Miss V.devi Sai Srivani, Jcj, Ptp

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PUTTAPARTHI

PRESENT:- Miss. V.D.S.Srivani

Junior Civil Judge, Puttaparthi.

Friday, this the 28th day of June,2019

O.S.No.397/2018

Between:

Vagga Mallikarjuna ....... Plaintiff

And

1.Vagga Nanjamma 2.Vagga Pedda Mallanna

3.Vagga Rajendra ........ Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 19-06-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajendra Prasad Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 set exparte and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of plaintiff’s 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property.

2. The brief facts of the case are that :

a.The plaintiff is the elder son and D3 younger son of D1 and D2. The plaintiff, D2 and D3 constitute Hindu Mithakshara Joint family. Vagga Nagappa is the father of D2 who owned and possessed some landed properties at

Vemulatipalli which is full of boulders in addition to plaint schedule property. After the death of Vagga Nagappa, the plaintiff, D2 and D3 with hard labour removed boulders and made those lands fertile and they got good crops and lot of money.

b.From the income of those lands, they joint family members including the plaintiff purchased plaint scheduled property in the name of D1. Though sale deed was taken in the name of D1, it is always treated as joint family property and on no occasion it was treated as self acquired property of D1.

c.The plaintiff, D2 and D3 constituted Hindu Joint family and the plaint scheduled property is the joint family property of them and they are in joint possession. The plaintiff,D2 and D3 divided the rest of the properties by oral partisan and all the parties are in separate possession of the respective plots alloted to them. D1 is not entitled to get any share in the plaint scheduled property as he is not coparcener. As plaint scheduled property was purchased in the name D1 with joint nucleus, she is added as necessary party to the suit and she is proforma defendant.

d.The plaintiff.D2 and D3 are having 1/3rd share each in the plaint scheduled property. D2 and D3 in collusion with Thasildar Kothacheruvu, obtained Pattadar passbook and title deeds in the name of D1 to the entire extent of plaint scheduled property though they have right to extent of 1/3rd.under the guise of

Pattadar passbook, D2 and D3 along with D1 are trying to sell away the entire extent to the third parties. There is no possibility for plaintiff, D2 and D3 to enjoy the plaint schedule property jointly. The D2 and D3 are not sharing income in the crops with the plaintiff.

e.The shares of the plaintiff and D2 and D3 in the plaint schedule property are as follows:

1. Share of plaintiff =1/3rd

2. Share of D2 =1/3rd

3. Share of D3 =1/3rd f.The plaintiff made several demands on D2 and D3 for amicable partition but they are postponing on some pretext and not coming forward.

Hence the suit.

3.D1 to D3 were set exparte in view of non filling of their written statement with in statutory period.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, he was examined himself as PW.1. Exs.A-1 and A2 were exhibited. Ex.A1 is certified copy of sale deed dt.18-02-1991, in name of D1.

Ex.A2 is the Genelogy.

5. Heard.

6.The point for consideration :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate

possession of his 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property ?” 7.POINT :

a.The plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. He retreated the same facts as mentioned in plaint. Ex.A1 and A2 are exhibited on his behalf.

b. The recitals in Ex.A1 shows that the suit schedule property is in the name of D1 as alleged by the plaintiff.

c.The evidence of PW1 shows that the plaint schedule property i.e.

Sy.No.333-1 in an extent of Ac.0.49cts is the joint family property of plaintiff, D2 and D3. And the plaintiff, D2 and D3 gets 1/3rd share each i.e. Ac.0.16cts each in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further contentions shows that the suit schedule property is purchased by plaintiff, D2 and D3 in the name of

D1(proforma defendant) and it is their joint family property and not self acquired property of D1.

d.All the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and A2 were unchallenged.

Therefore as per evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and A2, the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property.

Hence based on the above discussion, this court allots the following shares in the plaint schedule property as follows:-

A. The plaintiff have = 1/3rd share

B. The defendant No.2 have = 1/3rd share

C. The defendant No.3 have = 1/3rd share

Therefore the point is answered in favor of plaintiff accordingly.

9. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs, dividing the plaint schedule property into 3 equal shares, allotting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff, 1/3rd share to defendant no.2 and 1/3rd share to defendant no.3. The plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh petition to determine mesne profits.

Dictated to my dictation to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28 th day of June, 2019

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PUTTAPARTHI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1: Vagga Mallikarjuna

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A-1:certified copy of sale deed in favour of D1 Dt:18.02.1991, Ex.A2:The Genelogy.

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil

JCJ, PTP

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PUTTAPARTHI

PRESENT:- Miss. V.D.S.Srivani

Junior Civil Judge, Puttaparthi.

Friday, this the 28th day of June,2019

O.S.No.397/2018

Between:

Vagga Mallikarjuna ....... Plaintiff

And

1.Vagga Nanjamma 2.Vagga Pedda Mallanna

3.Vagga Rajendra ........ Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 19-06-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajendra Prasad Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 set exparte and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of plaintiff’s 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property.

2. The brief facts of the case are that :

a.The plaintiff is the elder son and D3 younger son of D1 and D2. The plaintiff, D2 and D3 constitute Hindu Mithakshara Joint family. Vagga Nagappa is the father of D2 who owned and possessed some landed properties at

Vemulatipalli which is full of boulders in addition to plaint schedule property. After the death of Vagga Nagappa, the plaintiff, D2 and D3 with hard labour removed boulders and made those lands fertile and they got good crops and lot of money.

b.From the income of those lands, they joint family members including the plaintiff purchased plaint scheduled property in the name of D1. Though sale deed was taken in the name of D1, it is always treated as joint family property and on no occasion it was treated as self acquired property of D1.

c.The plaintiff, D2 and D3 constituted Hindu Joint family and the plaint scheduled property is the joint family property of them and they are in joint possession. The plaintiff,D2 and D3 divided the rest of the properties by oral partisan and all the parties are in separate possession of the respective plots alloted to them. D1 is not entitled to get any share in the plaint scheduled property as he is not coparcener. As plaint scheduled property was purchased in the name D1 with joint nucleus, she is added as necessary party to the suit and she is proforma defendant.

d.The plaintiff.D2 and D3 are having 1/3rd share each in the plaint scheduled property. D2 and D3 in collusion with Thasildar Kothacheruvu, obtained Pattadar passbook and title deeds in the name of D1 to the entire extent of plaint scheduled property though they have right to extent of 1/3rd.under the guise of

Pattadar passbook, D2 and D3 along with D1 are trying to sell away the entire extent to the third parties. There is no possibility for plaintiff, D2 and D3 to enjoy the plaint schedule property jointly. The D2 and D3 are not sharing income in the crops with the plaintiff.

e.The shares of the plaintiff and D2 and D3 in the plaint schedule property are as follows:

1. Share of plaintiff =1/3rd

2. Share of D2 =1/3rd

3. Share of D3 =1/3rd f.The plaintiff made several demands on D2 and D3 for amicable partition but they are postponing on some pretext and not coming forward.

Hence the suit.

3.D1 to D3 were set exparte in view of non filling of their written statement with in statutory period.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, he was examined himself as PW.1. Exs.A-1 and A2 were exhibited. Ex.A1 is certified copy of sale deed dt.18-02-1991, in name of D1.

Ex.A2 is the Genelogy.

5. Heard.

6.The point for consideration :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate

possession of his 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property ?” 7.POINT :

a.The plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. He retreated the same facts as mentioned in plaint. Ex.A1 and A2 are exhibited on his behalf.

b. The recitals in Ex.A1 shows that the suit schedule property is in the name of D1 as alleged by the plaintiff.

c.The evidence of PW1 shows that the plaint schedule property i.e.

Sy.No.333-1 in an extent of Ac.0.49cts is the joint family property of plaintiff, D2 and D3. And the plaintiff, D2 and D3 gets 1/3rd share each i.e. Ac.0.16cts each in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further contentions shows that the suit schedule property is purchased by plaintiff, D2 and D3 in the name of

D1(proforma defendant) and it is their joint family property and not self acquired property of D1.

d.All the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and A2 were unchallenged.

Therefore as per evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and A2, the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property.

Hence based on the above discussion, this court allots the following shares in the plaint schedule property as follows:-

A. The plaintiff have = 1/3rd share

B. The defendant No.2 have = 1/3rd share

C. The defendant No.3 have = 1/3rd share

Therefore the point is answered in favor of plaintiff accordingly.

9. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs, dividing the plaint schedule property into 3 equal shares, allotting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff, 1/3rd share to defendant no.2 and 1/3rd share to defendant no.3. The plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh petition to determine mesne profits.

Dictated to my dictation to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28 th day of June, 2019

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PUTTAPARTHI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1: Vagga Mallikarjuna

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A-1:certified copy of sale deed in favour of D1 Dt:18.02.1991, Ex.A2:The Genelogy.

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil

JCJ, PTP

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PUTTAPARTHY

PRESENT: Miss. V.D.S.Sri Vani, Junior Civil Judge, Puttaparthy, Thursday, the 27th day of June, 2019.

O.S.No. 58 of 2019

Between :

K.Prasad ....... Plaintiff

And

D.Babafakroodin ....... Defendant

This suit, coming on today for hearing before me in the presence of Sri

D.Mallesh Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant having set exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,74,000/-, being principal and interest due on cheque along with subsequent interest on the principal sum of Rs.1,50,000/- at the contract rate interest of 24% per annum from the date of suit to the date of realization and costs of the suit on the foot of a promissory note.

2.The avernment of pliant in brief as follows:

Sole plaintiff, herein alleged that sole defendant herein borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- from him by promising to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a cheque bearing No.096224 in his (plaintiff) favour on 20-02-2018, but failed to repay the said amount with interest as agreed upon.

When the cheque was presented for collection in the Canara bank, Puttaparthi branch on 17-03-2018, the said cheque was returned on 19-03-2018, with an endorsement “Account Closed”. When the plaintiff informed about cheque bounce ,the defendant instead of paying the amount under the cheque, post ponded deliberately on some pretext. Legal notice was issued to the defendant on 8-11-2018. Hence the suit.

3.Having received summons, defendant failed to make appearance and therefore, he was set exparte.

4.Heard Advocate for plaintiff, who requested this court to decree the suit as defendant was set exparte.

5.Now point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the

defendant as prayed for?

6.POINT:

To prove the contention of the plaintiff he filed his affidavit by examining him self as PW1. Through PW1 documents Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. In his affidavit he reiterated his case mentioned supra. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 which is cheque dt:20-02-2018 shows the amount is borrowed by the defendant who executed the said pronote in favour of the plaintiff. Return memo from Canara Bank dt; 19-03-2018 is marked as Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dated 8-11-2018 is marked as Ex.A-3, postal cover is marked as Ex.A4 and postal acknowledgement is marked as Ex.A-5. All the documents submitted by the plaintiff where unchallenged and these documents shows the liability of the defendant which is claimed by the plaintiff in the instant suit. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

7.Hence the suit is liable to be decreed.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed exparte with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,74,000/- together with further interest at 12% per annum from the date of filling of the suit till the date of the decree and thereby subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the

27 th day of June, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Puttaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1:K.Prasad- N ONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Original Cheque Ex.A-120-02-2018: Returned Memo Ex.A-209.03.2018: Legal notice Ex.A-310.08.2018: Postal receipt Ex.A-408.03.2018: Postal Acknowledgement Ex.A-517.08.2018:

FOR DEFENDANT : - Nil -

J.C.J. P.T.P.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PUTTAPARTHY

PRESENT: Miss. V.D.S.Sri Vani, Junior Civil Judge, Puttaparthy, Thursday, the 27th day of June, 2019.

O.S.No. 58 of 2019

Between :

K.Prasad ....... Plaintiff

And

D.Babafakroodin ....... Defendant

This suit, coming on today for hearing before me in the presence of Sri

D.Mallesh Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant having set exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,74,000/-, being principal and interest due on cheque along with subsequent interest on the principal sum of Rs.1,50,000/- at the contract rate interest of 24% per annum from the date of suit to the date of realization and costs of the suit on the foot of a promissory note.

2.The avernment of pliant in brief as follows:

Sole plaintiff, herein alleged that sole defendant herein borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- from him by promising to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a cheque bearing No.096224 in his (plaintiff) favour on 20-02-2018, but failed to repay the said amount with interest as agreed upon.

When the cheque was presented for collection in the Canara bank, Puttaparthi branch on 17-03-2018, the said cheque was returned on 19-03-2018, with an endorsement “Account Closed”. When the plaintiff informed about cheque bounce ,the defendant instead of paying the amount under the cheque, post ponded deliberately on some pretext. Legal notice was issued to the defendant on 8-11-2018. Hence the suit.

3.Having received summons, defendant failed to make appearance and therefore, he was set exparte.

4.Heard Advocate for plaintiff, who requested this court to decree the suit as defendant was set exparte.

5.Now point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the

defendant as prayed for?

6.POINT:

To prove the contention of the plaintiff he filed his affidavit by examining him self as PW1. Through PW1 documents Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. In his affidavit he reiterated his case mentioned supra. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 which is cheque dt:20-02-2018 shows the amount is borrowed by the defendant who executed the said pronote in favour of the plaintiff. Return memo from Canara Bank dt; 19-03-2018 is marked as Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dated 8-11-2018 is marked as Ex.A-3, postal cover is marked as Ex.A4 and postal acknowledgement is marked as Ex.A-5. All the documents submitted by the plaintiff where unchallenged and these documents shows the liability of the defendant which is claimed by the plaintiff in the instant suit. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

7.Hence the suit is liable to be decreed.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed exparte with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,74,000/- together with further interest at 12% per annum from the date of filling of the suit till the date of the decree and thereby subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the

27 th day of June, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Puttaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1:K.Prasad- N ONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Original Cheque Ex.A-120-02-2018: Returned Memo Ex.A-209.03.2018: Legal notice Ex.A-310.08.2018: Postal receipt Ex.A-408.03.2018: Postal Acknowledgement Ex.A-517.08.2018:

FOR DEFENDANT : - Nil -

J.C.J. P.T.P.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PUTTAPARTHI

PRESENT:- Miss. V.D.S.Srivani

Junior Civil Judge, Puttaparthi.

Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019

O.S.No.93/2019

Between:

Y. Gopal ..Plaintiff

And

M. Narayana ..Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 21-06-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Madan Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant set exparte and upon hearing both sides and perusal of the available material on record this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction in his favour against the defendant restraining him, his men, agents and agents from interferring with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

2. The brief facts of the case are that :

i.It is alleged in the plaint that, the plaintiff’s father purchased plaint schedule property under Registered sale deed dt.13.04.1984 and was delivered with possession. The plaintiff and his brothers partitioned the properties orally and plaintiff got plaint schedule property. Plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and he is making preparation for constructions in it. The defendant is neighbor site owner and questioning the title of plaintiff over plaint schedule property.

ii.It is further submitted in the plaint that defendant without manner or right or possession over plaint schedule property, creating problems to dispossess the plaintiff. Defendant is making wrong representations before concerned authorities and causing trouble and making threats to the plaintiff enjoyment over plaint schedule property. Hence the suit.

3.Being summons served to the defendant, the defendant failed to appear before this court. Hence the defendant set exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW.1 and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were exhibited.

5.Heard.

6.The point for consideration :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction ?”

POINT :

7.To establish the case, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and wherein he reiterated the petition averments in verbatim. As such, the examination-in-chief of PW.1 is nothing but replica of plaint. Through PW.1 Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked.

Ex.A1 is the Registered sale deed dt.13.04.1984 and Ex.A2 is Geneology.

8.On meticulous perusal of the recitals in sale deed dt. 13.04.1984 under Ex.A1, shows that the plaintiff’s father purchased the petition schedule property for valid consideration and was inducted into possession. The further contention of plaintiff is that in oral partition between plaintiff and his brothers, the plaintiff got plaint schdule property to his share. And the defendant without any maner of right or title or possession is interfering with plaintiff’s possession. All the contentions and document filed by the plaintiff were unchallenged by the defendant. Therefore the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed exparte with costs in favour of plaintiff by restraining the defendant, his men, and agents etc., from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over plaint schedule property by way of permanent injunction.

Dictated to my dictation to Personal Assistant, directly typed on my

computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28 th day of June, 2019.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PUTTAPARTHI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1: Y. Gopal

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A-1 :Registered sale deed dt.13.04.1984 Ex.A-2 :Geneology.

FOR DEFENDANT : Nil

JCJ, PTP