet, Tenali of Guntur District.

2.Thalathoti Sai Lavanya W/o Thalathoti Sudhakar, D/o Kota Siva Prasad, 24 years, Hindu, MBA Graduate, Presently R/o D.No.17-7-21, Madinenivari Street, Islampet, Tenali of Guntur District … defendants

This suit is coming up before me today for disposal in the presence of Sri Singala Ram Mohana Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and

Sri.P.Ravindra Babu, Advocate for defendant No.5 and the defendant

Nos.1 to 4 are having remained exparte and the matter having heard on 18.02.2020 and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

2

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff through his General Power of

Attorney holder against the defendants Nos.1 to 5 under section 26 C.P.C.

for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule which is an extent of 50 cents of wet-land situated in Emani village, Duggirala Mandal of Gutur District.

02.After issuance of the summons, the defendants Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.5 made their appearance through their counsell and inspite of giving ample opportunity for defendant Nos.1 to 4 to file written statement, they filed to file written statement and they were set-exparte as there is no representation even on their behalf. The defendant No.5 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the suit is not maintainable either under law or on facts and it has to be dismissed.

03.Basing on the aforesaid pleadings of the respective parties to the suit, this Court has framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the defendant No.5 is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit as contended by him?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed ?

3. To what relief ?

04.To substantiate the contentions of the respective parties to the suit, during the course of trial, the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff was examined as Pw.1 and through him Exs.A1 to A15 are 3 marked. Inspite of ample opportunity given to the contested defendant i.e. D5, he failed to cross-examine Pw.1 and in the said circumstances, the cross-examination of Pw.1 by D5 treated as Nil and the posted the matter for D5 evidence. Eventhough, D5 is given opportunity to adduce evidence on his behalf, he failed to adduce any evidence in the said circumstances, D5 evidence has been closed.

05.Arguments heard.

06.As the issue Nos.1 & 2 are interrelated to each other they are answering together.

07.ISSUE Nos.1 & 2 :-Perused the plaint, written statement of the 5th defendant, evidence of Pw.1 coupled with the documents marked him vide Exs.A1 to A15 and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff i.e. absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he is not in possession and enjoyment of the same since he purchased the same through a registered sale deed vide Ex.A5. As the plaintiff is residing at Ranga Reddy District,

Telangana State, he appointed his father-in-law to represent this suit on his behalf by executing General Power of Attorney vide Ex.A6. Defendant

Nos.1 & 2 are the husband and wife and the defendant Nos.3 & 4 are the father and mother of the first defendant and parents-in-law to the second defendant and the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are the predecessors in title of the plaint schedule property long back. The 5th defendant is the henchmen of the defendant Nos.1 & 3. Originally, the plaint schedule property belongs to the first defendant and one Smt. Gandikota Subbayamma, where both of them purchased the plaint schedule property from Smt.Ancha Radha

Kumari under a registered sale deed vide document No.1102 of 2000, 4 dt.08.06.2000 of SRO, Duggirala. Later the said Smt. Gandikota Nagulu who is the paternal elder brother and Smt. Gandikota Subbayamma gifted the plaint schedule property to the first defendant and his wife i.e. second defendant through registered gift deed vide Ex.A1 and since then the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

08.The plaintiff submits the defendant Nos.1 & 2 sold the plaint schedule property to one Sri Vemula China Venkateswarlu under a registered sale deed vide Ex.A2 and the said Sri China Venkateswarlu was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later said Sri China

Venkateswarlu sold the plaint schedule property to Sri Vempati

Brahmananda Reddy ad Sri Kommareddy Gurava Reddy under registered sale deed vide Ex.A3 and both of them were in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and paid cist to the revenue authorities in their name vide Ex.A7. Later, said Sri Vempati Brahmananda Reddy ad Sri

Kommareddy Gurava Reddy sold the plaint schedule property to one Sri

Ghantasala Bhrahmeswara Rao through a registered sale agreement-cum-

General Power of Attorney vide Ex.A4 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Vendors of Sri Ghantasala

Bhrahmeswara Rao i.e. Sri Vempati Brahmananda Reddy ad Sri

Kommareddy Gurava Reddy were issued pattadar and title deed pass- books vide Ex.A11 to A14 regarding the plaint schedule property pertaining to their respective shares in the same. Later, the said Sri

Ghantasala Bhrahmeswara Rao sold the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff herein under a registered sale deed vide Ex.A5 and since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

The plaintiff has also applied for pattadar and title deed pass-books to 5 revenue authorities and they are yet to be received. At that juncture, the plaintiff received legal notice vide Ex.A8 from 5th defendant herein with false claim and the plaintiff issued reply legal notice for the same vide

Ex.A9 and the same has been received by the counsel for the 5th defendant which is evident from Ex.A10 postal acknowledgement.

09.The plaintiff contends that on 17.01.2017 all the defendants entered the plaint schedule property, when the plaintiff is doing agricultural works in the suit schedule i.e. forming of pond for growing fishes / aqua culture and at that time the defendants threatened the plaintiff by stating that the plaint schedule property belongs to them and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences, if he proceed with the agricultural works and further gave an ultimatum to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property forcibly. The plaintiff raised hue and cry and the elders of neighbouring fields came to the plaint schedule property and intervened and advised the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiff as the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff, upon such intervention the defendants along with their men went away, proclaiming and threatening the plaintiff that they would come again and dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is anticipating eminent danger from the defendants and their men and in the said circumstances, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. The plaintiff has also filed two cist receipts pertaining to the plaint schedule property which are in his name issued by Village Revenue Officer, Duggirala Mandal vide

Ex.A15 to show his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

6

10.The above said contentions of the plaintiff has been categorically deposed by his General Power of Attorney as Pw.1 and through him Exs.A1 to A15 are marked. Inspite of giving ample opportunity to cross-examine Pw.1, the contested defendant i.e. D5 failed to cross-examine and in the said circumstances, the cross-examination of

Pw.1 is treated as Nil. The evidence of Pw.1 remained unchallenged as the defendant Nos.1 to 4 remained exparte and the 5th defendant even though contested the matter has not ventured to cross-examine Pw.1.

11.The contested defendant i.e. D5 has filed elaborate written statement stating that he purchased the plaint schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the defendant Nos.1 & 2 under an agreement of sale on 04.01.2012 and paid an advance amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- and the remaining balance of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid with 90 days from the date of aforesaid agreement of sale, or else the 5th defendant is liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum on the remaining balance. Eventhough, the 5th defendant is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 has not come forward. On 30.04.2013 the defendant Nos.1 & 2 borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/- from Sri G.Srinivasa Rao by depositing the original title deeds with him and further the defendant Nos.1 & 2 stated that they have to discharge the said debt with the amount of balance of sale consideration and promised the defendant Nos.1 & 2 that the 5th defendant that they will register the sale deed in favour of the 5th defendant or his order on demand. Believing the words of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 the 5th defendant blindly paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant Nos.1 & 2 on 30.04.2013, hence, the 5th defendant total sale consideration of 7

Rs.2,00,000/- to his vendors i.e. D1 & D2. It is also submitted by 5th defendant that the defendant Nos.1 & 2 also made endorsement on the reverse of the sale agreement and delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the 5th defendant on said date. Since then, the 5th defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule by growing fishes in the fish tank situated in the suit schedule.

12.In order to prove the contention of the 5th defendant regarding purchase of the plaint schedule property in an agreement of sale and payment of sale consideration under the said agreement of sale there is no iota of evidence placed before this court except filing of written statement. The 5th defendant has also not cross-examined Pw.1 on the defence put-forth by him in his written statement and it can be clearly understood that the 5th defendant has contested the suit only to drag on the matter. Added to the above, the 5th defendant has also submitted that he has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale vide

O.S.No.68 of 2017 on the file of this court and the same is pending. In

order to show that the 5th defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property there is no concrete evidence placed before this court and therefore it is not believable that the contested defendant i.e. 5th defendant is in possession and enjoyment over the plaints schedule property by the date of filing of this suit.

13.Taking into consideration the over all pleadings and the evidence let-in by the plaintiff through his General Power of Attorney i.e.

Pw.1 coupled with the documents vide Exs.A1 to A15 clearly shows the flow of title right from the _____ is not till purchase of the plaint schedule 8 property by the plaintiff and it is also clear from Ex.A15 cist receipts that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The evidence of Pw.1 is cogent and convincing regarding possession and title of the plaint over the suit schedule property and unless and until, this court lunge its hands to protect the interest of bonafide purchaser over the plaint schedule property. The very purpose of filing the suit will be defeated this being a suit for simplicitor injunction, the paramount consideration for this court to grant the said relief as possession and incidental title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has complied ___________ cardinal requirements to grant the relief of permanent injunction and also project and proved

before this court that the defendant are trying to interfere with the

plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property in the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of considered view that the defendant with an intention to grab the plaint schedule property trying to litigate the matter. The 5th defendant who has contested this suit has submitted that he has filed suit O.S.No.68 of 2017 on the file of this court for specific performance of contract of sale and the finding in this suit does not have any bearing on the said suit and the contested defendant is at liberty to prosecute and prove said suit if he got title over the same, he can agitate his grievance in the said suit.

14.In the light of the above discussion, I answered these issues in favour of the plaintiff.

15.Issue No.3: In view of answering issue Nos.1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiff has entitled for decree.

9

16.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc. from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 23 rd day of June, 2020.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff :-

Pw.1 :- Sri Ghantasala Brahmeswara Rao

For defendant Nos.1 to 4 :- Exparte For defendant No.5 :-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 :- Dt.07.01.2017: Marriage Certificate of the Plaintiff with the second defendant issued by Pastor Sri M.Vijaya Kumar, New Shalem Church, Muttemsettivaripalem, Tenali.

Ex.A2 :- Dt.------: Are the three photographs of the Plaintiff with the second defendant regarding proof of marriage along with C.D.

Ex.A.3 :- Dt.02.07.2015 : Certified copy registered sale deed executedbySriVemulaChina Venkateswarlu in favour of Sri V. Brahmananda Reddy and another vide document No.1586 of 2015 of SRO, Duggirala.

Ex.A.4 :- Dt.13.07.2016 : Certified copy of the registered possessory agreement cum General power of attorney executed by V. Brahmandanda Reddy and another in favour of GhantasalaBrahmeswara Rao vide document No. 1917 of 2016 of SRO, Duggirala.

Ex.A.5 :- Dt.12.08.2016 : Is the certified copy of the registered sale deed executed by the General power of attorney of Sri V. Brahmananda Reddy and anotherby Sri Ghantasala Brahmeswara Rao in favour of Sri Avula China Venkateswarlu vide document No. 2275 of 2016 of SRO, Duggirala.

Ex.A.6 :- Dt.12.01.2017 Original registered general power of attorneyissuedbySriAvula Chinaventeswarlu in favour of Sri Gantasala Brahmenswararao 1 of 2017 of SRO, Duggirala.

Ex.A.7 :-Dt.24.05.2016 : Two cist receipts in the name of Sri 11

V.BrahmananadaReddyandSri Kommareddy Guravareddy issued by Mandal Office, Duggirala.

Ex.A.8:-Dt.01.11.2016 : Registered legal notice issued on behalf of Sri Nallamekala Siva Nageswara Rao to Sri Gandikota Nagula and 3 others.

Ex.A.9 :-Dt.05.12,2016 : Is the office copy of the registered legal notice issued on behalf of Sri Ghantasla Brahmeswara Rao and another for Ex.A.8 legal notice through their counsel along with postal receipt.

Ex.A.10 :-Dt.06.12.2016 : Postal acknowledgement evidencing the receipt of Ex.A.9 legal notice by their counsel.

Ex.A.11 :-Dt.13.04.2016 : Original title deed pass book in the name of Sri V. Brahmananda Reddy issued by Tahsildar , Duggirala Mandal.

Ex.A.12 :-25.03.2016 : Pattadar pass book in the name of Sri V. Brahmananda Reddy issued by Tahsildar, Duggirala Mandal.

Ex.A.13 :- Dt:-13.04.2016 :Original pattadar pass book issued in the name of Sri Brahmareddy Guravareddy by the Tahsildar, Duggirala.

Ex.A.14 :-Dt.25.03.2016 : Pattadar pass book issued in the name of Sri Brahmareddy Guravareddy by Tahsildar, Duggirala Mandal.

Ex.A.15 :- dt24.03.2017 : Two cist receipts issued in the name of plaintiff herein by VRO, Duggirala Mandal. And 30.04.2019

For defendants :- Nil

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

12

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

TENALI

Present :: Sri T.V.S.S. Prakash I Additional Junior Civil Judge :: Tenali.

Tuesday, this the 23rd day of June, 2020

O.S.No.16 of 2017

Between :

Avula China Venkateswarlu, Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder - Ghantasala Brahmeswara Rao S/o Yangaiah, Hindu, Retd. Employee, Aged about 55 years, R/o Raghavendra Colony, Kudbullapur, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, being rep. By his Power of Attorney Holder Ghantasala Brahmeswara Rao S/o Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 70 years, Hindu, R/o 2-9, Opp: Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Emani Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District.…Plaintiff

And

1.Gandikota Nagulu S/o.mba Siva Rao, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cloth Merchant, R/o D.No.17-7-21, Madineni Vari Street, Islampet, Tenali of Guntur District.

2.Thalathoti Sai Lavanya W/o Thalathoti Sudhakar, D/o Kota Siva Prasad, 24 years, Hindu, MBA Graduate, Presently R/o D.No.17-7-21, Madinenivari Street, Islampet, Tenali of Guntur District … defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintiff through his General Power of Attorney holder against the defendants Nos.1 to 5 under section 26 C.P.C. for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule which is an extent of 50 cents of wet-land situated in Emani village, Duggirala Mandal of Gutur District.

Pliant presented on: 19-01-2017. Plaint filed on: 19-01-2017.

CAUSE OF ACTION :- Cause of action for the suit arose when the plaint schedule property 13 purchased by the plaintiff from Ghantasala Brahmeswara Rao through a Regd. Sale Deed dt.12.08.2016, bearing Doc.No.2275/2016, SRO Duggirala and since then he is possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any obstruction and when the plaintiff received a notice on 01.11.2016 from the 5th defendant with all false allegations and on 05.12.2016 the plaintiff got issued a reply notice to the above notice with true and correct facts, and when the 5th defendant received the same, and on 17.01.2011 when the plaintiff is doing excavation work in his plaint schedule property for forming a pond, when the defendants and their men entered forcibly into the plaint schedule property and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences and tried to dispossess him from the plaint schedule property high handedly without any right, title or possession, and when the plaintiff raised cries and the elders of the neighbouring fields came and advised not to dispossess the plaintiff from his land, when the defendants and their men went away by proclamining that they at any cost will come back and dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property without having any right over the plaint schedule property and where the plaint schedule property is situated which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

VALUATION :- This being a suit for permanent Injunction the plaintiff values the relief of permanent Injunction at Rs.15,000- 00 On which, a court fee of Rs. 1,086/- is payable and paid herewith under Sec.26 (c) of APCFF and S.V.Act.

The value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.15,000/-.

This suit is coming up before me today for disposal in the presence of Sri Singala Ram Mohana Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.P.Ravindra Babu, Advocate for defendant No.5 and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are having remained exparte and the matter having heard on 18.02.2020 and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court Doth Order and Decree as follows :

 That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs;  That the plaintiff granting Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc., from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property; and  That defendant do pay Rs.2,738/- to the plaintiff and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil towards costs of the suit. (No Costs Memo and Fee Certificate is filed by the defendant) (Copy of Plaint schedule is hereby attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 23rd day of June, 2020 14

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

TENALI.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiffs For defendants

(No C.M. & F.C. filed)

1. Stamps on vakalat: Rs. 2-00

2. Stamp on plaint: Rs. 1,086-00 -–

3. Advocate fee: Rs. 1,500-00 –

4. Process : Rs. 100-00

5. Typing charges : Rs. 50-00 – ---------------------------------------------------- Total Costs allowed at : Rs. 2,738-00 ----------------------------------------------------

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MANGALAGIRI

Present: Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash, M.A.,M.L.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Monday, the 19th day of November, 2012.

O.S.No.138/2012.

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Ponnekallu Branch, Tadikonda Mandal,Mangalagiri JCJC.

... Plaintiff.

Vs.,

INturi Venkata Rao. …Defendant.

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.Siva Rama Prasad, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by plaintiff bank against defendant for recovery of money of Rs.66,733/-, future interest and costs on mortgage deed.

After issuance of summons, defendant remained exparte.

Proof affidavit of plaintiff filed.

Perused plaint, documents filed and proof affidavit of plaintiff. Exs.A1 to

A6 marked in seriatum as described in page No.2 of proof affidavit of plaintiff.

No adverse evidence placed against plaintiff. Suit claim proved.

In the result, preliminary decree is passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant personally and against plaint schedule property for

Rs.66,733/- (Rupees sixty six thousand seven hundred and thirty three only) with costs and future interest is awarded @ 6% p.a. on Rs.56,724/- (Rupees fifty six thousand seven hundred and twenty four only) from the date of filing of suit till realization.

Time for redemption is three months from the date of this Judgment.

The plaintiff is at liberty to file final decree petition according to law.

Pronounced by me in open court, on this the 19th day of

November, 2012.

Sd/- T.V.S.S.Prakash

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: R.Venkata Krishna Rao - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/ 10-09-2004Hypothecation Agreement of Rs.70,000/- executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2/ 31-08-2004 :Regd. Mortgage deed No.3389/2004 of SRO.,

Tadikonda for Rs.1,40,000/- executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A3 / 20-2-2007Letter of installments executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A4/29-9-2008Letter of Undertaking executed by defendant. Ex.A5/20-2-2010Revival letter executed by defendant.

Ex.A6/--Account Copy of the defendant.

For Defendant: Nil.

Sd/- T.V.S.S.Prakash

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MANGALAGIRI

Present: Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash, M.A.,M.L.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Monday, the 19th day of November, 2012.

O.S.No.138/2012.

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Ponnekallu Branch, Tadikonda Mandal,Mangalagiri JCJC.

... Plaintiff.

Vs.,

INturi Venkata Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, 40 Yrs, Hindu, Agriculturist,R/o. Damarapalli village, Tadikonda (M). …Defendant.

This suit is filed by plaintiff bank against defendant for recovery of money of Rs.66,733/-, future interest and costs on mortgage deed.

Plaint Presented on: 30-08-2012.Plaint Filed on: 10-09-2012.

Cause of Action:- Cause of action for the suit arose on 31-08-2004 when the defendant applied for loan and got executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and thereby created mortgage over the schedule properties as collateral security for the said debt and on 10-09-2004 when the defendant availed a crop loan of Rs.70,000/- by executing hypothecation agreement and on 20-2-2007 the defendant executed letter for repayment of the debt in installments as per the reschedule programme and on 29-2-2008 when the defendant executed undertaking letter to pay the outstanding debt in installments by availing the benefits under the debt Waiver scheme and subsequently failed to repay the debt as per the schedule and on 20-2-2010 when the defendant executed revival letter and thereby acknowledged the debt and securities in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently also in spite of demands when the defendant failed to pay the debt due to the plaintiff and at Ponnekallu village, Tadikonda Mandal where the loan was sanctioned, security documents were executed, where the suit debt was disbursed and is repayable and at Pamulapadu village, where the mortgaged lands of the defendant are situated all within the jurisdiction of this court.

Particulars of valuation:-

Amount due as per annexure with interest applied upto 09-02-2009 Rs.56,724-00 ps. Uncharged interest from 10-02-2009 to 10-08-2012 Rs.10,009-00 ps. ----------------------- Total amount Rs.66,733-00ps.

Total value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.66,733-00 ps on which a court fees of Rs.2,786/- is paid U/s.20 and 31 of the APCF & SV Act.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.Siva Rama Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court, doth order and decree:-

1.It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated upto 10-8-2012 is the sum of Rs.66,733/ i.e., (principal amount of Rs.56,724/- + Rs.10,009/- uncharged interest from 10.2.2009 to10.8.2012), and a sum of Rs.5,423/- towards costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, making in all the sum of Rs.72,156/-.

2.And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:

that the defendant do pay into Court, on or before 19th day of February, 2012 i.e., the redemption time or any later date upto which time for payment may be extended by the Court, to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.72,156/- with future interest at 6% p.a. on Rs.56,724/- from the date of suit till date of realization.

That the plaintiff be at liberty to file final decree petition according to law.

(ii) that on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such amount as the court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with such XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 the plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendants, or to such persons he appoints, and the plaintiff shall, if so required re-convey or re-transfer the said property free from the mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall if so required, deliver upto the defendant quiet and peaceful possession of the said property.

(iii)And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, in default of payment as aforesaid, the plaintiff may apply to the Court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property; and on such application being made, the mortgaged property or a sufficient part shall be directed to be sold and for the purposes of such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the Court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

(iv)And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit, and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable. Under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11, of Order XXXIV of the First

Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that the balance, if any shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same.

(v)And it is hereby ordered and decreed that, if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid the plaintiff shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the Court from time to time as they may have occasion and on such application or otherwise the court may give such directions it thinks fit.

(Plaint schedule is hereto attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, the 19th day of November, 2012.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANGALAGIRI

Table of Costs

For Defendants. For Plaintiff

Stamp on Vakalat52-00 Exparte. Stamps for Plaint2,786-00 Process65-00 Writing charges10-00 Advocate 1,850-00 fee(Senior) Advocate fee 650-00 (Junior) Typing Charges10-00 Total Costs: 5,423-00

P.J.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

TENALI

Present :: Sri T.V.S.S. Prakash I Additional Junior Civil Judge :: Tenali

Monday this the 22nd day of June, 2020

O.S.No.46 of 2020

Between : Smt. Murthisetty Vara Lakshmi W/o Venkata Narayana, Aged about 56 years, Hindu, House-Wife, R/o. D.No.7-23-36, Beside Mamata Restaurant, Ganganammapet, Tenali, Guntur District.….Plaintiff

And

Smt.Cheeli Kannamma W/o Late Chandra Sekhar, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Anganvadi Teacher, R/o Duggirala Village & Mandal, Guntur District.….Defendant

This suit is coming up before me today for disposal in the presence of Sri Nannapaneni Madhava Rao and Sri Shaik Ibrahim, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant set exparte and the matter having heard on 19.06.2020 and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant under order VII Rules 1 and 2 R/w.Sec.26 CPC for recovery of money of

Rs.1,61,800/- with costs and future interest on the principal amount on

Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization on a foot of promissory note.

02.After issuance of summons, the defendant inspite of offering the summons, refused to receive the same and the same were returned with an endorsement “addressee refused, hence returned to the sender” and thereafter the defendant called absent on the first hearing day and it 2 is deemed service on the defendant and in the said circumstances, the defendant was set-exparte and posted for exparte plaintiff’s evidence.

03.The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and through her Ex. A1 is marked.

04.Arguments heard.

05.Now, the point for consideration is :- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against

the defendant for recovery of money on the suit

promissory note as prayed ?”

06.P O I N T :-Perused the plaint, evidence of PW.1 coupled with the document vide Ex.A1 and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff, who was examined as PW.1 that the defendant borrowed the sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.06.2017 for her family expenses and executed the suit promissory note vide Ex.A1 on the even date in favour of the plaintiff at Tenali, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand.

Subsequent to the borrowing inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and on his behalf, the defendant failed to repay the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note and in the said circumstances, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

07.The above said contentions of the plaintiff has been categorically deposed by her as PW.1 and through her Ex.A1 promissory 3 note as marked. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged as the defendant remained exparte. It is clear from the evidence and pleadings of PW.1 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.06.2017 for her family expenses and failed to repay the same inspite of repeated demands. The suit promissory vide Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for a decree to the extent of the suit amount.

08.So far the future interest claimed by the plaintiff at the contractual rate i.e. @ 24 % per annum is exorbitant as the defendant borrowed the amount under Ex.A1 promissory note for her family expenses and it is not commercial transaction and therefore, this court is inclined to award the future interest @ 6 % per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 28.01.2020 till realization.

09.In the light of above discussion, I answered this point in favour of the plaintiff accordingly.

10.In the result, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs.1,61,800/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty One

Thousand Eight Hundred Only) with costs and future interest is awarded @ 6 % per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh only) from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 28.01.2020 till realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of June, 2020.

4

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff :-

P.W.1 :- Smt. Murthisetty Vara Lakshmi

For Defendant :- - EXPARTE -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A-1 :- Dt.30.06.2017: Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-.

For Defendant :- - N I L -

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

TENALI.

5

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

TENALI

Present :: Sri T.V.S.S. Prakash I Additional Junior Civil Judge :: Tenali

Monday this the 22nd day of June, 2020

O.S.No.46 of 2020

Between : Smt. Murthisetty Vara Lakshmi W/o Venkata Narayana, Aged about 56 years, Hindu, House-Wife, R/o. D.No.7-23-36, Beside Mamata Restaurant, Ganganammapet, Tenali, Guntur District.….Plaintiff

And

Smt.Cheeli Kannamma W/o Late Chandra Sekhar, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Anganvadi Teacher, R/o Duggirala Village & Mandal, Guntur District.….Defendant

This suit is filed for the plaintiff against the defendant under order VII Rules 1 and 2 R/w.Sec.26 CPC for recovery of money of Rs.1,61,800/- with costs and future interest on the principal amount on Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization on a foot of promissory note.

Plaint presented on: 28-01-2020. Plaint filed on: 29-01-2020.

CAUSE OF ACTION :- Cause of action for the suit arose on 30-06-2017, when the defendant borrowed money of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff and when the defendant failed to pay the suit debt inspite of demands, registered notice and at Tenali where the suit pronote was executed, within the jurisdiction of this court.

VALUATION :-

Principal amount due under the suit

promissory note, dated 30-06-2017Rs.1,00,000-00

Add Interest thereon @ 12% per annum from 30-06-2017 to 27-01-2020Rs. 61,800-00 ---------------------- Total Rs.1,61,800-00 ---------------------

On which, a Court fee of Rs.4,126/- was paid under section 20 of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

6

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.1,61,800/-.

This suit is coming up before me today for disposal in the presence of Sri Nannapaneni Madhava Rao and Sri Shaik Ibrahim, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant set exparte and the matter having heard on 19.06.2020 and stood over for consideration till this day,, this Court Doth Order and Decree as follows :-

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2. That the defendant do pay Rs.1,61,800/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred Only) to the plaintiff with future interest awarded @ 6 % per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 28.01.2020, till realization; and

3. That the defendant do also pay Rs.7,555/- to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil. (No Costs Memo and Fee Certificate is filed by the defendant).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 22nd day of June, 2020.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

TENALI.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant

(NO C.M. & F. C.

FILED)

1. Stamps on vakalat: Rs. 2-00 --

2. Stamp on plaint: Rs.4,126-00 –-

3. Advocate’s Fee: Rs.3,277-00

3. Process: Rs. 100-00--

4. Advocate fee : Rs. 50-00-- ------------------------------------------------ Total Costs allowed at : Rs.7,555-00 - N I L - ------------------------------------------------

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

TENALI.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MANGALAGIRI

Present: SRI T.V.S.S. PRAKASH, M.A., L.L.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri

Monday, the 19th day of November, 2012

O.S.No.133/2012

State Bank of India, Ponnekallu Branch, Rep.

By its Branch Manager. .. Plaintiff.

Vs.,

Inturi Venkata Rao .. Defendant

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.Siva Rama Prasad, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.73,434/- future interest and costs on mortgage deed.

After issuance of summons, defendant remained exparte.

Proof affidavit of plaintiff filed.

Perused plaint, documents filed and proof affidavit of plaintiff. Exs.A1 to A6 marked in seriatum as described in page No.2 of proof affidavit of plaintiff. No adverse evidence can be placed against the plaintiff. Suit claim proved.

In the result, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs.73,434/- (Rupees: seventy three thousand four hundred and thirty four only) with costs and future interest is awarded @ 6% p.a., on the

principal amount of Rs.62,436/- (Rupees: sixty two thousand four hundred and

thirty six only) from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

Pronounced by me in open court, on this the 19th day of

November, 2012.

Sd/- T.V.S.S.Prakash

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: R.Venkata Krishna Rao - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/ 08-10-2002Hypothecation Agreement for Rs.60,000/- executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2/ 18-09-2002 :Registered Mortgage deed No.2272/2002 of SRO, Tadikonda for Rs.95,000/- executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A3 : 17-09-2003Revival letter executed by defendant in Nos.2.

Ex.A4 : 10-09-2004 Letter of Installments executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A5 : 5-9-2007Revival letter executed by defendant. In nos.2. Ex.A6 : 12-6-2010Account copy of the defendant.

For Defendant: Nil.

Sd/- T.V.S.S.Prakash

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MANGALAGIRI

Present: SRI T.V.S.S. PRAKASH, M.A., L.L.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri

Monday, the 19th day of November, 2012

O.S.No.133/2012

State Bank of India, Ponnekallu Branch, Rep.

By its Branch Manager. .. Plaintiff.

Vs., Inturi Venkata Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, 40 Yrs, Hindu,

Agriculturist, R/o. Damarapalli (V), Tadikonda (M). .. Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.73,434/- future interest and costs on mortgage deed.

PLAINT PRESENTED ON: 30-08-2012 PLAINT FILED ON: 05-09-2012

CAUSE OF ACTION: Cause of action for the suit arose on 08-10- 2002when the defendant executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and thereby created mortgage over the schedule properties as collateral security for the said debt and on 8- 10-2002 when the defendant availed a crop loan of Rs.60,000/- by executing Hypothecation Agreement and on 17-09-2003 when the defendant got renewed the loan and executed revival letter and on 10-9-2004 when the defendant executed revival letter and a letter for repayment of the debt in installments as per the schedule and subsequently when the defendant failed to pay the debt and on 5-9- 2007 and 12-6-2010 when the defendant executed revival letters and acknowledged the debt and securities and subsequently also inspite of demands when the defendant failed to pay the debt due to the plaintiff and at Ponnekallu village, Tadikonda mandal whereat the loan was sanctioned, security documents were executed, where the suit debt was disbursed and is repayable and at Pamulapadu village, Tadikonda mandal, where the mortgaged lands of the defendant are situated all within the jurisdiction of this court.

Particulars of claim:-

Amount due as per Annexure with interest applied up to 9-2-2009. ..Rs.62,436-00

Uncharged interest from 10-2-2009 to 10-8-2012 .. Rs.10,998-00 ========= Total Amount due : .. Rs.73,434-00

The plaintiff claiming only Rs.73,434/-.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and Jurisdiction is Rs.73,434/- . On which a court fee of Rs.2,866/- is paid herewith U/S. 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.Siva Rama Prasad, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:-

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.73,434/- (Rupees: seventy three thousand four hundred and thirty four only) with costs and future interest is awarded @ 6% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.62,436/- (Rupees: sixty two thousand four hundred and thirty six only) from the date of filing of the suit till realization;

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of 5,604/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 19th day of November, 2012.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Table of Costs

For Plaintiff For Defendant in In Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps. Vakalat 52 - 00 Plaint Fee 2866 - 00

Process 65 - 00 Writing 10 - 00 -Nil- charges Advocate 1951- 00 Exparte fee(Senior) Advocate 650-00 fee(Junior Typing 10 - 00 charges

Total : RS . 5604 - 00

P.J.C.J.