V.audhinarayana

1 HMOP 64 OF 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION):: PALAMANER.

Camp Court At Kuppam Present: - V. Audhinarayana,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palamaner.

Monday, the 4thday of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.No. 64 of 202 6

Between:-

Sri Y.Danlur Athraya Kanth, aged about 29 years, son of D.

Lakshmikanth, Hindu by religion, Brahmin by community, residing at

Thummisi Village, Nadimpalle Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor

District, A.P.

2.Smt. H.R. Rochana Baradvaz, aged about 19 years, wife of Y.Danlur

Athraya Kanth and daughter of H.N. Rajasekhara Dekshit, Hindu by religion, Brahmin by community, originally resident of Hebbani Village,

Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State and presently residing at

Reddivaripalli Village, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.

…Petitioners

And:- -Nil-

…Respondent

This petition coming on 28.04.2026 before me for hearing, and upon perusal of the petition and other material papers on record, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.S Natarajan learned Advocate for the petitioners, and this being a petition for divorce by mutual consent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners Under Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with a prayer to dissolve the marriage dated 2 HMOP 64 OF 2026 10.04.2025 of petitioners by means of a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

2. The brief averments in the petition are The petitioners submit that both of them are Hindus belonging to Brahmin community and their marriage was solemnized on 10-04-2025 at ENR Kalyanamandapam,

Santhipuram Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, according to Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies in the presence of elders, relatives and well-wishers. The petitioners further submit that even on the date of marriage itself certain misunderstandings and differences arose between them. Though the marriage was celebrated with the consent and blessings of elders of both families, disputes and incompatibility developed between the petitioners from the very beginning of their marital life. Due to lack of mutual understanding and adjustment, they could not lead a happy marital life together. It is further averred that after the marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined the company of the 1st petitioner and stayed in the matrimonial house for a short period.

However, despite repeated advice, counselling and mediation by elders and relatives from both families, the petitioners failed to develop cordial relations with each other. Several attempts were made by the elders to reunite them and to persuade them to continue their marital life, but all such efforts proved futile. The petitioners specifically pleaded that the marriage between them was never consummated and no children were born out of the wedlock. According to them, though arrangements were made on several occasions for them to resume marital life, the misunderstandings and lack of compatibility persisted and consequently they could not continue their relationship as husband and wife. The petitioners also submit that panchayats were convened on more than 3 HMOP 64 OF 2026 one occasion in the presence of elders and respectable persons of both families in order to resolve the disputes amicably. Finally, a panchayat was held on 23-03-2026 wherein the elders advised the petitioners that there was no possibility of reunion between them. Taking into consideration their young age, personal circumstances and continuous disputes, both the petitioners mutually agreed to separate from each other and decided to dissolve their marriage amicably without any coercion, force or undue influence from any person. The petitioners further submit that as there is no chance of reunion or restoration of marital harmony between them, continuation of the marital tie would only result in further mental agony and hardship to both parties. Hence, they jointly approached this Hon’ble Court seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent and prayed for passing a decree of divorce in their favour.

3. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and

Exs.P1 and Exs. P2 documents are marked through PW1.

4. Heard the arguments.

5. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief of decree of

divorce by dissolving the marriage between petitioners by way of

mutual consent?

6. POINT:-

In order to substantiate the case of the petitioners, petitioner

No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and petitioner No.2 was examined as

P.W.2. Both the petitioners filed their chief-examination affidavits reiterating the averments made in the petition. The evidence of P.W.1 discloses that the marriage between the petitioners was solemnized on 10-04-2025 at ENR Kalyanamandapam, Santhipuram Village and 4 HMOP 64 OF 2026

Mandal, according to Hindu rites and customs. He further deposed that immediately after the marriage disputes and misunderstandings arose between both the petitioners and due to lack of mutual understanding they could not lead a happy marital life. P.W.1 further stated that though elders and relatives of both families made several efforts to reunite them and advised them to continue their marital life, all such efforts ended in vain. He also deposed that the marriage was not consummated and no children were born out of the wedlock. According to his evidence, both the petitioners mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage voluntarily without any force or coercion and there is no possibility of reunion between them. The evidence of P.W.2 is in corroboration with the testimony of P.W.1 in all material particulars.

P.W.2 also deposed that due to incompatibility and misunderstandings she was unable to continue the marital relationship with petitioner No.1.

She further stated that despite mediation and intervention by elders and well-wishers, the disputes between them could not be resolved and both of them mutually decided to dissolve the marriage peacefully. Her evidence further reveals that the consent for divorce was given voluntarily and out of her free will. On behalf of the petitioners, Ex.P1, wedding invitation card, and Ex.P2, marriage photograph, were marked.

Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 clearly establish the factum of marriage between the petitioners. The oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.P1 and P2 clearly proves that the marriage between the petitioners was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs and that due to irreconcilable differences they are unable to continue their marital life. The testimony of both the petitioners further establishes that they have been living separately and 5 HMOP 64 OF 2026 that all reconciliation efforts made by elders and relatives proved unsuccessful. Their evidence also discloses that both of them have consciously and voluntarily decided to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent. There appears to be no force, fraud, coercion or undue influence in obtaining such consent. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage and that there is no possibility of reunion between them. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the

Hindu Marriage Act.

7. In the result, the petition is allowed and a decree of divorce is hereby granted, dissolving the marriage performed between petitioner

No.1 and petitioner No.2 on 10.04.2025 by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and in the circumstances of the case, both the petitioners shall bear their own costs.

Typed on computer, corrected and pronounced in open Court this the 4th day of May , 2026

Sd/-V.Audhinarayana

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Palamaner.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners: For respondent:-

PW1 : Danlur Athraya Kanth None- PW2 : H.R Rocahnan Baradvaz 6 HMOP 64 OF 2026

Exhibits marked

For petitioners:-

Ex.P.1 :Original Wedding Invitation Ex.P.2 : Marriage photo of parties

For respondent:

-Nil-

Sd/-V.Audhinarayana

Civil Judge ( Senior Division)

Palamaner

DRAFT/FAIR ORDER

HMOP.No.64 of 2026

dt:04.05.2026.

1 HMOP 42 of 2026

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

Camp Court At Kuppam

Present: - V. Audhinarayana,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palamaner.

Monday, the 4 th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.No. 42 of 202 6

Between:-

Smt. B. Kaveri, aged about 24 years, wife of M. Parthasarathy, daughter of B.

Subramanyam, Indian Hindu, residing at Chowdampalli Village, Dandikuppam

Post, Shanthipuram Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.

... Petitioner

And:-

Sri M. Parthasarathy, aged about 35 years, son of N. Muniyappa, Indian

Hindu, residing at Door No.18-97/5, Vinayaka Street, Kuppam Town and

Mandal,Chittoor, District, Andhra pradesh

…Respondent.

This petition was presented on 28.04.2026 and came up for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. G Pushapalatha counsel for the petitioner and the respondent having been set ex-parte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The present petition is filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 04.11.2024 on the grounds of cruelty.

2.The brief facts of the petition are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 04.11.2024 at T.T.D.

Kalyana Mandapam, Kuppam, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. After the marriage, the petitioner joined the company of the respondent and both of them lived together at Kuppam. The marriage was consummated and no issues were born out of the wedlock. It is the case of 2 HMOP 42 of 2026 the petitioner that she was working as a Staff Nurse in Area Government

Hospital, Kuppam, whereas the respondent was doing business. After completion of about three months of marriage, the respondent started suspecting the character of the petitioner on account of her profession and night duties. The petitioner further contends that the respondent suppressed his diabetic health condition prior to the marriage. Though the petitioner adjusted herself and took care of the respondent as a dutiful wife, the respondent allegedly subjected her to harassment, humiliation, verbal abuse and mental cruelty. It is further averred that the respondent used to visit the petitioner’s workplace, insult and humiliate her before colleagues, suspect her fidelity and behave in an indecent manner, due to which the petitioner was compelled to resign from her employment. The respondent neglected the petitioner and failed to maintain cordial marital relations. Several mediations and panchayats were held in the presence of elders and well-wishers of both parties, but all efforts for reunion ended in vain. The petitioner further submits that on 19.04.2025 the respondent picked up a quarrel and forcibly drove the petitioner out of the matrimonial house. Since then, the petitioner has been residing in her parental house. It is also stated that the respondent demanded divorce before the elders during the panchayat convened between the parties.

Though attempts were made for reconciliation, there has been no cohabitation between the parties since 19.04.2025 and there is no possibility of reunion.

Therefore, alleging acts of cruelty on the part of the respondent, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, costs of the petition and other appropriate reliefs.

3.In spite of receiving notice from this Court, the respondent failed to appear either in person or through counsel, and also did not file any counter.

Hence, the respondent was set ex parte.

4. Heard the arguments of petitioner’s counsel.

3 HMOP 42 of 2026

5. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of decree of

divorce by dissolving the marriage between petitioner and

respondent?

6. POINT:

To substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1. Through her evidence, P.W.1 reiterated all the averments made in the petition with regard to the marriage between herself and the respondent, the acts of cruelty allegedly committed by the respondent, the disputes arose between them, and their living separately since 19.04.2025. She deposed that despite several mediations and efforts made by elders and well-wishers for reunion, the respondent failed to mend his behaviour and there is no possibility for continuation of marital life. During the course of evidence, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were marked on behalf of the petitioner.

Ex.P1 is the wedding invitation card and Ex.P2 is the marriage photograph of the petitioner and respondent. The said documents corroborate the oral testimony of P.W.1 regarding the solemnization of marriage between the parties on 04.11.2024 according to Hindu rites and customs. Though notice was served, the respondent failed to appear before the Court and was accordingly set ex parte. Hence, the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is absolutely no material on record to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. The oral evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.P1 and P2 clearly establish the marital relationship between the parties and the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner. From the unrebutted evidence available on record, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner was subjected to mental cruelty by the respondent and that all efforts for reunion of the parties ended in vain. The parties have been living separately and there appears to be no possibility for restoration of matrimonial life. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief 4 HMOP 42 of 2026 as prayed for.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed without costs and a decree of divorce is hereby granted, dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 04.11.2024 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Typed, corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 4th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- V.Audhinarayana

Civil Judge ( Senior Division),

Palamaner.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For respondent:-

PW1 : Kaveri.B Nil

Exhibits marked

For petitioner:-

Ex.P-1 – Wedding invitation card Ex.P-2 – Marriage photos

For respondent:

NIL

Sd/- V.Audhinarayana

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Palamaner.

DRAFT/FAIR ORDER

HMOP.NO.42/2026

DT:04.05.2026

5 HMOP 42 of 2026

1 HMOP 48 OF 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION):: PALAMANER.

Camp Court At Kuppam Present: - V. Audhinarayana,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palamaner.

Wednesday, the 6thday of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.No. 48 of 202 6

Between:-

1. Sri V. Subramani, aged about 31 years, S/o R. Venkatesh, residing at

Lakshmipuram Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. Smt. R. Neelavathi, aged about 30 years, W/o V. Subramani, D/o C.

Ravi, residing at NTR Colony, Dalavaikothapalli, Kuppam Mandal,

Chittoor District.

.…Petitioners

And:- -Nil- …Respondent

This petition coming on 05.05.2026 before me for hearing, and upon perusal of the petition and other material papers on record, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. S Srikanth learned Advocate for the petitioners, and this being a petition for divorce by mutual consent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners Under Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with a prayer to dissolve the marriage dated 22.02.2021 of petitioners by means of a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

2.The petitioners submitted that their marriage was solemnized on 22-02-2021 at Om Shakthi Temple, Murugan Talkies, Kuppam Town 2 HMOP 48 OF 2026 and Mandal, Chittoor District, according to Hindu customs and rituals prevailing in their community. It is stated that theirs was a love-cum- arranged marriage. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic prevailing at that time, wedding invitation cards were not printed and therefore the petitioners filed marriage photographs and Aadhaar cards in support of the marriage. After the marriage, both the petitioners lived together at

Lakshmipuram Village for about one year happily. Subsequently, due to misunderstandings, differences in attitude and irresponsible behaviour towards each other, disputes arose between them and the 2nd petitioner left the matrimonial home on 22-03-2022. The marriage was consummated and no children were born out of the wedlock. The petitioners further submitted that several panchayats and mediations were conducted in the presence of elders and well-wishers of both families at Kuppam, but all efforts for reunion failed. The 2nd petitioner expressed her unwillingness to continue the marital relationship with the 1st petitioner and both parties ultimately concluded that there was no possibility of reunion. Hence, they mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage by obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It is also averred that the 1st petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards full and final permanent alimony to the 2nd petitioner, out of which Rs.2,00,000/- was already paid at the time of filing of the petition and the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- would be paid at the time of granting divorce. The 2nd petitioner agreed not to initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against the 1st petitioner and his family members.

Both parties also agreed to live separately without interfering in each other’s personal lives and not to spread any allegations or rumours against each other or their family members. The petitioners lastly prayed the court to dissolve the marriage dated 22-02-2021 between 3 HMOP 48 OF 2026 them by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3.On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and

Exs.P1 document is marked through PW1.

4. Heard the arguments.

5. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief of decree of

divorce by dissolving the marriage between petitioners by way of

mutual consent?

6. POINT:-

In order to prove the case of the petitioners, Petitioner No.1 and

Petitioner No.2 were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. Both the witnesses reiterated the averments made in the petition and deposed that their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu customs and rituals and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife for some time. They further stated that due to misunderstandings and differences of opinion, disputes arose between them and despite several mediations and panchayats conducted by elders and well- wishers, the disputes could not be resolved and there is no possibility of reunion. P.W.1 and P.W.2 further deposed that they have been living separately for the last several years and have voluntarily decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent without any force, coercion or undue influence from anybody. They also stated about the settlement arrived at between them with regard to permanent alimony and agreed to lead their respective lives independently in future. To substantiate their case, the petitioners got marked Ex.P1, which is the marriage photograph of the petitioners. The said document supports the factum of marriage between the petitioners. The oral evidence of P.W.1 and 4 HMOP 48 OF 2026 P.W.2 coupled with Ex.P1 clearly establishes that the marriage between the petitioners was solemnized and that due to irreconcilable differences they are unable to continue their marital relationship. Their evidence remained consistent, cogent and trustworthy. The Court is satisfied that both the petitioners have voluntarily consented for dissolution of marriage and that there is no collusion or undue influence between them in filing the present petition. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed without costs and a decree of divorce is hereby granted, dissolving the marriage performed between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 on 22.02.2021 by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Typed on computer, corrected and pronounced in open Court this the 6th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-V.Audhinarayana

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Palamaner.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners: For respondent:-

PW1 : V Subramani -None- PW2 : Neelavathi

Exhibits marked

For petitioners:- For respondent:

Ex.P.1 : Marriage photo of parties --None--

Sd/-V.Audhinarayana

Civil Judge ( Senior Division)

Palamaner.

DRAFT/FAIR ORDER

HMOP.No.48 of 2026

dt:06.05.2026 .

5 HMOP 48 OF 2026

1 HMOP.No. 172 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION):: PALAMANER.

Present: - V. Audhinarayana,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palamaner.

Friday, the 8 th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P . 172 of 2025

Between:-

S. Rajesh, S/o. R. Sreenivasulu, aged about 27 years, Hindu, residing at

D.No.1-171, Boyachinnaganapalli Village, V. Kota Post and Mandal, Chittoor

District, Pin Code-517424. … Petitioner

And:-

Smt. R. Lavanya, W/o. S. Rajesh, D/o. R. Sankaraiah, aged about 26 years,

Hindu, residing at Thirumalraju Kandriga Village, Puttur Mandal, Tirupati

District, Pin Code-517571. …Respondent

This petition was presented on 08.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Syed Ismail learned Advocate for petitioner, and

Smt Kanchi Syamala for resplendent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner claims decree of divorce under section 13 (1) (1a) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1956.

2. The contents of the petition in a nutshell are that The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 23.08.2024 at VSN Kalyana

Mandapam, near RDM Gate, Nagiri-Tirupati Road, Puttur Town, Tirupati

District, according to Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. It is stated that the marriage was an arranged marriage performed by the elders of both families. The petitioner pleaded that after the marriage the respondent joined the matrimonial house at Boyachinnaganapalli village and thereafter both parties shifted to Bangalore for employment. According to the petitioner, while residing together at Bangalore, the respondent frequently picked up 2 HMOP.No. 172 of 2025 quarrels with the petitioner for trivial reasons, abused him in filthy language, insulted him and subjected him to mental harassment and cruelty. It is further alleged that the respondent damaged household articles, wandered outside the house during night hours without informing the petitioner and threatened the petitioner stating that she would kill him by throwing a stone or using a knife. The petitioner further contended that due to the conduct of the respondent he suffered mental agony and sleepless nights. The petitioner also alleged that prior to the marriage the respondent was suffering from dissociative disorder and psychosis, which fact was allegedly suppressed by her parents at the time of marriage. It is pleaded that after the marriage the petitioner got the respondent treated at various hospitals at Tirupati and

Bangalore by spending huge amounts towards medical expenses. The petitioner further stated that the respondent attempted suicide by consuming poisonous substance and that her pregnancies were aborted twice due to consumption of medicines and poisonous substances. It is also alleged that the respondent threatened to implicate the petitioner and his family members in false criminal, DVC and maintenance cases. According to the petitioner, due to the continuous acts of cruelty and harassment, it became impossible for him to continue the marital relationship with the respondent. Hence, the petitioner sought a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties.

3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was referred to the

Mediation Centre, Palamaner, for amicable settlement between the parties. In pursuance of the said reference, both the parties appeared before the learned mediator, participated in the mediation sessions, and ultimately arrived at a voluntary settlement. The terms of the said settlement were reduced into writing and signed by both parties in the presence of the mediator. The mediator submitted his report, which is marked as Ex.X1. Thereafter, before this Court, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and the 3 HMOP.No. 172 of 2025 respondentwasexamined as RW1, and both affirmed the fact of settlement as recorded in Ex.X1 and expressed their willingness to abide by the agreed terms.

4. In view of the evidence of PW1 and RW1 and the terms of settlement contained in Ex.X1, it is clear that both parties have voluntarily resolved their disputes. The settlement is lawful, free from coercion. Under Ex.X1 (Memorandum of Agreement), the parties amicably settled their dispute through mediation.

5. In the result, the petition is closed as per the terms with the settlement

dated 08.05.2026 arrived between parties before the mediator. In the

circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the typist on computer, corrected and pronounced in open Court this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- V. Audhinarayana

Civil Judge ( Senior Division)

Palamaner.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For respondent:-

PW1 :S. Rajesh RW1:- R Lavanya

Exhibits marked

For Petitioner:-For Respondent:-

Ex.X1 is the Mediator Report NIL

Sd/- V.Audhinarayana

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Palamaner.

DRAFT/FAIR ORDER

HMOP.No.172 of 2025

4 HMOP.No. 172 of 2025

dt:08.05.2026

~··

ORE THE BENCH OF LOK ADALAT SATHYAVEDU ON

~ .-.....

05-03-2020 AT THE COURT COMPOUND

f ~ ;~~

~. Present :- Sri. V.Audhinarayana ~ Junior Civil Judge, Sathyavedu. ~-" 2. Sri.D.Munisekhar, Advocate - Member "' ourt of the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Sathyavedu on 5 th day of March 2020.

o.s.NO. 147 /2019 ON THE FILE OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHYAVEDU.

L.A.No. "3 3 /2020

B.Kesavulu S/o Beemaneni Kannaiah, Residing at D.No.2/181, Ramnagar Street, sathyavedu town and Manda!, Chittoor District.

....... PLAINTIFF

A.Ravi Reddy 5/o Late A.Ramakrishna Reddy, Residing at Chenneri @ Narasareddy Kandriga Village, Dasukuppam Post, Sathyavedu Manda!, Chittoor District.

....... DEFENDANT

Whereby the conciliation of the bench of Lok-Adalath both parties to the mortgage suit have mutually reconciled and agreed to settle the matter in issue in the above suit with following terms.

This suit for recovery of Rs.19,31,500/- ( Rupees Nineteen lakhs thirty one thousand and five hundred only) and that the defendant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- ( Rupees Six lakhs only) with interest 24% P.A on or before 05-09-2020 to the plaintiff f~om the date of mortgage deed 26-07-2014. The plaintiff agreed to receive the same. If the defendant fails to p~y the above agreed amount on or before 05-09-2020 to the plaintiff entitled to recover agreed amount. Hence, the award is passed.

The plaintiff is entitled for refund of court fee of Rs.21,826-00 as per Section 21 of Legal Services Authority Act.

f.> .. (~~~> ~~·~

Plaintiff Defendant

Advocaj~~

Membe.I:_J, ri.D.Munisekha ,

Sd/- V.Audhinarayana,

Presiding Officer,

//T. ue Copy//