Tammineni Venkateswarlu

OS 13/2016 1 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

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

PRESENT:- Sri. T. Venkateswarlu

Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle.

Thursday this the 10th day of April , 2025.

Original Suit 13/2016

Between

1. Kota Koteswara Rao ( died)

2. Kota Srinivasa Rao , S/o late Koteswara Rao, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Private employee, R/o 7-151/1-2, SF1, Dwarakamayi residency, Prasadampadu, Near Sai Baba Temple, Vijayawada Rural, 521108. 3.Channamsetty Vijayalakshmi, W/o Channamsetty Venkateswarlu, D/o late Kota Koteswara Rao, aged about 46 years, Hindu, house wife, R/o D.No. 2- 5-13, Gandhi Nagar, Nandulapeta, Tenali 522201. 4.Kota Siva Parvathi, W/o late Koteswara Rao, aged about 63 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o D.No. 2-5-13, Gandhi Nagar, Nandulapeta, Tenali 522201. ( plaintiffs 2 to 4 are added as per orders in IA 67/2023 dated 15.11.2023.) … Plaintiffs

And

Thota Lakshmi, W/o Thota Venkateswara Rao, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o D.No. 1-2-95, Peteru Road, 1st ward, Repalle.

.. Defendant

This suit has come before me on 10.04.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri V. Chandra Sekhar and Sri M. Pavan Kumar Advocates for the plaintiffs ; and of Sri V. Udaya Prasad and Sri G. Venkateswara Rao ,Advocates for defendant; upon hearing both the Counsels ; upon perusing the entire material available on record ; having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following :-

Judgment

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as the absolute owners of the plaint schedule vacant site and consequentially directing the defendant to deliver vacant possesion of the plaint schedule site

OS 13/2016 2 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

after removing erections therein to plaintiffs 2 to 4 within the time stipulated by the court, failing which the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are at liberty to get it done through process of court; and for costs of the suit.

2.a) Case of the plaintiffs is that out of said 161 sq yards , western portion of 119 sq yards that is item No. 1 originally belonged to one Thota

Hanumaiah, S/o Abiddaiah. During his life time the said Thota Hanumaiah made arrangements to bequeath his properties after his death by duly executing a will in a sound and disposing state of mind on 12.06.1950 and got it registered as document No. 6/1950 in SRO, Repalle. Thereafter the said

Thota Hanumaiah died and said will dated 12.06.1950 came into operation.

So , as per the arrangements made by Thota Hanumaiah in his will , he bequeathed item 1 of plaint schedule site to his grand son Kosanam

Venkataramaiah, who is his 1st daughters son with absolute rights, by reserving the life interest with his wife Thota Hanumayamma to be enjoyed by her during her life time. But unfortunately during the life time of Thota hanumayamma, said Kosanam Venkataramaiah died intestate as issue less in the year 1970 survived by his mother Kosanam Kannamma and wife Venkata narasamma . After death of Kosanam Venkataramaiah his wife Venkata

Narasmma got remarriage in the year 1976 and went with her 2nd husband.

Subsequently, in the year 1985 life estate holder of item 1 of plaint schedule site Thota Hanumayamma died . So, as per the will executed by original owner Thota Hanumaiah, item 1 of plaint schedule site devolved upon the sole surviving legal heir of deceased Kosanam Venkataramaiah that is his mother

Kosanam Kannamma. Said Kannamma took possession of item 1 of plaint schedule site and enjoyed by her till her demise in the year 1999 as intestate.

OS 13/2016 3 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

Said Kosanam Kannama died intestate leaving behind her only daughter

Narisetti Raghavamma as her nearest legal heir . So , said Narisetti

Raghavamma became the absolute owner of item 1 of plaint schedule site and was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter the Narisetti

Raghavamma gifted the item 1 of the plaint schedule site to the 1st plaintiff who is her brother by courtesy under a registered gift deed dated 30.09.2015 and delivered possession of the same to the 1st plaintiff. Since then the 1st plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the item 1 of the plaint schedule site with absolute rights.

b) Eastern portion of 42 sq yards out of plaint schedule vacant site that is item 2 belonged to Kota Basavamma, W/ o Venkateswarlu. Said Kota

Basavamma gifted the item 2 of the plaint schedule site to one Kota

Sambasiva Rao, S/o Nagendram , who is younger brother of 1st plaintiff under a registered gift deed dated 22.07.1978 and put him in possession of item 2 of plaint schedule site on the same day. Since then item 2 of the plaint schedule site has been in possession and enjoyment of the said Kota Sambasiva Rao during his life time . Thereafter , in the year 1983 said Kota Sambasiva Rao died intestate as a bachelor leaving behind him,his only sibling that is 1st plaintiff as his nearest lega heir. So, after the death of the said Kota

Sambasiva Rao item 2 of the plaint schedule site devolved upon the plaintiff by way of succession . Since, then the 1st plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of said 42 sq yards of site with absoule rights. Thus, the 1st plaintiff acquired absoule righrts and possession in the entire plaint schedule vacant house site of 161 sq yards and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. About one week back 1st plaintiff came to Repalle for his

OS 13/2016 4 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

personal works and visited the plaint schedule proeprty to watch the same . At that time he noticed that ACC sheet roofed she has been raised in the plaint schedule site . When he enquired about the same and came to know that the defendant, who is his relative , raised the said erection with a view to grab the plaint schedule site in an unlawful manner taken advantage that the 1st plaintiff has been residing in Hyderabad far away from the plaint schedule property. Defendant is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property.

She has no any rights in the plaint schedule property either to raise constructions or enter in to the plaint schedule site. So, the erection raised by the defendant in the plaint schedule site is unauthorized and liable to be removed.

c) So, the 1st plaintiff demanded the defendants to remove the erections raised by her, then the defendant and her henchmen threatened the 1st plaintiff with dire consequences if he entered in to plaint schedule property. On that event the defendant brought into light the registered settelment deed

dated 20.04.2015 in her favour executed by her brother Kosanam Sree Rama

Murthy or his mother has no rights in the plaint schedule site, they are no way concerned with the plaint schedule site. Defendant and said Kosanam Sree

Rama Murthy colluded and brought into existence said settlement deed dated 20.04.2015 in unlawful manner only to grab the plaint schedule site. Said document cannot create any rights to the defendant vice versa cannot deprive the lawful rights of the 1st plaintiff in the plaint schedule site, as it is null and void document in the eye of law and the plaintiff ignored the said registered sttelemnet deed dated 20.04.2015 executed by Kosanam Sree Rama Murthy in favour of the defendant. Hence, the 1st plaintiff is constrained to file the suit

OS 13/2016 5 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

for declaration of his rights in the plaint schedule site and for consequential possession . Pending suit 1st plaintiff died intestate on 26.11.2022 surviving his wife and chidren that is plaintiffs 2 to 4 herein . 2nd plaintiff is his son, 3rd plaintiff is his daughter, 4th plaintiff is his wife. After death of 1st plaintiff is entire estate devolved upon plaintiffs 2 to 4 by way of succesion and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same . Likewise the interest in the plaint schedule property suceeded to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and right to sure survived to them. So, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are added as parties dto the suit in the place of deceased 1st plaintiff in order to proceed the suit.

3. a) Defendant filed her written statement denying the allegations stated in the plaint and contended that originally, the plaint schedule property item

Nos 1 and 2 are single plot vacant site an extent of 1369 sq yards in S.NO.

187/3 of Repalle village belongs to Thota Hanumaiah , S/o Abaddiah. During her life time said Thota Hanumaiah made arrangements to bequeath his properties after his death by duly executing a will in a sound and disposing state of mind on 12.06.1950 and got registered as document 6/1950 in SRO,

Repalle. Thereafter, the said Thota Hanumaiah died and said will dated 12.06.1950 came into operation.Thota Hanumayamma is his 2nd wife of

Hanumaiah. 1.Kosanam Kannamma, Kota Basavamma are the daughters of

Hanumaiah 1st wife. 1. Kota Sitha Mahalakshmi 2. Veerisetti Satya Gnana

Prasunamba 3. Kosanam Sambrajyam are the daughters of Hanumaiah through his 2nd wife Hanumayamma. At the time of execution of the said will and the time of death of Hanumaiah the last daughter Sambrajyam is remained unmarried. At the time of execution of will the plaint schedule was vacant site. The said Hanumaiah bequeathed the tiled house and that house

OS 13/2016 6 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

site and Ac 0.25 cents wet land at Peteru village to his grandson Kosanam

Venkataramaiah who is son of his 1st daughter with absolute rights , by reserving life interest with his wife Hanumayamma to be enjoyed by her during her life time. Thota Hanumaiah bequeathed his other properties to his daughters with absolute rights , by reserving the life interest with his wife with a condition that to perform the marriage of his 5th daughter Sambrajayam with the income derived from his property or with his property. The will came into operation after the death of Hanumaiah. Kosanam Venkataramaiah died intestate leaving his mother Kosanam Kannamma and his wife Kosanam

Venkata Narasmma as his legal heirs . After his death as per their family arrangement made in the family for discharging the family debt Thota

Hanumayamma, Kosanam Kannamma, Kota Koteswara Rao ( plaintiff) Satya

Gnana Prasunamba and Kosanam Sambrajayam sold the tiled house and site to Thota Basavapunaiah under a registered sale deed dated 11.03.1981 and delivered the possession to him. Subsequently, Ac 0.25 cents wet land of late

Venaktaramaiah sold by his mother Kosannam Kannamma and Kosannam

Venkata narasamma.

b) Plaint schedule item Nos 1 and 2 site is in existing in single plot on land.

The said site is bequeathed to Sambrajyam at the time of her marriage by the family members that is mother and sisters of Sambrajayam as per the arrangement made by the Hanumaiah as per his will. The plaint schedule site had in his possession and enjoyment of the Sambrajayam since her marriage . Kosannam Sambrajayam is the mother of this defendant. Kosannam

Sambrajayam died intestate on 05.11.2005. During life time of said Kosanam

Sambrajayam she made arrangements to bequeath her properties after her

OS 13/2016 7 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

death by duly executing a will in a sound and disposing state of mind on 30.12.2004. Kosanam Sambrajayam bequeathed the plaint schedule site to his son Kosanam Sri Rama Murthy with asbolute rights through the will. After her death the will came into operation. The plaint schedule property devolved upon Kosanam Sri Rama Murthy through the said will. The mother and father fo Sri Rama Murthy intended to bequeath the said property to the defendant at the time of marriage and delivered possession to her. The said property is in possession and enjoyment of the defendant from the date of her marriage.

Thus, the said sri Rama Murthy gifted the plaint schedule site to defendant by executing a registered settlement deed on 20.04.2015. Defendant constructed house therein. Defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule site and she has been in possesion and enjoyment of the same since the date of her marriage and she is regularly paying the property tax to Repalle Municipality with respect to the plaint schedule property. Plaint schedule site belongs to

Hanumaiah and after his death as per his arrangement made through will the plaint schedule property site was bequeathed to Sambrajayam by his mother and sisters at the time of her marraigefor her residential purpose and delivered possession of the same to her.

c) During the life time the Sambrajayam she had is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule site with asbolute rights and Sambrajayam and her husband intended to bequeath the plaint schedule to the defendant at the time of her marriage and they delivered possession to her. Sambrajayam bequeathed the said property to her son by way of will dated 30.12.2004 and the will came in to operation after her death and the property devolved upon her son Sri Rama Murthy and subsequently the said Sri Rama Murthy

OS 13/2016 8 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

bequeathed the plaint schedule site to the defendant who is his sister on 20.4.2015 buy executing a registered settelment deed. Defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from the date of her marriage that is from last 27 years till today and she constructed house therein for her residential purpose therein. After gift deed transaction to this defendant the plaintiff came to know the same and brought into existence the alleged gift deed dated 30.09.2015 with collusion of Narisetti Raghavamma and filed this suit for malafide intention for wrongful gain. Defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule site since 27 years by paying property tax and perfected her title over the plaint schedule property site and the plaintiff and the other family members of Hanumaiah are well known the same.

Kosanam Kannamma and Kosanam Venkata narasamma are the Lrs of late

Kosanam Venkataramaiah. The said Kosanam Kannamma or Narisetty

Raghavamma has no right title in the item No. 1 of the plaint schedule site.

Thus , the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Kota Basavamma has no right , title in the item No2 of the plaint schedule property and she never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and she has no right to execute alleged gift deed in favour of Kota Sambasiva rao. The said gift deed is sham and nominal and no rights will be confereed to any body through the said gift deed. Defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule site without interruption from anybody from the date of her marriage that is since 27 years and she hs perfected her title over the plaint schedule property by way of adverse possession also.

Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini on facts and at law.

OS 13/2016 9 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

4. Basing on the pleadings of the both parties the following issues were framed for trial .

1.Whether the plaint schedule properties are the absolute properties of late Thota Hanumaiah ?

2.Whether the Thota Hanumaiah property devolved to plaintiff through legal heirs of Thota Hanumaiah and family ?

3.Whether the plaint schedule item Nos 1 and 2 site in existing as single plot on land and said late Hanumaiah bequeathed the said site to his 5th daughter by name Sambrajayam, as per will dated 12.06.1950, as stated by the defendant ?

4.Whether the plaint schedule property devolved upon Sri Rama Murthy from the said Sambrajayam by way of will dated 30.12.2024?

5.Whether said Sri Rama Murthy and his wife that is parents of the defendant bequeathed the said property to the defendant and delivered the possession to her under a registered settelment deed dated 20.04.2015 ?

6. Whether the plaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, as prayed for ?

7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule vacant site ?

9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief by directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the same after removing erections, therein failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it done through process of court ?

10.To what relief ?

OS 13/2016 10 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

5.On behalf of the plaintiffs, Pws 1 and 2 were examined, got marked

Exs A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the registration extract of will executed by Thota

Hanumaiah, dated 12.06.1950. Ex A2 is the gift settlement deed dated 22.07.1978. Ex A3 is the gift deed executed by Narisetty Raghavamma dated 30.09.2015. Ex A4 is the rectification deed dated 06.10.2015. Ex A5 is the death certificate dated 26.12.2015. On behalf of defendant, he himself examined as DW1, got marked Exs B1 to B14. Ex B1 is the will by Kosanam

Sambrajayam in favour of defendant younger brother by name Kosanam Sri

Rama Murthy dated 30.12.2004. Ex B2 is the certified copy of death certificate of Kosanam Sambrajayam wife of Adiyya issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated 31.05.2016. Ex B3 ist he registered gift deed executed by Kosanam Sri Rama Murthy in her favour dated 20.04.2015. Ex B4 is the death certificate of the Kosanam Sri Rama Murthy issued by office of

Tenali Municipality, dated 30.05.2017. Ex B5 is the property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated 26.06.2006.

Ex B6 is the property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of

AP through meeseva dated 12.09.2007. Ex B7 is the property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated 11.11.2008. Ex B8 is the property tax receipt of the defendant issued by

Government of AP through meeseva dated dated 02.08.2011. Ex B9 is the property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated dated 06.08.2013. Ex B10 is the property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated 05.07.2014.

Ex B11 is the property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of

AP through meeseva dated 02.12.2015. Ex B12 is the property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated

OS 13/2016 11 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

1.06.2016. Ex B13 is the property tax receipt of the defendant issued by

Government of AP through meeseva dated 25.05.2017. Ex B14 is the house tax receipts three in number ( paid from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2022, 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2019).

6. Heard the Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire material available on record.

7. Issue Nos 1 to 9:

Since issue Nos 1 to 9 interrelated with each other they are taken in to consideration to avoid repetition and for convenience .

This is the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff for declaration and consequential possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant; costs of the suit. This suit is filed on 07.01.2016, the same was registered on 17.02.2016. On 17.03.2016 Sri V. Udaya Prasad, Advocate filed vakalat for defendant and filed written statement on 03.06.2016. Issues framed on 22.06.2016, posted the matter for trial after framing the issues. During the trial on behalf of the plaintiffs, 1st plaintiff is examined as PW1, got marked Exs A1 to A5. . Ch. Vennkateswarlu, who is the brother in law of the PW1 is examined as PW2. When the matter is coming for defendant side evidence , plaintiff died, his wife, son , daughter are brought on record as his legal heirs as per orders in IA 67/2023 dated 15.11.2023, petitioners 2 to 4 were added as plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the main suit and posted the matter for defendant side evidence. On behalf defendant, she herself examined as DW1, got marked

Exs B1 to B14, When the matter is coming for cross examination of the DW1, at that stage the plaintiffs 2 to 4 along with defendant filed IA 102/2025 to

OS 13/2016 12 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

record compromise and pass a decree as per the terms of compromise and the said IA was allowed on 03.04.2025. Coming for hearing of the main suit.

Plaintiffs 2 to 4 filed their affidavit stating that the 1st plaintiff died on 16.11.2022 leaving his wife and children .

8. 2nd plaintiff is the son of late Koteswara Rao / 1st plaintiff, 3rd plaintiff is his daughter and 4th plaintiff is the wife of the said late Koteswara Rao. The defendant is their realtive who is 1st plaintiff’s sister ( mothers sister daughter) . As the main suit is coming for cross examination of DW1, at that stage their family members, well wishers adviced the plaintiffs to compromise, settle the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant. So, as per the terms of compromise filed along with the IA 102/2025. As per the terms of compromise the plaintiffs were given up their right, title over the plaint schedule property by admiting the defendant’s right, title, possession on her own documents and the plaintiffs have received an amount of Rs 5,00,000 from the defendants as solatium in view of the peaceful settelment of suit dispute with their cooperation. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 filed their separate affidavits to that effect and defendant also filed her affidavit to that effect and both parties as filed terms of compromise in IA 102/2025 duly signed by both parties, their counsels and this court is of the opinion that this suit is decreed as per the said terms of compromise in IA 102/2025 by declaring that the defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and consequential permanent injunction is granted restraining the plaintiffs 2 to 4, their men, successors , followers from in any way not to interfere with the defendant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same in any manner what so ever as per the terms of

OS 13/2016 13 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

compromise dated 03.04.2025, both the parties directed to bear their own costs. Accordingly, the issues 1 to 9 are answered.

9. Issue No. 10:

To what relief?

In view of the findings at issue Nos.1 to 9 this suit is liable to be decreed. In the result, this suit is decreed by declaring that the defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties and granted consequential permanent injunction against the plaintiffs 2 to 4, their men, followers, successors not to interfere with the defendant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties as per the terms of compromise

dated 03.04.2025 in IA 102/2025 but in the facts and circumstances of the

case each party do bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10th day of April 2025.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

Civil Judge( Senior Division),

Repalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: P.W1: Kota Koteswara Rao DW1:Thota Lakshmi P.W2: Chennamsetty Venkateswarlu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Registration extract of will executed by Thota Hanumaiah, dated 12.06.1950.

Ex A2: Gift settlement deed dated 22.07.1978.

Ex A3: Gift deed executed by Narisetty Raghavamma dated 30.09.2015.

OS 13/2016 14 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

Ex A4: Rectification deed dated 06.10.2015.

Ex A5: Death certificate dated 26.12.2015

For Defendant: Ex B1: Will by Kkosanam Sambrajayam in favour of defendant younger brother by name Kosanam Sri Rama Murthy dated 30.12.2004.

Ex B2: Certified copy of death certificate of Kosanam Sambrajayam wife of Adiyya issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated 31.05.2016.

Ex B3: Registered gift deed executed by Kosanam Sri Rama Murthy in her favour dated 20.04.2015.

Ex B4: Death certificate of the Kosanam Sri Rama Murthy issued by office of Tenali Municipality, dated 30.05.2017.

Ex B5: Property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated 26.06.2006.

Ex B6: Property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated 12.09.2007.

Ex B7: Property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated 11.11.2008.

Ex B8: Property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated dated 02.08.2011.

Ex B9: Property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated dated 06.08.2013.

Ex B10: Property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated 05.07.2014.

Ex B11: Property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated 02.12.2015. Ex B12: Property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP

OS 13/2016 15 Civil Judge(Senior Division), Repalle

through meeseva dated 1.06.2016.

Ex B13:Property tax receipt of the defendant issued by Government of AP through meeseva dated 25.05.2017.

Ex B14: House tax receipts three in number ( paid from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2022, 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2019).

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

C.J(SD), Repalle.

OS NO. 3/2025 1 Civil Judge (Senior Division)

,Repalle

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

PRESENT:- Sri. T. Venkateswarlu,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle.

Friday this the 11th day of April , 2025.

Original Suit NO. 3/2025

Between Alapati Venkateswara Rao, S/o Subba rao, aged 51 years, R/o D.No. 1-96/1, Ramchandrapuram, Avanigadda, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh -521121 …Plaintiff

And

Bolisetti Sudha Krishna, S/o Bolisetti Rama Chandra Rao, aged about 47 years, R/o D.No. 10-7-12-96/G-1, Rupa residential – 2 , Vuppudi road, Lakshmi Talkies, Repalle, Bapatla District 522265. …Defendant.

This Suit has come before me on 11.04.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri. N. Syam Babu and Sri D. Srihari, Advocates for the Plaintiff; defendant having remained exparte; upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff; upon perusing the entire material available on record; having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.32,71,667/- being the

principal and interest due on promissory note dated 13.06.2022 executed by

the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and subsequent interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization; and Costs of the Suit.

2.Case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 25,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.06.2022 for purchasing house property at

Fathulabad, Machilipatnam agreeing to repay the same with interest at the

OS NO. 3/2025 2 Civil Judge (Senior Division)

,Repalle rate of 12 % per annum to the plaintiff or his order on demand, got executed the suit promissory note for Rs 25,00,000/- in his favour, in the presence of witnesses, at the house of the defendant, on the even date. At the time of borrowing , defendant deposited two wills and agreement of sale for security.

Inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to discharge the aforesaid promissory note debt, requesting time and evading to repay the said amount on one ground or the other. Plaintiff got isued legal notice to the defendant on 10.09.02024 demanding him to repay the suit promissory note debt, same was received by him and got issued reply notice to the plaintiff on 20.09.2024 with all false averments and kept silent.

3. Defendant did not turn up even after service of summons under order 5 rule 15 of CPC. Hence, he was set exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1, got marked

Exs A1 to A5. Ex A1 is the original promissory note said to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs 25,00,000/- dated 13.06.2022. Ex A2 is the office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff through his counsel to the defendant dated 10.09.2024. Ex A3 is the reply notice got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff dated 20.09.2024. Ex A4 is the original will dated 24.10.1997 executed by Chitturi Seetha Ramanjeneyulu in favour of his wife namely Chitturi Naga Annapurna and his family members.

Ex A5 is the original will dated 22.09.2007 executed by Chitturi Naga

Annapurna in favour of her 3rd son namely Krushna Kumar. In support of the case of the plaintiff, one of the attestor fo the Ex A1 namely Abdul Irfan Basha is examined as PW2.

OS NO. 3/2025 3 Civil Judge (Senior Division)

,Repalle

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire material available on record.

6. Now the points for consideration are:

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for ?

ii To what relief?

7. POINT i:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for ?

Plaintiff testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 25,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.06.2022 for purchasing house property at

Fathulabad , Machilipatnam and defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day at the house of the defendant situated at Repalle, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand, defendant has been requesting time and evading to repay the said amount on one ground or the other.

8. On perusal of the entire material available on record it is found that the attestor of the Ex A1 was examined as PW2 and he testified that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff of RS 25,00,000/- on 13.06.2022 to purchase the property and executed promissory note on the even date in favour of plaintiff and he was present at the time of execution of promissory note and he attested the promissory note / Ex A1 as the first attestor.

Unchallenged testimony of the Pws 1 and 2 coupled with the Exs A1 to A5 established that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 25,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.06.2022 , executed the promissory note/ Ex A1 on the even date

OS NO. 3/2025 4 Civil Judge (Senior Division)

,Repalle after passing consideration to the defendant. Accordingly, suit claim of the plaintiff established and he is entitled for the recovery of the suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9. Point No.ii :-

To what relief?

In the result, this Suit is decreed with Costs directing the defendant to pay sum of Rs.32,71,667 /- (Rupees thirty two lakhs seventy one thousands six hundreds and sixty seven only) to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of this suit till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.25,00,000/- .

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 11th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- T. Venkateswarlu

Civil Judge(Senior Division),

Repalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For defendant: P.W1: Alapati Venkateswara Rao None P.W2: Abdul Irfan Basha

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex A1: Original promissory note said to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs 25,00,000/- dated 13.06.2022.

OS NO. 3/2025 5 Civil Judge (Senior Division)

,Repalle Ex A2: Office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff through his counsel to the defendant dated 10.09.2024.

Ex A3 :Reply notice got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff

dated 20.09.2024.

Ex A4: Original will dated 24.10.1997 executed by Chitturi Seetha Ramanjeneyulu in favour of his wife namely Chitturi Naga Annapurna and his family members.

Ex A5: Original will dated 22.09.2007 executed by Chitturi Naga Annapurna in favour of her 3rd son namely Krushna Kumar.

For defendant:

--NIL--

Sd/- T. Venkateswarlu

C.J(SD) Repalle

OS NO. 3/2025 6 Civil Judge (Senior Division)

,Repalle

OS115/20161 Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: REPALLE

PRESENT:- Sri. T. Venkateswarlu.

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle

Monday, this the 21st day of April, 2025.

O.S115/2016.

Between Polakam Sujatha. … Plaintiff.

And

1.Badugu Bullaiah ( died) 2.Chintakrindi Venkata Sambasiva Rao 3.Papana Venkata Rathnam 4.Chintakrindi Venkata Krishna Rao (died) 5.Chintakrindi Sri Rama Krishna Rao 6.Chintakrindi Naga Malleswaramma 7.Chintakrindi Sri Rama Murthy 8.Divi Lakshmi

... Defendants.

This suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restrainig the defendants and their men from interfering in any way with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and costs.

This Execution petition is coming before me on 21.04.2025 for trial in the presence of Sri. V. Chandra Sekhar Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff; and Sri A. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for the D1; and of Sri V. K. Mohana Rao, Advocate for D2, D3 and D5; case against D4 is abated and D6 to D8 remained exparte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:-

JUDGMENT

As per the orders in IA 130/2025 this suit is dismissed as not pressed permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in

OS115/20162 Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle

future whenever any one claims rights or interest in the plaint schedule property through deceased 1st defendant .

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of April , 2025.

Sd/- T. Venkateswarlu

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Repalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

Sd/- T. Venkateswarlu

CJSD, Repalle.