Sri V. Gopalakrishna Rao

I.A.338/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

1

In the Court of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

Present: Sri M. Srinivasachary, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Friday, the 22nd day of August, 2014

I.A. 338/2014 IN O.S. 943/2014 Between

1. Sri Chinni Venkata Rao, S/o late Subrahmanyam, Hindu, aged 48 years, residing at A.No. 11 and 9, Kapuluppada village, K. Nagarapalem Panchavati, Bheemunipatnam Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District

2. Smt. Chinni Lakshmi, W/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged 43 years, rest do.

... Petitioners/Plaintiffs

A n d

Sri Perumbudhuri Eswara Rao, S/o Padmanabha Swamy, Hindu, aged about 55 years, D.No.14-794, Simhagiri Vihar, Virat Nagar, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District

... Respondent/Defendant

This petition coming on 13.8.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of S/Sri D. Ravindranath, K. Srinivasa Rao and M.V.S.Narayana, Advocates for the petitioners/plaintiffs and of Sri G.M. Reddy, Advocate for the respondent/defendant, having stood over to this day for consideration and this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, his men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the suit schedule property.

2.In brief, the averments of the petition are that:

First plaintiff is the husband of the second plaintiff. First plaintiff purchased an extent of 100 sq. years bearing plot No.1 in L.P.2/206 on 9.5.2012 in S. No.314 of Kapuluppada village from one Smt. Thadikonda Rukmini, wife of

Raghava Rao, for a valuable consideration under an unregistered sale deed and possession was delivered to him. As per the terms of the sale deed his vendor would execute and register the sale deed whenever permission granted by the

I.A.338/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

2 government. Originally, the said vendor Thadikonda Rukmini purchased the property from original owner Ryali Satya Prabhakara Rao by way of sale deed

dt. 31.3.08. The said Prabhakara Rao who is the actual owner and his site was

taken away by VUDA for formation of 100 feet road and alternatively the above site was given by the government. The second plaintiff purchased an extent of 200 sq. yards bearing plot no.19 which is on the eastern side of the above said plot No.1 in the same S.No.314 of Kapuluppada village from Nagothi Singanna,

S/o late Adiyya for a valuable consideration on 9.5.2012 and possession was delivered to her. Her vendor Singanna purchased the same from the said Ryali

Satya Prabhakar Rao on 2.5.2012 who is the original owner of the said site. On 16.6.2012 the first plaintiff purchased an extent of 100 sq. yards bearing plot no.2 which is on southern side of plot no.1 from Smt. Pothina Amaraveni, W/o

Apparao for valuable consideration by way of unregistered sale deed and possession was delivered to the second plaintiff. As per the sale deed, his vendor would execute and register the sale deed whenever permission is granted by the government. The said Amaraveni purchased the same from

Pinninti Lakshmi and others for valuable consideration by way of unregistered sale deed dt.25.5.2011 who are the legal heirs of late Pinninti Rama Rao, whose site was acquired for formation of 100 feet road in Thimmapuram and alternatively the above said plot no.2 was allotted to the said Rama Rao.

After purchase, in order to construct a house the petitioner applied for plan for construction and the Kapuluppada Grama Panchayat issued approved plan on 10.6.2012 and accordingly, they constructed a compound wall and three rooms along with the bathroom and lavatory and raised plantations with schedule property and living therein. The panchayat taxes are being paid in the name of the second plaintiff and also electricity connection is in the name of the first plaintiff. The respondent/defendant without any manner of right came to the schedule property on 28.5.2014 at 8 a.m., and tried to occupy the suit schedule property but they resisted the same with the help of neighbours. The

I.A.338/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

3 respondent left the spot proclaiming that he would come again. He has no respect for law. He may illegally again try to interfere with their possession.

The petitioners have strong prima-facie case and balance of convenience is in their favour. If the injunction is not granted they will be put to suffer serious loss and hardship. Hence, this petition.

3.On 13.6.2014 this Court was pleased to pass ex-parte ad-interim injunction and notice was issued to the respondent.

4.The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition contending inter-alia as under:

The respondent is one of the beneficiaries of the layout formed by the

Government under Economically Weaker Sections Scheme 1981-82. He was allotted a vacant site bearing plot no.63 measuring an extent of AC.0.03 cents in S.No.314/P of Kapuluppada village wherein he constructed a house with the financial aid of A.P. State Housing Corporation. He discharged the loan and housing corporation issued a patta and loan discharge certificate. While so, due to formation of 100 feet road, from beach road to Kapuluppada by VUDA several houses were effected in such extension and he was one of the land losers as his house has fallen thereunder. Consequently, he was rendered shelter-less. He submits that during 2007 VUDA authorities formed fresh layout in the same S. No.314 consisting of 20 plots for rehabilitating the effected owners/beneficiaries and among those 19 plots were already allotted to the effected plot owners and on coming to know the same, he made a representation to the Revenue Authorities to allot residue plot no.20 of the said layout to him.

The Revenue Divisional Officer after making discrete enquiries about the bona-fides of his claim issued proceedings in R.C. No.4689/2007/B/ dt. 5.5.2012 directing the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam to issue proceedings allotting plot no.

20 to him. Despite that for obvious reasons, he failed to implement the same and started blame throwing game one against the other. Having fed up with

I.A.338/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

4 the adamant behaviour of the revenue authorities, the respondent approached the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad by way of writ of Mandamus in

W.P. No.39344/2012, in which he filed W.P.M.P.49964/12 seeking interim direction to the revenue officials for allotting residue plot no.20 to him and the

Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass interim orders on 21.12.2010 directing

the authorities to take necessary steps to comply with the orders passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. Even after receipt of the interim orders, the authorities failed to comply with the direction of Hon'ble High Court.

Hence, the respondent filed contempt case No.986/2013. After receipt of contempt notice, the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam issued proceedings in Rc.

No.333/2005/C/ dt.28.7.2013 allotting the vacant house site in plot bearing

No.20 in EWS Layout prepared by the VUDA in the name of the respondent.

The alleged unregistered sale deeds filed by the petitioners are not admissible in evidence for want of registration besides that they do not confer any title to the petitioners as the alleged vendors are not the original allottees as per the proceedings in Rc. No.434/06/L2 dt.19.7.06 which is suffice to infer that the documents relied on by the petitioners do not confer any right, title or interest over the schedule property as the law is very much settled that a man cannot convey better title than what he has. The other documents pressed into service are all fabricated, based on the false sale deeds to suit their false claim as such those documents will not come to their rescue. The petitioners are nothing but trespassers and legally they are not entitled for any relief of equitable reliefs as per the settled principles of law.

Mere suit for injunction is not maintainable without seeking relief of declaration. As per the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam dt.28.7.2013 the respondent is the absolute owner of plot no.20 in such event an injunction against the true owner is not maintainable. The respondent is agitating his legal rights before the appropriate authorities. He never resorted to any acts attributed in the petition and in fact he never come across with the

I.A.338/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

5 petitioners herein. The suit is not only frivolous but also mischievous in nature purposefully filed in the name of the petitioners by the other forces to hinder the process of implementing the lawful orders promulgated by the Hon'ble High

Court. Hence, there is no prima-facie and balance of convenience. The irreparable loss is much more to the respondent than to the petitioners if the

Hon'ble Court grants injunction in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners

have approached the court with unclean hands coupled with deceit. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5.On behalf of both sides, no oral evidence has been adduced. However, on behalf of petitioner Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.6 while on behalf of the respondent Ex

R.1 to Ex. R.10 marked.

6.Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the respondent who reiterated their submissions as pleaded in the petition and counter and they have submitted authorities in support of their contentions which can be dealt with at an appropriate time in the order.

7.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief sought for in the petition?

8.POINT:

The claim of the petitioners is that the first plaintiff purchased plot Nos.1 and 2 from Rukmini and Amaraveni under unregistered sale deeds dt. 9.5.2012 and 16.6.2012 to an extent of 100 sq. yards each in respect of plot numbers 1 and 2. While the second petitioner purchased an extent of 200 sq. yards vide plot no.19 from one Singanna on 9.5.2012 under an un-registered sale deed.

The petitioners have filed their unregistered sale deeds along with link documents i.e., their vendors sale deeds. Indeed all of them are unregistered documents. The learned counsel for the respondent raised objection in marking such unregistered sale deeds on the ground that they are not admissible for want of registration. Whereas the counsel for the respondent resisted such contention on the ground that since the suit is for permanent injunction and

I.A.338/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

6 the present petition is for temporary injunction for collateral transaction, such unregistered sale deeds can be looked into. I do find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent in considering the unregistered sale deeds in an enquiry under the interlocutory application like the present one in which the said documents can be provisionally exhibited for the purpose of collateral transaction in as much as admittedly the suit is for permanent injunction wherein the question of title can be incidentally gone into. What is primary consideration is to look into the possession of the petitioner as on the date of the suit. In this regard, it is worthy to refer the authority cited on behalf of the petitioner in the case of Kaneez Fathima and another Vs. Samru

Sulthana and others reported in 2008(3) ALT 538 wherein his Lordship held in paragraph 9 as under:

"The Court was impression that, unless a plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction proves his title, possession even if established, cannot be recognised. This is totally opposed to the settled principles of law. Basically, the finding, as to the possession, must be recorded, in a suit of this nature, and the verification of title, on the limited sense, must be undertaken, if necessity arises. The approach adopted by the trial Court was virtually repeated at the appellate stage also. This Court is of the view that the matter needs to be considered afresh by the trial Court."

Thus, the unregistered sale deeds are looked into even though they are not marked as exhibits.

9.Ex.P.1 is the building plan dt.6.10.2012 issued by Panchayat Secretary,

Gram Panchayat, Kapuluppada wherein the area of the site is shown to the extent 334.81 sq. meters which is equivalent to 400 sq. yards as claimed for by the petitioners under three unregistered sale deeds dt.9.5.2012 and 16.6.2012.

The plain showing the proposed construction of AC sheet roofed shed in S. No.

314(P) plot nos. 1,2,19 and 20. If the unregistered sale deeds dt.9.5.2012 and 16.6.2012 where under the first petitioner purchased plot nos. 1 and 2 while under unregistered sale deed dt. 9.5.2012 the second petitioner is found to

I.A.338/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

7 have purchased 200 square yards in plot no.19, but coming to Ex.P.1 plot No.20 is also shown to have been the property covered by 400 sq. yards. There is difference in respect of plot no. 20 appearing on Ex.P.1 which does not find place under unregistered sale deed dt. 9.5.2012 of the second petitioner. It is the claim of the petitioners that the second petitioner purchased plot no.19 only. There is no acceptable explanation forthcoming from the side of the petitioners as to how plot no.20 is mentioned in Ex.P.1 the sanctioned plan. In this view of the matter reference is made to the documents marked on behalf of the respondent more particular the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional

Officer under Ex.R.4 wherein the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, addressed a letter dt. 5.5.2012 to take necessary further action on the representation of the applicant (the respondent herein) to allot existing Vuda vacant plot no.20 in S. No. 314 of Kapuluppada village as the site had fallen in 100 feet VUDA road extension and already19 plots were already allotted to 19 beneficiaries whose houses had fallen in 100 feet road extension. Ex.R.5 is the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dt.24.1.2013 addressed to the

Vice Chairman, VUDA to consider the representation of the respondent herein to allot plot no.20. Ex.R.6 is the letter in Rc. No. 434/06/12 dt.19.7.06 addressed by the Vice Chairman, VUDA to the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Visakhapatnam in respect of allotment of plots to the losers of houses sites while formation of 100 feet road at Thimmapuram in an alternative land for

E.W.S. beneficiaries in S. No.314 of Kapuluppada village approval of layout by marking a copy to the respondent. In the said letter, the names of beneficiaries and number of plots allotted to such beneficiaries are mentioned. Ex.R.7 is the proposed rehabilitation layout for E.W.S. plot holders in S.No. 314 of

Kapuluppada village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal showing 20 plots in the said layd out. Each plot size is shown as 24' x 37'6" and each plot is consisting of 100 sq. yards.

I.A.338/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

8

10.When the claim of the petitioners is examined with reference to Ex.R.7 layout their property should not have been appeared in rectangular in as much as it is not the claim of the petitioners that they have purchased the plot no.20.

It is pertinent to note here that when each plot is consisting of 100 sq. yards and if the petitioners have purchased plot nos. 1,2 and 19 they should have been to an extent of 300 sq. yards but not 400 sq. yards as claimed for by the petitioners. Therefore, this leads the Court to look into the list of beneficiaries.

The beneficiary of plot no. 1 is R.S. Prabhakara Rao who appears to have sold to Rukmini on 5.8.08 and the said Rukmini in turn sold to the first petitioner.

Similarly the beneficiary of plot no.2 is P. Rama Rao. A perusal of unregistered sale deed dt. 25.5.2011 would go to show that wife of late P. Rama Rao namely

Lakshmi along with her sons and legal heirs of late Rama Rao agreed to have sold to Pothina Amaraveni, who in turn agreed to have sold to the first plaintiff consisting of 100 square yards. To these two flats there is no discrepancy as per Ex.R.6 the list of beneficiaries and number of plots allotted to them and their alienation. Coming to plot no. 19, as per Ex.R.6 the name of the beneficiary is shown as S. Apparao whereas the claim of petitioners is that one

R.S. Prabhakar sold 200 sq. yards vide plot no. 19 to one Singanna who in turn sold to the second plaintiff on 9.5.2012 under a registered sale deed to an extent of 200 sq. yards. but the extent of 200 sq. yards as found in unregistered sale deeds of Singanna and the second plaintiff is not tallying in respect of the extent allotted to S. Apparao and apart from that, the allottees name is also not tallying. In as much as neither R.S. Prabhakara Rao nor

Singanna were shows as the beneficiaries of plot no.19. Assuming for a moment that either of them is the beneficiary of plot no.19 they should have been allotted only an extent of 100 sq. yards but not more than that. As such it is well settled principle of Transfer of Property Act that no person can transfer the property over which he does not have a valid title or right. No person can transfer the title better than what he had. Absolutely, no convincing

I.A.338/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

9 explanation is forthcoming from the petitioners side as to how they could get 200 sq. yards under plot no.19 when originally such plot is consisting of 100 sq.

yards. These circumstances prima-facie establish the fact that the petitioners have suppressed the material facts and approached the Court with unclean hands. Therefore, the well known maxim that applies in this matter is he who seeks equity must do equity, he who comes into equity must come with clean hands, equity acts the vigilant, not indolent.

11.It may be noted here that injunction is generally granted taking note of the equities of the case. Here the petitioners claiming 400 sq. yards are unable to substantiate prima-facie that they have been in possession of such extent and the documents produced by them such as unregistered sale deeds and

Ex.P.1 building plan goes against their claim. In these circumstances the authority cited on behalf of the petitioners in the case of Gone Rajamma and

others Vs. Chennamaneni Mohan Rao, reported in 2010 (3) ALT 225

wherein his Lordships held that to the effect that a person who is in the settled possession of the property cannot be evicted forcibly even by the true owner, even though the person and possession of property has no prima-facie title to the property, still he can protect his possession even against the true owner when there is threat of dispossession, the said authority which is on distinguishable facts such as settled possession of a person, is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

12.It is not out of place to mention here that each case will have to be decided upon its peculiar facts and it will be left to the Court to exercise its discretion upon proof of circumstances showing which side the balance of convenience lies. As already I held above, that the petitioners are found to have approached this Court with unclean hands and it is quite appropriate to cite the authority in the case of P. Veerabhadrappa setty and another Vs.

Polliki Chandrahas reported in 2014(2) ALD 724 wherein their Lordships held in paragraph 32 as under:

I.A.338/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

10 "The conduct of the plaintiff in suppressing (i) the registered gift deed dt.12.5.1956 in favour of first defendant by Chittam Ramaswamy, (ii) the unregistered relinquishment deed by first defendant in favour of Venkannasetty and (iii) the sale deed allegedly executed by him in favour of Padmavathamma, also disentitle them to grant of the equitable relief of injunction, as they have not come to the Court with clean hands."

And in paragraph 33 it was held as under:

"Since the plaintiffs are found not to have prima-facie title, even assuming for the sake of argument without conceding that they are in possession of the land, grant of injunction in their favour would amount to granting an injunction against the lawful owner. This is not permissible in law. (Hanumanthappa Vs. Muninarayanappa (1996) 11 SCC 696."

It is well settled principle of law that temporary injunction can be granted where the plaintiff produces such material, which if unrebutted would entitle him to secure the decree as is held in AIR 1963 AP 365.

13.It is now relevant to mention the contention of the respondent that he is one of the beneficiaries of the lay out formed by the Government under E.W.S.

1981-82 he was allotted plot no. 53 to an extent of three cents under Ex.R.3 in which he constructed the house with the help of A.P.S.H.C. and that he discharged the loan. To substantiate the same he filed Ex.R.1 mortgage deed and repayment certificate under Ex.R.2. It is his contention that he lost his site in 100 feet formation of road from beach road to Kapuluppada by Vuda.

Subsequently, the said Vuda in 2007 made 20 plots for rehabilitation to the effected persons and 19 persons were already allotted and in that way he made representation to allot him residuary plot no. 20. When the Revenue

Authorities and concerned officials in spite of his legitimate entitlement did not allot him such site, he had to move the Honourable High Court and obtained interim orders under Ex.R.8. Even after receipt of the same, the authorities

I.A.338/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

11 failed to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court and after he initiated the contempt proceedings and upon receipt of the same, the Tahsildar,

Bheemunipatnam issued the proceedings dt.28.7.2013 under Ex.R.9 in respect of the plot bearing no. 20. Under such circumstances he is claiming the interest over the said plot and thereby defending the matter.

14.In view of the allotment of plot no.20 under Ex.R.9 to the respondent, the documents under Ex.P.2 which is for sanction of current and electricity meter and Ex.P.3 the house tax demand notice, and receipt under Ex.R.4 and electricity bills under Ex.P.5 and the photographs under Ex.P.6 do not in any way help the petitioners to protect their interest over the subject matter. They are found to have knocked the portals of this Court for redressal with unclean hands more particularly by way of misrepresentation of facts and suppression of the material facts particularly in respect of the extent of the property holding by them.

15.For all the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have miserably failed to prove the prima-facie case in respect of their possession over the suit schedule property.

16.Coming to the aspect of balance of convenience is concerned, since the respondent is found to have been allotted plot no.20, the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the petitioners as their documents do not in any way show their entitlement of right and possession in respect of plot no.20. If this Court grants temporary injunction by making the earlier order as an absolute one, it would cause great injustice to the respondent. On the other hand, refusal of injunction would not cause any loss or injury to the petitioners.

In these circumstances, it is not a fit case to grant temporary injunction.

Consequently, the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted on 13.6.2014 is liable for vacation. Accordingly,I hold under this point.

I.A.338/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

12

17.POINT NO.2:

In the result, this petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, the ex- parte ad-inteirm injunction granted on 13.6.2014 is hereby vacated.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22nd day of August, 2014.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Appendix of evidence

No witness is examined on either side

No. of exhibits marked for

Petitioners:

Ex.P.1 ... Building plan dt. 6.10.2012 Ex.P.2 ... No objection certificate dt. 5.11.2012 Ex.P.3 ... House tax demand notice dt.12.11.2012 Ex.P.4 ... House tax payment receipts dt.20.5.2014 Ex.P.5 ... Electricity bills dt. 21.8.2014 Ex.P.6 ... Photographs with computer disc

Respondent:

Ex.R.1 ... Mortgage deed Ex.R.2 ... Patta issued by Mandal Revenue Officer Ex.R.3 ... Loan discharge certificate Ex.R.4... Proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dt. 5.8.2012 Ex.R.5 ... Proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dt.24.1.2013 Ex.R.6... Proceedings of the VUDA Ex.R.7 ... Plan prepared by VUDA Ex.R.8 ... Order in W.P. No.49964/2012 Ex.R.9 ... Proceedings of the M.R.O., Bheemunipatnam Ex.R.10 ... Representation

I ASCJ, VSP.

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

1

In the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

Present: Sri M. Srinivasachary, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Friday, the 10th day of October, 2014

I.A. 431/2014 IN O.S. 183/2014 Between

Manjeshwar Sriram, S/o late M.M. Pai, aged 61 years, R/o No.11, Ocean View Layout, Visakhapatnam … Petitioner/Proposed party A n d

1. M/s. Classic Farms & Resorts, a registered partnership firm, having its office at F-8, Classic Complex, Prakasaraopeta, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Partner Sri Makena Venkata Papayya Patrudu, S/o Sri Lakshmi Narasayya Patrudu, Hindu, aged 35 years … Plaintiff/R.1

2. Nammi Ramulappadu, S/o Marisu, aged about 58 years, Nammivanipeta, Sanghivalasa village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal.

3. Nammi Chinna Rao, S/o Marisu, aged about 55 years, rest do.

4. Nammi Narasmhulu, S/o Marisu, aged about 52 years, rest do.

5.Nammi Simhachalam, S/o Marisu, aged about 50 years, rest do.

6.Nammi Gangulu, S/o Marisu, aged about 47 years, rest do.

7. Nammi Rama Rao, S/o Marisu, aged about 44 years, rest do.

8. Nammi Suribabu, S/o Marisu, aged about 40 years, rest do.

9. Nammi Appalanaidu, S/o Nammi Narasimhulu, aged 28 years, rest do.

… Defendants 1 to 8/R.2 to R.9

This petition coming on 5.9.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Ramdas, Advocate for the petitioner/proposed party and for plaintiff/R.1 and of Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao and Sri Ch.V.S.N. Murthy, Advocates for the respondents 2 to 9/defendants 1 to 8, having stood over to this day for consideration and this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner/proposed party under Order 1

Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC read with Rule 28(2) of Civil Rules of Practice to add him as 2nd plaintiff in the suit and consequent upon adding him as a party, direct the sole plaintiff to amend the plaint as follows:

(i)to amend the words ‘plaintiff is’ occurring in the beginning of para

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

2

III (a) as ‘plaintiffs are’;

(ii)to renumber paras III ( c) and (d) as (d) and (e) and add a new para III ( c) as follows: “Subsequent to filing of the suit plaintiff No.2 added himself as party to the suit as he purchased an extent of Ac.0.11 ½ cents being the southern part of the plaint schedule property from plaintiff No.1 under a registered sale deed dt.11.5.05;

(iii) to amend the words ‘plaintiff partner’ occurring in line 10 of existing para III (c ) as ‘first plaintiff partner’ and amend the words ‘plaintiff submits that its partners are’ occurring in first line of present para III (d) as ‘plaintiff submits that they are’ and amend the word plaintiff as plaintiffs wherever it occurs in the plaint with grammatical variation of the verb.

2.The averments of the affidavit in brief are that:

The first respondent herein filed the above suit against the respondents 2 to 9 for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment in respect of the plaint schedule property being an extent of Ac.0.252 cents or 0.102 hectares of dry land situated in the village of

Sanghivalasa in Bheemunipatnam Mandal. The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 0.11 ½ cents out of the suit schedule property being the southern part from the first respondent under a registered sale deed dt.11.5.05 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Earlier he worked as a Captain in a ship and used to be on sailing on high seas most of the time, as such he entrusted his property to R.1 to look after the same as the partners of the firm are his close friends. Accordingly, R.1 is taking care of the property.

As the respondents 2 to 9 attempted to occupy the petition schedule property, the suit is filed. The respondents have taken a plea in the suit as well as in the injunction petition that as part of the suit schedule property mainly Ac. 0.11 ½ cents was sold to him the first respondent is not entitled for injunction and that it is a matter between him and the first respondent and the same does not give any right to R.2 to R.9 to seek for vacating the injunction. In fact, the first

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

3 respondent is protecting his interests in the suit schedule property though the said fact is not stated in the suit obviously by mistake. Nevertheless R.2 to R.9 are not affected by the said omission as in fact it is a matter between him and

R.1. Therefore, in order to protect his interest also in respect of his property being southern part of the suit schedule property, he is advised to implead himself as a party to the suit as plaintiff No.2, thus he is a necessary party to the suit to protect his interest in respect of the suit schedule property against the attempt of R.2 to R.9 who are making attempts to occupy the same. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondents 2 to 8 filed their counter denying the averments of the petition contending inter-alia that the petitioner has purchased an extent of

Ac.0.11 ½ cents from out of the suit schedule property being the southern part from R.1 under a registered sale deed dt.11.5.05 and he was put in possession of the property. The plaintiff has no right over an extent of Ac.0.11 ½ cents from out of the claiming plaint schedule as the same was already sold away by him to the present petitioner herein. When they brought it to the notice of this

Court by filing their written statement and counter in I.A.64/2014, the present petition was falsely filed to cover up the latches. Non-mentioning of the material facts and afterwards claiming the same as obviously a mistake is not a tenable plea. It is not a matter between the plaintiff and the present petitioner because the present petitioner was not a party to the suit and in other words it is a matter in between them and the plaintiff only as far as this suit is concerned and the present petitioner has nothing to do with the present suit as he is not a party. If the petitioner has any grievance he can seek his remedy by initiating separate proceedings but not in this suit. This petitioner has a separate cause of action and on this ground also this petition is not maintainable. The plaintiff cannot protect the rights of the present petitioner as alleged because the present petitioner has not given any authority as alleged and no such pleading is there in the plaint and no document is filed to that

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

4 effect. The petitioner is not a necessary party to the present suit. There is no necessity to add the petitioner as 2nd plaintiff. Thus, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

5.Heard the counsel on both sides.

6.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioner/proposed part is entitled to the relief to add him as second plaintiff in this suit and for consequential amendments?

2. To what relief?

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once the respondent in I.A.64/2014 filed counter denying the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff setting up the plea that the plaintiff sold 11 ½ cents to this petitioner and for the reason that this petitioner purchased such land from the plaintiff who was protecting his interest because of the reason that this petitioner happens to be most of the time sailing on high seas and he entrusted the property to the plaintiff (first respondent herein) to look after the same as the partners of the firm are his close friends. In the light of the counter filed by the respondents 2 to 9 and as this petitioner has direct interest over the suit subject matter it become necessary to add him as second plaintiff so as to prosecute the matter otherwise he will be put to suffer irreparable loss and injustice which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

8.On the other hand the counsel for the respondents 2 to 9 argued that the petitioner by suppressing the material facts filed this suit and an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and obtained ex-parte ad-interim injunction by coming to the Court with unclean hands, Only after filing the counter by the respondents in the said application, the present petition had come to be filed and that there is no cause of action for this petitioner to come on record as second plaintiff and what all contended in the petition is not tenable and only to cover up the latches, this petition is filed. If at all the

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

5 petitioner has any grievance he can seek his remedy by way of separate proceedings but not in this suit as he will not have any cause of action under the present suit. Therefore, the petition is liable for dismissal.

9.In the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent, let it be seen the record. It is an admitted fact that initially the suit was filed by the plaintiff i.e., M/s. Classic Forms and Resorts represented by its Partner Sri M.V. Papayya Patrudu claiming to be the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. On coming to know the counter and the contentions of the respondents 2 to 9 that he sold 11 ½ cents to the petitioner herein the plaintiff made an attempt and obtained his affidavit and filed in I.A.64/2014 (filed for temporary injunction) and also the present petition is filed by the proposed petitioner to add him as a party. What is germane for consideration under this application is whether the present petitioner has interest over the subject matter and that is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings.

10.Order 1 Rule 10(1) reads as under:

"Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona-fide mistake and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just."

Under the said provision, this Court is having power when it satisfies that the suit has been instituted through a bona-fide mistake and that it is necessary for the determination of the real controversy in dispute and so as to resolve it, a proper and necessary party needs to be substituted or added. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff sold 11 ½ cents to the present petitioner and such fact has been asserted by the respondents 2 to 9 in their counter. In that view of the matter the proposed party to be added, has a direct interest in the controversy involved in the suit. The question involved in the case cannot be

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

6 completely adjudicated without the presence of the petitioner.

11.The counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in the case of

Racharla Thirupathi and others Vs. Gundala Shobha Rani and others

reported in 2013 (5) ALT 209 wherein our Honourable High Court held to the effect that:

"Court is required to see whether persons who claim to be impleaded have direct interest in subject matter of dispute and whether their presence would help Court to finally and completely adjudicate dispute."

While in the decision cited on behalf of the respondents 2 to 9 in the case of

Karri Somalu Vs. Thimmalapalli Venkataswamy and others reported in

Andhra Weekly Reporter 1963 (II) 138 wherein it was held by the

Honourable High Court of A.P. that:

"The true object of rules of procedure is not to defeat an honest plaintiff on narrow, hyper-technical grounds, but to help him obtain redress in a Court of law. Order 1, rule 10(1) is what may be called a curative provision and it will be contrary to its spirit and object to construe or apply it in too narrow and rigid manner."

Here the present petitioner appears to have purchased 11 1/2 cents from the plaintiff on 11.5.05 under a registered document and such portion of the property is part and parcel of the suit subject matter filed by the plaintiff, therefore, he needs to be added as a proper and necessary party. Thus, I hold under this point.

12.In the result, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner/proposed party is hereby ordered to be added as plaintiff No.2 in this suit. Thus, the plaintiff is directed to amend the plaint as shown in the petition.

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

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10th day of October, 2014.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

7

In the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

Present: Sri M. Srinivasachary, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Friday, the 10th day of October, 2014

I.A. 431/2014 IN O.S. 183/2014 Between

Manjeshwar Sriram, S/o late M.M. Pai, aged 61 years, R/o No.11, Ocean View Layout, Visakhapatnam … Petitioner/Proposed party A n d

1. M/s. Classic Farms & Resorts, a registered partnership firm, having its office at F-8, Classic Complex, Prakasaraopeta, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Partner Sri Makena Venkata Papayya Patrudu, S/o Sri Lakshmi Narasayya Patrudu, Hindu, aged 35 years … Plaintiff/R.1

2. Nammi Ramulappadu, S/o Marisu, aged about 58 years, Nammivanipeta, Sanghivalasa village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal.

3. Nammi Chinna Rao, S/o Marisu, aged about 55 years, rest do.

4. Nammi Narasmhulu, S/o Marisu, aged about 52 years, rest do.

5.Nammi Simhachalam, S/o Marisu, aged about 50 years, rest do.

6.Nammi Gangulu, S/o Marisu, aged about 47 years, rest do.

7. Nammi Rama Rao, S/o Marisu, aged about 44 years, rest do.

8. Nammi Suribabu, S/o Marisu, aged about 40 years, rest do.

9. Nammi Appalanaidu, S/o Nammi Narasimhulu, aged 28 years, rest do.

… Defendants 1 to 8/R.2 to R.9

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/proposed party under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC read with Rule 28(2) of Civil Rules of Practice to add him as 2nd plaintiff in the suit and consequent upon adding him as a party, direct the sole plaintiff to amend the plaint as follows:

(i)to amend the words ‘plaintiff is’ occurring in the beginning of para III (a) as ‘plaintiffs are’;

(ii)to renumber paras III ( c) and (d) as (d) and (e) and add a new para III ( c) as follows: “Subsequent to filing of the suit plaintiff No.2 added himself as party to the suit as he purchased an extent of Ac.0.11 ½ cents being the southern part of the plaint schedule property from plaintiff No.1 under a registered sale deed dt.11.5.05;

(iii) to amend the words ‘plaintiff partner’ occurring in line 10 of existing

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

8 para III (c ) as ‘first plaintiff partner’ and amend the words ‘plaintiff submits that its partners are’ occurring in first line of present para III (d) as ‘plaintiff submits that they are’ and amend the word plaintiff as plaintiffs wherever it occurs in the plaint with grammatical variation of the verb, and for costs of the petition. A fixed court fee of Re.1/- is paid on the petition. This petition coming on 5.9.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Ramdas, Advocate for the petitioner/proposed party and for plaintiff/R.1 and of Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao and Sri Ch.V.S.N. Murthy, Advocates for the respondents 2 to 9/defendants 1 to 8, having stood over to this day for consideration and this Court doth order and

DECREETAL ORDER

1.that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed;

2.that the petitioner/proposed party be and is hereby ordered to be added as plaintiff No.2 in this suit;

3.that the plaintiff be and is hereby directed to amend the plaint as shown in the petition;

4.that there be no order as to costs. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 10th day of October, 2014.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Memorandum of costs

No costs memo is filed on either side

I ASCJ, VSP.

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

1

In the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

Present: Sri M. Srinivasachary, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Friday, the 10th day of October, 2014

I.A. 431/2014 IN O.S. 183/2014 Between

Manjeshwar Sriram, S/o late M.M. Pai, aged 61 years, R/o No.11, Ocean View Layout, Visakhapatnam … Petitioner/Proposed party A n d

1. M/s. Classic Farms & Resorts, a registered partnership firm, having its office at F-8, Classic Complex, Prakasaraopeta, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Partner Sri Makena Venkata Papayya Patrudu, S/o Sri Lakshmi Narasayya Patrudu, Hindu, aged 35 years … Plaintiff/R.1

2. Nammi Ramulappadu, S/o Marisu, aged about 58 years, Nammivanipeta, Sanghivalasa village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal.

3. Nammi Chinna Rao, S/o Marisu, aged about 55 years, rest do.

4. Nammi Narasmhulu, S/o Marisu, aged about 52 years, rest do.

5.Nammi Simhachalam, S/o Marisu, aged about 50 years, rest do.

6.Nammi Gangulu, S/o Marisu, aged about 47 years, rest do.

7. Nammi Rama Rao, S/o Marisu, aged about 44 years, rest do.

8. Nammi Suribabu, S/o Marisu, aged about 40 years, rest do.

9. Nammi Appalanaidu, S/o Nammi Narasimhulu, aged 28 years, rest do.

… Defendants 1 to 8/R.2 to R.9

This petition coming on 5.9.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Ramdas, Advocate for the petitioner/proposed party and for plaintiff/R.1 and of Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao and Sri Ch.V.S.N. Murthy, Advocates for the respondents 2 to 9/defendants 1 to 8, having stood over to this day for consideration and this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner/proposed party under Order 1

Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC read with Rule 28(2) of Civil Rules of Practice to add him as 2nd plaintiff in the suit and consequent upon adding him as a party, direct the sole plaintiff to amend the plaint as follows:

(i)to amend the words ‘plaintiff is’ occurring in the beginning of para

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

2

III (a) as ‘plaintiffs are’;

(ii)to renumber paras III ( c) and (d) as (d) and (e) and add a new para III ( c) as follows: “Subsequent to filing of the suit plaintiff No.2 added himself as party to the suit as he purchased an extent of Ac.0.11 ½ cents being the southern part of the plaint schedule property from plaintiff No.1 under a registered sale deed dt.11.5.05;

(iii) to amend the words ‘plaintiff partner’ occurring in line 10 of existing para III (c ) as ‘first plaintiff partner’ and amend the words ‘plaintiff submits that its partners are’ occurring in first line of present para III (d) as ‘plaintiff submits that they are’ and amend the word plaintiff as plaintiffs wherever it occurs in the plaint with grammatical variation of the verb.

2.The averments of the affidavit in brief are that:

The first respondent herein filed the above suit against the respondents 2 to 9 for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment in respect of the plaint schedule property being an extent of Ac.0.252 cents or 0.102 hectares of dry land situated in the village of

Sanghivalasa in Bheemunipatnam Mandal. The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 0.11 ½ cents out of the suit schedule property being the southern part from the first respondent under a registered sale deed dt.11.5.05 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Earlier he worked as a Captain in a ship and used to be on sailing on high seas most of the time, as such he entrusted his property to R.1 to look after the same as the partners of the firm are his close friends. Accordingly, R.1 is taking care of the property.

As the respondents 2 to 9 attempted to occupy the petition schedule property, the suit is filed. The respondents have taken a plea in the suit as well as in the injunction petition that as part of the suit schedule property mainly Ac. 0.11 ½ cents was sold to him the first respondent is not entitled for injunction and that it is a matter between him and the first respondent and the same does not give any right to R.2 to R.9 to seek for vacating the injunction. In fact, the first

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

3 respondent is protecting his interests in the suit schedule property though the said fact is not stated in the suit obviously by mistake. Nevertheless R.2 to R.9 are not affected by the said omission as in fact it is a matter between him and

R.1. Therefore, in order to protect his interest also in respect of his property being southern part of the suit schedule property, he is advised to implead himself as a party to the suit as plaintiff No.2, thus he is a necessary party to the suit to protect his interest in respect of the suit schedule property against the attempt of R.2 to R.9 who are making attempts to occupy the same. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondents 2 to 8 filed their counter denying the averments of the petition contending inter-alia that the petitioner has purchased an extent of

Ac.0.11 ½ cents from out of the suit schedule property being the southern part from R.1 under a registered sale deed dt.11.5.05 and he was put in possession of the property. The plaintiff has no right over an extent of Ac.0.11 ½ cents from out of the claiming plaint schedule as the same was already sold away by him to the present petitioner herein. When they brought it to the notice of this

Court by filing their written statement and counter in I.A.64/2014, the present petition was falsely filed to cover up the latches. Non-mentioning of the material facts and afterwards claiming the same as obviously a mistake is not a tenable plea. It is not a matter between the plaintiff and the present petitioner because the present petitioner was not a party to the suit and in other words it is a matter in between them and the plaintiff only as far as this suit is concerned and the present petitioner has nothing to do with the present suit as he is not a party. If the petitioner has any grievance he can seek his remedy by initiating separate proceedings but not in this suit. This petitioner has a separate cause of action and on this ground also this petition is not maintainable. The plaintiff cannot protect the rights of the present petitioner as alleged because the present petitioner has not given any authority as alleged and no such pleading is there in the plaint and no document is filed to that

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

4 effect. The petitioner is not a necessary party to the present suit. There is no necessity to add the petitioner as 2nd plaintiff. Thus, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

5.Heard the counsel on both sides.

6.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the petitioner/proposed part is entitled to the relief to add him as second plaintiff in this suit and for consequential amendments?

2. To what relief?

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once the respondent in I.A.64/2014 filed counter denying the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff setting up the plea that the plaintiff sold 11 ½ cents to this petitioner and for the reason that this petitioner purchased such land from the plaintiff who was protecting his interest because of the reason that this petitioner happens to be most of the time sailing on high seas and he entrusted the property to the plaintiff (first respondent herein) to look after the same as the partners of the firm are his close friends. In the light of the counter filed by the respondents 2 to 9 and as this petitioner has direct interest over the suit subject matter it become necessary to add him as second plaintiff so as to prosecute the matter otherwise he will be put to suffer irreparable loss and injustice which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

8.On the other hand the counsel for the respondents 2 to 9 argued that the petitioner by suppressing the material facts filed this suit and an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and obtained ex-parte ad-interim injunction by coming to the Court with unclean hands, Only after filing the counter by the respondents in the said application, the present petition had come to be filed and that there is no cause of action for this petitioner to come on record as second plaintiff and what all contended in the petition is not tenable and only to cover up the latches, this petition is filed. If at all the

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

5 petitioner has any grievance he can seek his remedy by way of separate proceedings but not in this suit as he will not have any cause of action under the present suit. Therefore, the petition is liable for dismissal.

9.In the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent, let it be seen the record. It is an admitted fact that initially the suit was filed by the plaintiff i.e., M/s. Classic Forms and Resorts represented by its Partner Sri M.V. Papayya Patrudu claiming to be the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. On coming to know the counter and the contentions of the respondents 2 to 9 that he sold 11 ½ cents to the petitioner herein the plaintiff made an attempt and obtained his affidavit and filed in I.A.64/2014 (filed for temporary injunction) and also the present petition is filed by the proposed petitioner to add him as a party. What is germane for consideration under this application is whether the present petitioner has interest over the subject matter and that is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings.

10.Order 1 Rule 10(1) reads as under:

"Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona-fide mistake and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just."

Under the said provision, this Court is having power when it satisfies that the suit has been instituted through a bona-fide mistake and that it is necessary for the determination of the real controversy in dispute and so as to resolve it, a proper and necessary party needs to be substituted or added. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff sold 11 ½ cents to the present petitioner and such fact has been asserted by the respondents 2 to 9 in their counter. In that view of the matter the proposed party to be added, has a direct interest in the controversy involved in the suit. The question involved in the case cannot be

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

6 completely adjudicated without the presence of the petitioner.

11.The counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in the case of

Racharla Thirupathi and others Vs. Gundala Shobha Rani and others

reported in 2013 (5) ALT 209 wherein our Honourable High Court held to the effect that:

"Court is required to see whether persons who claim to be impleaded have direct interest in subject matter of dispute and whether their presence would help Court to finally and completely adjudicate dispute."

While in the decision cited on behalf of the respondents 2 to 9 in the case of

Karri Somalu Vs. Thimmalapalli Venkataswamy and others reported in

Andhra Weekly Reporter 1963 (II) 138 wherein it was held by the

Honourable High Court of A.P. that:

"The true object of rules of procedure is not to defeat an honest plaintiff on narrow, hyper-technical grounds, but to help him obtain redress in a Court of law. Order 1, rule 10(1) is what may be called a curative provision and it will be contrary to its spirit and object to construe or apply it in too narrow and rigid manner."

Here the present petitioner appears to have purchased 11 1/2 cents from the plaintiff on 11.5.05 under a registered document and such portion of the property is part and parcel of the suit subject matter filed by the plaintiff, therefore, he needs to be added as a proper and necessary party. Thus, I hold under this point.

12.In the result, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner/proposed party is hereby ordered to be added as plaintiff No.2 in this suit. Thus, the plaintiff is directed to amend the plaint as shown in the petition.

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

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10th day of October, 2014.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

7

In the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

Present: Sri M. Srinivasachary, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Friday, the 10th day of October, 2014

I.A. 431/2014 IN O.S. 183/2014 Between

Manjeshwar Sriram, S/o late M.M. Pai, aged 61 years, R/o No.11, Ocean View Layout, Visakhapatnam … Petitioner/Proposed party A n d

1. M/s. Classic Farms & Resorts, a registered partnership firm, having its office at F-8, Classic Complex, Prakasaraopeta, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Partner Sri Makena Venkata Papayya Patrudu, S/o Sri Lakshmi Narasayya Patrudu, Hindu, aged 35 years … Plaintiff/R.1

2. Nammi Ramulappadu, S/o Marisu, aged about 58 years, Nammivanipeta, Sanghivalasa village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal.

3. Nammi Chinna Rao, S/o Marisu, aged about 55 years, rest do.

4. Nammi Narasmhulu, S/o Marisu, aged about 52 years, rest do.

5.Nammi Simhachalam, S/o Marisu, aged about 50 years, rest do.

6.Nammi Gangulu, S/o Marisu, aged about 47 years, rest do.

7. Nammi Rama Rao, S/o Marisu, aged about 44 years, rest do.

8. Nammi Suribabu, S/o Marisu, aged about 40 years, rest do.

9. Nammi Appalanaidu, S/o Nammi Narasimhulu, aged 28 years, rest do.

… Defendants 1 to 8/R.2 to R.9

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/proposed party under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC read with Rule 28(2) of Civil Rules of Practice to add him as 2nd plaintiff in the suit and consequent upon adding him as a party, direct the sole plaintiff to amend the plaint as follows:

(i)to amend the words ‘plaintiff is’ occurring in the beginning of para III (a) as ‘plaintiffs are’;

(ii)to renumber paras III ( c) and (d) as (d) and (e) and add a new para III ( c) as follows: “Subsequent to filing of the suit plaintiff No.2 added himself as party to the suit as he purchased an extent of Ac.0.11 ½ cents being the southern part of the plaint schedule property from plaintiff No.1 under a registered sale deed dt.11.5.05;

(iii) to amend the words ‘plaintiff partner’ occurring in line 10 of existing

I.A. 431/2014

I ASCJ, VSP

8 para III (c ) as ‘first plaintiff partner’ and amend the words ‘plaintiff submits that its partners are’ occurring in first line of present para III (d) as ‘plaintiff submits that they are’ and amend the word plaintiff as plaintiffs wherever it occurs in the plaint with grammatical variation of the verb, and for costs of the petition. A fixed court fee of Re.1/- is paid on the petition. This petition coming on 5.9.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Ramdas, Advocate for the petitioner/proposed party and for plaintiff/R.1 and of Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao and Sri Ch.V.S.N. Murthy, Advocates for the respondents 2 to 9/defendants 1 to 8, having stood over to this day for consideration and this Court doth order and

DECREETAL ORDER

1.that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed;

2.that the petitioner/proposed party be and is hereby ordered to be added as plaintiff No.2 in this suit;

3.that the plaintiff be and is hereby directed to amend the plaint as shown in the petition;

4.that there be no order as to costs. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 10th day of October, 2014.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Memorandum of costs

No costs memo is filed on either side

I ASCJ, VSP.

Date of presentation: 6.2.2014 Date of filing: 10.3.2014

In the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam

Present: Sri V.Gopala Krishna Rao, II Addl., Senior Civil Judge

Monday, the 16th day of November, 2015

O.S.356/2014

Between:

Smt. Pilaka Sivalakshmimma, W/o. Venkata Appa Rao, Hindu, 38 yrs., D.No.62-3-120/3, Ganesh Mandir Street, Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam. …. Plaintiff. And:

1. Gedala Suryanarayana, S/o. Pydiyya, Hindu, 41 yrs., Employee in Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Qr.No.405, Type II, Block No.27, Saligrampuram, Visakhapatnam.

2. Smt. Gedala Sarojini, W/o. Suryanarayana, Hindu, 37 yrs., Qr.No.405, Type II, Block No.27, Saligrampuram, Visakhapatnam. ….Defendants Suit to recover a sum of Rs.6,84,522/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note dated 13.2.2011 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2.Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,84,522/- and a sum of Rs.9,326/- is paid in lieu of Court fee U/Sec.20 r/w. Art.1 (b) and (c) of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act vide challan No.29 dated 6.2.2014 of State Bank of Hyderabad, District Court Complex branch, Visakhapatnam.

3. This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.K. Naidu, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Pilla Bhaskar, Advocate for the defendants and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day,this Court doth order and

D E C R E E

1.That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff jointly and severally a sum of

Rs.6,84,522/- (Rupees six lakhs eighty four thousand five

hundred and twenty two only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of the suit i.e., from 6.2.2014 till the date of decree and with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of the decree till the date of realization; and

2.that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff jointly and severally a sum of

Rs.25,238/- (Rupees twenty five thousand two hundred and thirty

eight only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 16th day of November, 2015.

II Addl., Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Memorandum of costs *** for plaintiff: for defendants: Nil

1. Stamps on plaint:Rs. 9,326-00

2. Stamps on vakalat:Rs. 2-00

3. Stamps on Process:Rs. 110-00

4. Advocate's feeRs.15,800-00 ---------------- Total:Rs.25,238-00 ----------------

II A.Sr.C.J., Vsp.

In the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam

Present: Sri V.Gopala Krishna Rao, II Addl., Senior Civil Judge Monday, the 16th day of November, 2015

O.S.356/2014

Between:

Smt. Pilaka Sivalakshmimma, W/o. Venkata Appa Rao, Hindu, 38 yrs., D.No.62-3-120/3, Ganesh Mandir Street, Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam. …. Plaintiff. And:

1. Gedala Suryanarayana, S/o. Pydiyya, Hindu, 41 yrs., Employee in Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Qr.No.405, Type II, Block No.27, Saligrampuram, Visakhapatnam.

2. Smt. Gedala Sarojini, W/o. Suryanarayana, Hindu, 37 yrs., Qr.No.405, Type II, Block No.27, Saligrampuram, Visakhapatnam. ….Defendants This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.K. Naidu, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Pilla Bhaskar, Advocate for the defendants and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for claiming the suit claim.

2. The brief averments in the plaint are that : the first defendant is the husband of the second defendant and both the defendants approached the plaintiff on 13.2.2011 and borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for the purpose of their family expenses and jointly executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or her order on demand; after availing loan, the defendants did not pay any amount either towards principal or interest inspite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff; subsequently, the first defendant issued a cheque bearing No.952481 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 20.2.2013 towards part payment of the said debt, but the said cheque was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient” on 25.2.2013 and the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3. The case of the first defendant as per the written statement filed by him which was adopted by the second defendant is that they did not borrow the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.2.2011 and they do not know the scribe and witnesses of the promissory note; they borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- only from the plaintiff and at that time, the plaintiff obtained their signatures on blank promissory note and they paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff on 15.12.2012 and the plaintiff issued acknowledgment for the said payment and they have to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- only with interest and they are ready to pay the said amount with interest and the plaintiff filed the suit to get unlawful gain from the defendants.

4.Basing upon the pleadings of both the parties, following issues are settled for trial:

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

2. To what relief?

5. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked promissory note as EX.A1 and got examined the scribe of the promissory note as P.W.2. On behalf of the defendants, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

6. I S S U E No.1:-

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

The case of the plaintiff is that both the defendants approached the plaintiff on 13.2.2011 and borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for the purpose of their family necessities and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently inspite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to discharge the promissory note debt and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

7.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself was examined as

P.W.1 and also examined the scribe of the promissory note as P.W.2 and also got marked the suit promissory note as EX.A1. P.W.1 deposed in her evidence about borrowing of

Rs.4,00,000/- by both the defendants and execution of EX.A1 promissory note jointly by both the defendants on 13.2.2011 in her favour. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that inspite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to discharge the promissory note debt. In the cross-examination, nothing was elicited from P.W.1 to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. In the cross-examination, the evidence of P.W.1 is not disturbed on the material aspects of the case. It is not the case of the defendants that there was enmity in between them and the plaintiff and due to such enmity, the plaintiff got filed the present suit. P.W.2 who is the scribe of the promissory note deposed in his evidence about borrowing of Rs.4,00,000/- by both the defendants on 13.2.2011 and also execution of EX.A1 promissory note by both the defendants on 13.2.2011 in favour of the plaintiff. In the cross-examination, nothing was elicited from

P.W.2 to discredit his testimony. In the cross-examination, the evidence of P.W.2 is not disturbed on the material aspects of the case.

8.The signature on the promissory note is not disputed by the the defendants. The defendants pleaded in the written statement that they borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- only from the plaintiff and at that time, the plaintiff obtained their signatures on the blank promissory note and after receiving the amount, the defendants repaid a sum of

Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff on 15.12.2012 and the plaintiff issued acknowledgement for the payment of Rs.10,000/- and it is mentioned in the said acknowledgement that another sum of Rs.30,000/- has to be paid by them with interest and subsequently the plaintiff filled the promissory note and filed the present suit. To prove the said pleadings, the defendants did not adduce any evidence. No evidence is adduced by the defendants. The defendants did not venture to enter into the witness box to prove their pleadings in the written statement. It is not the case of the defendants that there was enmity between them and P.W.1 and 2 and due to such enmity, they deposed falsehood against them. The evidence of P.W.1 is well corroborated by th evidence of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is consistent and cogent with regard to borrowing of

Rs.4,00,000/- by both the defendants on 13.2.2011 and execution of EX.A1 promissory note by both the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. To rebut the said evidence, no evidence is adduced by the defendants. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

9.I S S U E No.2:-

To What relief?

By virtue of my discussion on issue No.1, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.6,84,522/- (Rupees six lakhs eighty four thousand five hundred and twenty

two only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., on the principal amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of decree and with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of the decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Senior Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, this the 16th day of November, 2015.

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence No. of Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:- For defendants: Nil

P.W.1......Pilaka Sivalakshmamma (Plaintiff)

P.W.2......Potluri Dharani Krishna (Scribe)

No. of Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: Nil Ex.A1/13.2.2011Promissory note jointly executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

II A.Sr. C.J., Vsp.,

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri T.Venkateswarlu, VI Additional Senior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam

Friday, the 30th day of October 2015

O.S.156/2015

Between:-

Majji Ramakrishna Reddy … Plaintiff And:

A.Satyanarayanamma & another … Defendants

This suit coming on this date for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants having remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration and this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a suit, filed on the foot of a promissory note, for Rs.7,56,000/- with further interest and costs.

02.The plaint averments in brief are that on 29-12-2013, the defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and having agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., executed the suit promissory note.

Later, despite several demands, defendants did not repay the amount. Hence the suit.

03.The defendants remained ex parte.

04.To prove the claim, plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and the suit promissory note is marked as Ex.A1.

05.Heard the counsel of plaintiff.

Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for?

06. Point: Plaintiff in his evidence deposed that defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from him on 29.12.2013 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in their favour and thereafter in spite of oral demands, 2 defendants failed to repay any amount. Since this evidence remained unchallenged, the same can be accepted and the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.7,56,000/- (Rupees

Seven lakhs fifty six thousands only) against the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally and with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum on

Rs.6,00,000/- (principal amount) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this 30th day of October 2015.

VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam. Appendix of evidence No. of witnesses examined for Plaintiff:Defendant:

P.W.1 : Majji Ramakrishna Reddy none

No. of documents marked for Plaintiff: Ex.A1/29-12-2013Suit Promissory Note

Defendants: NIL

VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam.

3

Judgment pronounced. (VSJ)

In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.2,95,200/- (Rupees Two lakhs Ninety Five thousands and two

Hundreds only) with costs against the defendant and with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.2,00,000/- (principal amount) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization.

4

Date of presentation: 27.06.2014 Date of filing: 27.06.2014

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi, VI Additional Senior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam

Friday, this the 5th day of December, 2014

O.S. 1039/2014

Between:- Villuri Kasi Visweswara Rao,S/o Jagannadharao, Hindu, aged about 46 years, residing at near Jyothi Theatre, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintiff And:

Datla Venkata Raghava Raju, S/o. Sita Rama Raju, Hindu, aged 40 about years, residing at D.No.13-2-3, Flat No.2, Second Floor, Manikanta Nilayam, Venus Castle, Anthony Nagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. … Defendant

Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.6,98,400/- (Rupees Six lakhs Ninety eight thousand four Hundred only) being the balance of principal and interest due on a promissory note dt.20.10.2013 for Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization; for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,98,400/- (Rupees Six lakhs Ninety eight thousand four Hundred only) and a Court fee of Rs.9426/- is paid Sec.20 Sch.I Art.1 (b) & (c ) of of A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This suit coming on 03-12-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Radha Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant having remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration and this court doth order; and

D E C R E E

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

2.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,98,400/- (Rupees Six lakhs Ninety eight thousand four Hundred only) and subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only); and 5

3.that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.23,746/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 5th day of Dec. 2014.

VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Memorandum of Costs

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

Rs. Stamp on Vakalat2.00 No cost memo filed Stamp on plaint9426.00 Process fee 55.00 Sr.Advocate fee11326.00 Jr. Advocate fee2837.00 Writing and Typing 100.00 charge costs allowed 23746.00

VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

6

O.S.NO.156/2015

30-10-2015

Judgment Pronounced (vide separate Judgment)

In the result, the suit is decreedwithcostsfor

Rs.7,56,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty six thousands only) against the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally and with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum on

Rs.6,00,000/- (principal amount) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization.

VI ASCJ/VSP.

7

Judgment pronounced. (VSJ)

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.1,12,533/- (Rupeesonelakhstwelve thousands and five hundreds and thirty three only) against the defendant and with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum on

Rs.80,000/- (principal amount) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization.

8

VI ASCJ/VSP