Smt V.Pallavi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PODILI

PRESENT : Smt .V.PALLAVI Junior Civil Judge, Podili

Tuesday, this the 31st day of October, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.146 of 2016

Between Komara Veeraiah S/o Lakshminarsu, Aged about 55 Years, Hindu by Religion, Agriculture by Profession, Permanent Resident of Goundlapalem, Pedarikatla Village of Konakanamitla Mandal, Prakasam Dt.… Plaintif

Vs.

1. Komara Chinna Brahmaiah S/o Subbaiah, Aged about 60 Years.

2. Komara Govindulu S/o Chinna Bramhaiah, Aged about 30 Years.

3. Komara Pedda Veera Brahmaiah S/o Chinna Brahmaiah, Aged about 30 Years.

4. Mallala Venkata Narasamma W/o Venikateswarlu, Aged about 42 Years.

5. Mallala Venkadri S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged about 35 Years.

6. Komara Narasimha S/o Balaiah, Aged about 40 Years.

7. Komara Veeraiah S/o Balaiah, Aged about 35 Years.

8. Komara Narayana S/o Balaiah, Aged about 30 Years. (All the defendants are Hindu by religion, Agriculture by Profession, Permanent Resident of Goundlapalem, Pedarikatla Village) … Defendants

The suit is coming before me on this day 30-10-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Gurava Reddy , Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri V. Nagaraju,

Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for grant of Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, assignees, agents and legal representatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property and for other reliefs.

2

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The suit schedule property is in an extent of Ac.2.04 cents in survey no.484/2 at Chinarikatla Village of Konakanamitla mandal. Originally the suit schedule property is classified as Anadeenam as per revenue records. The plaintiff being landless poor person occupied the suit schedule property about 25 years ago and reclaimed the suit land by spending huge amount. Since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Having recognized his possession the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour and also mutated his name in revenue records. The plaintiff raised red gram crop in the suit land and this year also the same crop is in existence in the suit land. The defendants, who have no manner of right, title and possession in the suit schedule land, have been obstructing the plaintiff from enjoying the suit land and since 10 days the defendants have been canvassing in the village that they would occupy the suit land by force. The plaintiff is unable to resist the highhanded acts of the defendants without the aid of this court. Hence the suit.

3.The 1st defendant filed a written statement, which was also adopted by defendants 2 to 8, by denying averments in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted by them and contended that one Komara Subbaiah occupied the suit schedule land and he reclaimed the same and he had been cultivating the suit land by raising dry crops and he also paid cist to the government. Having recognized his possession the Government issued D form patta to the said

Komara Subbaih bearing no.83/1387 dt.16-07-1977. Later the said Komara

Subbaiah died intestate about 42 Years ago and he had five sons namely 1)

Lakshminarsu 2) Balaiah 3) Narasimham 4) Peda Brahmaiah and 5) China

Brahmaiah (first defendant) and after his demise his five sons jointly inherited the suit land and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. The first four sons died and their legal heirs inherited the plaint schedule land along with first defendant. The plaintiff is one of the sons of Lakshminarsu and defendants 6 3 and 8 are the sons of Balaiah and 4th defendant is daughter of Narasimham. The legal heirs of deceased China Brahmaiah are not added in the suit. Thus the first defendant and all the legal heirs of Lakshminarsu, Balaiah, Narasimham and

Peda Brahmaiah are in joint possession and enjoyment in the plaint schedule land. The plaintiff is never in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule land. Previously the first defendant issued a legal notice dt.22-12-2014 to the plaintiff and other defendants claiming his undivided 1/5th share and it was received by the plaintiff, but no response from him. The plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the suit schedule land and he is not in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and there is no cause of action for this suit and the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit land and prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing upon the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 06-02- 2017:

1. Whether the plaintif is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiffs got examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and also got marked Exs. A1 to A12. But the evidence of P.W.2 was eschewed as he did not turn up before this court.

6.On the other hand, the defendants got examined D.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs. B1 to B5. But the evidence of D.W.3 was eschewed as he did not turn up before this court.

4

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of Pw.1, PW.3 and PW.4 coupled with the documentary evidence ie., Ex’s.A1 to A12 clinchingly establishes that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. He further argued that the suit schedule property is a Government land and so, the defendants cannot claim any share in the suit schedule property as co-parceners and therefore, the suit may be decreed.

8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff suppressed the material facts ie., earlier issuance of legal notice by the 1st defendant calling upon him for partition of the suit land, so also, his relationship with the defendants and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9.In view of the rival contentions on both sides, the entire evidence is perused.

10. ISSUES No.1 AND 2: -

These issues are grouped up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.

PW.1/Komara Veeraiah/plaintiff has stated on the oath in his examination- in-chief with regard to averments in the plaint. The chief examination affidavit of

PW.1 is the replica of contents in the plaint. Ex.A1 is the Pattadar passbook issued by MRO, Konakanamitla stands in the name of plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the title deed stands in the name of plaintiff, these documents that is Ex’s.A1 and A2 discloses that the plaintiff is the owner cum enjoyer of plaint schedule property,

Ex.A3 is the Cist receipt dt. 02-05-2001, Ex.A4 is 1B Namuna dt.26-08-2016,

Ex.A5 is No.3 Adangal for fasali 1426 dt. 26-08-2016 issued by Tahsildar,

K.K.Mitla stands in the name of plaintiff obtained through Meeseva, Ex.A6 is the certified copy of 1B dt.15-02-2022 obtained through Right to Information Act, 5

Ex.A7 is the certified copy of Adangal dt.15-02-2022 in fasali no.1419 obtained through Right to Information Act, Ex. A8 is the Adangal in fasali No.1419 obtained through Right to Information Act dt. 15-02-2022. Ex. A9 is the Adangal in fasali No.1417 obtained through Right to Information Act dt.15-02-2022, Ex.

A10 is the Adangal in fasali No.1417 obtained through Right to Information Act

dt. 15-02-2022, Ex.A11 is the Adangal in fasali no.1428 dt.28-09-2018 and

Ex.A12 is 1B namoona dt.28-09-2018 are marked in his evidence. In cross- examination PW1 deposed that he is an illiterate and he does cultivation and coolie work and he has three issues. He deposed that he does not remember the contents of plaint averments and he knows about Ex. A1 to Ex.A12. He deposed that he filed the suit against eight persons and they are his blood relatives. He admitted that he did not state either in his plaint or in his chief affidavit that defendants 1 to 9 are his blood relatives. He denied the suggestion that to grab the suit land belongs to his grandfather by name Komara Subbaiah he got filed this suit. He admitted that the Hon’ble Court granted injunction. He pleaded ignorance that Hon’ble Court vacated the said order. He deposed that his father cultivated the suit land at around 20 years ago and he admitted that he did not mention the said aspect either in his plaint or in his chief affidavit. He deposed that he occupied the suit land about 25 Years ago but not 24 Years ago. He denied the suggestion that he created cist receipt i.e., Ex.A3 for the purpose of this case. He denied the suggestion that he fabricated Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 for identification of Account Khatha Number and the name of the father. The witness

PW.1 after perusal of the same, he identified that there is strike in the name of the father and mentioned as Lakshminarsu. He admitted that he received notice from D1 for partition of the suit schedule property and also deposed that he never gave reply to the said notice. He denied the suggestion that government never issued any D.K.Patta in his favour and he never applied any loan and that the other legal heirs of the grandfather are having right over the suit land. He denied the suggestion that after the death of his grandfather he managed the 6 revenue authorities and created the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 for the purpose of this suit to grab the suit land.

11. PW3/Ambati Prabhudas has stated on oath in his examination-in-chief supporting the case of PW.1. In his cross examination he deposed that he studied up to 6th class and he got acquaintance with the plaintiff since 25 years. He deposed that the suit survey number is in an extent of Ac.2.04 cents and he cannot say the survey number. He pleaded ignorance about the purpose of filing of suit against the plaintiff. He deposed that both plaintiff and defendants are relatives and suit schedule property is a settlement patta. He deposed that plaintiff purchased the suit land from one Nagireddy, who is the resident of

Chinarikatla Village. He pleaded ignorance that the said Nagireddy got executed the registered documents in favour of plaintiff. He further pleaded ignorance that the plaintiff obtained passbook from revenue authorities. He categorically admitted that he never observed the defendants being obstructed by the plaintiff.

He deposed that he did not file any document to show that he has land in an extent of Ac.3.00 cents. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false as he is not having any land on the eastern side of suit schedule property. He categorically admitted that he is deposing false at the instance of PW1 to help

PW1.

12. PW4/ Pilli Subbareddy has stated on his oath in his examination-in-chief supporting the case of PW1. In his cross examination he deposed that he has an extent of Ac.6.00 cents on the western side of the suit schedule property. He denied the suggestion that one Gada Subbaiah land is situated towards the eastern side of the suit schedule property. He deposed that he came to know through plaintiff that defendant destroyed the redgram crop in the suit schedule property. He deposed that he did not mention in the chief affidavit about the payment of tax to the suit schedule property. He pleaded ignorance about the possession of the pattadar passbook and titled deeds to the plaintiff. He further pleaded ignorance about the possession of the suit schedule property by the 7 plaintiff and also about the bore well laid by the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and he has been cultivating the land in an extent of Ac.2.04 cents. He denied the suggestion that he is the one of the accused in red sandal case and deposing false by receiving illegal gratification from the plaintiff.

13.Against the aforesaid evidence of the plaintiff, DW1/Komara Chinna

Brahmaiah has stated on the oath in his examination-in -chief with regard to averments in their written statement. The contents of the chief affidavit of Dw.1 is nothing but replica of contents in their written statement. Ex.B1 is the Cist

Receipt dt.16-04-1964, Ex.B2 is the Cist Receipt dt.04-05-1974. Ex.B3 is the Cist

Receipt dt.06-04-1976, Ex.B4 is the D form patta, which discloses that government granted DKT patta dt.16-07-1977 bearing no.F.DIS.No.83/1387 in favour of Komara Subbaiah in respect of land in an extent of Ac.2.04 cents in

Survey.No.484/2 of Chinarikatla Village (Suit Schedule Property), Ex.B5 is the

Land Right Record and passbook stands in the name of late Komara Subbaiah issued by Tahsildar, Podili, which discloses that Komara Subbaiah is the DKT

Holder of suit land ( Father of D1 and Grandfather of plaintiff) are marked in his evidence. In cross-examination he stated that PW1 is his elder brother’s son and he lives at Vijayawada. He deposed that he claimed land in an extent of Ac.3.04 cents in survey.no.484/2 and the said land is DKT land which was allotted to his father by name Komara Subbaiah, but he does not know in which year DKT land was granted to his father. He deposed that his father died about 30 years ago. He deposed that during lifetime of his father, they have been cultivating suit land jointly. He deposed that after demise of his father they did not make any application before revenue authorities for mutating the name in revenue records.

He denied the suggestion that his father and themselves never cultivated the suit land and that it is never in their possession and that PW1 is in possession and enjoyment of suit land and his name was mutated in revenue records in respect of suit land. He deposed that they have issued legal notice to the plaintiff calling upon him to divide suit land by claiming 1/5th share in it. He denied the 8 suggestion that while plaintiff was cultivating the suit land they high highhandedly trespassed and obstructed him from enjoying the same . He deposed that he he has not filed any partition suit in respect of suit land . He denied the suggestion that they are no way concerned and even today the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit land by cultivating it.

14.DW2/Mallala Venkata Narasamma has stated on the oath in his examination-in -chief with regard to averments in their written statement. The contents of the chief affidavit of Dw.2 is nothing but replica of contents in their written statement. In cross-examination she stated that PW1 is her senior paternal uncle and one Komara Subbaiah is her paternal grandfather. She deposed that she cannot say what was her age at the time of issuing D form patta to her grandfather. She deposed that there is no right to the government to cancel the DKT patta once issued to anybody. She deposed that plaintiff filed the suit against them though there is share to them. She deposed that she has filed a partition suit claiming a share in the present suit land before this court. She pleaded ignorance whether pattadar passbook as well as title deed is granted to

PW1 and his name was mutated in revenue records in respect of suit land. She deposed that the extent and survey number of suit land is Ac.2.04 cents and survey no. 484/2. She admitted that they objected the plaintiff in the year 2016 from cultivating the suit land. She deposed that she has not filed any documents and also on behalf of other documents to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. She deposed that they have not made any application before RDO, Kanigiri for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed. She denied the suggestion that they never cultivated the suit land and PW1 is exclusively cultivating and they have been interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as such injunction is to be granted against them. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing false at the instance of first defendant.

9

15.After perusing the evidence adduced on both sides, it is pertinent to note that the defendants filed DKT patta issued in favour of Komara Subbaiah, who is grandfather of the plaintiff as well as father of the 1st defendant in respect of suit land in the year 1977. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the DKT patta issued in favour of Komara Subbaiah was canceled and allotted to the plaintiff. Once

DKT patta was issued to Komara Subbaiah in respect of suit land in the year 1977 itself, then it is not known to this court how the name of the plaintiff was mutated exclusively in the revenue records. It is needless to say that the entries made by revenue authorities or public servants in the course of performing their official duties shall be presumed to be true and made in discharge of official duties, unless and until contrary is proved. Here in the case the defendants filed

DKT patta stands in the name of Komara Subbaiah. As discussed above when there is a DKT patta stands in the name of Komara Subbaiah and when there are other legal heirs of Komara Subbiah after his demise, then how the plaintiff’s name alone is exclusively mutated in revenue records. The fact of demise of

Komara Subbaiah is also undisputed. No where it was suggested denying about the sons of Komara Subbaiah that is 1st defendant and his brothers and the plaintiff is the son of one of his brothers. When it is not suggested it shall be deemed as admitted. So, the defendants proved that the entries are not true and correct. Moreover, It is settled law that the revenue records does not create any right and title over the property. Further, when the defendants have been disputing the very issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed passbook in favour of the plaintiff and also elicited certain suspicious circumstances, it is the burden of the plaintiff to remove such cloud of doubt regarding his possessory right over the suit schedule property by examining the Tahsildar, who issued pattadar passbook and title deed. But the plaintiff failed to take such step to prove the authenticity of those documents. In such circumstances, the authenticity of Ex. A1 to A12 revenue records, basing on which, the plaintiff is 10 claiming exclusive possession and interest over the suit schedule property, remains doubtful.

16.In addition to that, the learned counsel for the defendants pointed out that there are several inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 regarding the mode of enjoyment of the suit schedule property by plaintiff and such inconsistencies clearly show that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the said property. As pointed out by him, it is the version of the P.W.1 in his chief examination that the plaintiff occupied the suit schedule property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since 25 years. Again, P.W.1 deposed in his cross examination that his father cultivated the suit land at around 20 years ago. Whereas, the evidence of P.W.3 reflects that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from Nagi Reddy, which is not the version of PW.1. He went to an extent saying that he is deposing false at the instance of

PW.1 to help PW.1. The evidence of PW.4 is quite contra with his version in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination as he stated in his examination-in- chief that the plaintiff obtained pattadar passbook and title deed and he has been paying tax. Again during cross-examination it was elicited that he does not know about the plaintiff obtained pattadar passbook and title deed and he has been paying tax and he came to know through plaintiff that defendant destroyed the redgram crop in the suit schedule property. So, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 is inconsistent and contradictory regarding the manner of possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 is not inspiring the confidence of the Court.

17.In view of above discussion, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 is found to be shaken and the authenticity of Exs.A1 to A12 remains unproved in view of Ex.B4 is the D form patta dt.16-07-1977 bearing no.F.DIS.No.83/1387 in favour of

Komara Subbaiah and Ex.B5 is the Land Right Record and passbook stands in the name of late Komara Subbaiah issued by Tahsildar, Podili. In such circumstances, though the entries in Exs.A1 to A12 show that the plaintiff is in 11 possession of the suit schedule property, as the defendants filed the DKT patta stands in the name of grandfather of the plaintiff and father of the 1st defendant, the court holds that the defendants are also in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with the plaintiff. In other words, the court holds that the plaintiff failed to establish that he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit.

Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

18. ISSUE No.2:

In order to claim the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish that he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the defendants are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

19.In view of the discussion and findings in issue No.1, the court holds that the plaintiff failed to establish that he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On the other hand the defendants established that they are also in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that

DW.2 admitted that they objected the plaintiff from enjoying the suit schedule property in the year 2016. As per the defendants they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property so when the plaintiff mutated his name in revenue records they might have objected for the same. For that reason alone the injunction cannot be granted, more particularly when the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with the plaintiff. In such circumstances, when it is evident that the defendants are also in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff cannot claim the relief of permanent injunction.

20.Apart from this, the plaintiff who is claiming the said relief of permanent injunction, which is an equitable relief, has to approach the court with clean 12 hands. But, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants, the plaintiff suppressed his close relationship with the defendants, so also about the issuance of the legal notice by the defendant seeking for partition in the suit schedule property prior to the filing of the suit. So, it is apparent that the plaintiff suppressed certain material facts and approached the court with unclean hands. Moreover, the defendants have been questioning the very right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour. In such circumstances, the court feels that the plaintiff ought to have cleared cloud of doubt about his possessory right and exclusive possession of the suit schedule property. All these facts create serious doubt in the version of the plaintiff who approached the court by suppressing all those facts. Hence, the court holds that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered against the plaintiff.

21. ISSUE NOs. 3 and 4: -

In view of the discussion and findings in issues 1 and 2, the court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property as prayed for. Accordingly, issues 3 and 4 are answered against the plaintiff.

22. In the result, the suit is dismissed, without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31st day of October, 2023.

(Sd/- V.Pallavi)

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PODILI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif : For Defendants:

PW.1 : Komara Veeraiah DW1 : Komara Chinna Brahmaiah PW.2 : Konanki Kotaiah DW2 : Mallala Venkata Narasamma PW.3 : Ambati Prabhudas DW3 : Goda Kondareddy 13

PW.4 : Pilli Subbareddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif :

EX A1: Pattadar Passbook issued by MRO, K.K.Mitla in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2 : Title deed issued by MRO. K.K.Mitla in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A3 : Cist Receipt dt.02-05-2001. Ex.A4 : 1B extract obtained through meeseva dt.26-08-2016 Ex.A5 : No.3 Adangal obtained through meeseva dt.26-08-2016. Ex.A6 : Certified copy of 1B obtained through Right to Information Act dt.15-02- 2022. Ex.A7 : Certified copy of Adangal in fasali no.1419 obtained through Right to Information Act dt. 15-02-2022. Ex.A8 : Adangal in fasali no.1419 obtained through Right to Information Act dt. 15-02-2022. Ex.A9 : Adangal in fasali no.1417 obtained through Right to Information Act dt. 15-02-2022. Ex.A10 : Adangal in fasali no.1419 obtained through Right to Information Act dt. 15-02-2022. Ex.A11 : Adangal in fasali no.1428 dt.28-09-2018. Ex.A12 : 1B dt.28-09-2018.

For Defendants :

Ex.B1 : Cist Receipt dt.16-04-1964. Ex.B2 : Cist Receipt dt.04-05-1974. Ex.B3 : Cist Receipt dt.06-04-1976. Ex.B4 : D Form patta through proceedings bearing no. F.DIS.No.83/1387 dt.16- 07-1977. Ex.B5 : Land Right Record and Passbook stands in the name of Late Komara Subbaiah issued by Tahsildar, Podili.

(Sd/- V.Pallavi) J.C.J., Podili.

14

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT ONGOLE

Present : Smt V.Pallavi, I Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

Ongole.

Wednesday, the Twenty seventh (27th) day of May, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.340 of 2018

====================== Between:

Kunchala Venkateswarlu, s/o.Narasimham, age 54 years, R/o.Lakkavaram village, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District.……Plaintif,

A N D

Tammisetty Srinivasa Rao, s/o.Venkateswarlu, R/o.Pullamma’s house, 1st cross Road, 5th lane Ramanagar, Chimakurthy V & M, Prakasam District.……Defendant. @ @ @ @

The above numbered suit coming on 23-03-2020 for fnal hearing

before me, in the presence of Sri N.Pothuraju- Advocate for Plaintif and

of Sri K.Anji Reddy- Advocate for the Defendant, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following :

// J U D G M E N T //

=============

The plaintif fled the suit for recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,03,180/-(Rupees one Lakh three thousand one hundred and eighty only ) being the principal and interest due on suit promissory note dated 25-06-2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for an amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only), for costs and other reliefs.

[1].Averments of the plaint in nutshell are that_

The Defendant in order to meet his family necessities, borrowed

Rs.60,000/- on 25-06-2015 from the Plaintif, in evidence thereof, he executed the suit promissory note, agreeing to repay the loan with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the Plaintif or his order on demand.

2

In spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintif, the Defendant has not discharged the debt, postponed the repayment on one pretext or the other. Then, the plaintif got issued legal notice dated 01-06-2018 demanding to discharge the debt due under the promissory note, on receipt of the said legal notice, gave reply with false allegations, did not choose to discharge the debt, in the circumstances, the Plaintif was constrained to fle the suit.

[2].On institution of the suit, summons have been issued, directing the

Defendant to attend the court, to answer claim of the Plaintif. In response to the suit summons, he has attended the Court through his counsel, fled the Written Statement, denied the material allegations in the plaint, resisted the claim of the Plaintif and contested the matter.

[3]. Contention of the Defendant in brief, is as follows_

The material allegations that he borrowed money, executed the suit pro-note, agreed to repay the same with interest etc., are all incorrect.

He further submits that the he had no necessity to borrow such amount and the Plaintif had no capacity to lend such huge amount and the alleged promissory note is forged one. In view of the disputes regarding mason works in between the families of Plaintif and the

Defendant, the Plaintif got created the alleged promissory notes with the support of attestors and scribe in order to get wrongful gain. He contends further that there are number of over writings and corrections in the body of the promissory note and that he used to do mason work at

Chimakurthy and come back to his native village of Lakkavaram everyday and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction, therefore, the suit, may be dismissed with costs.

3 [4].Basing on the above pleadings and rival contentions, on hearing both sides, I have framed/settled the issues mentioned hereunder for trial_

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 25-06-2015 is true, valid, supported by consideration and is binding on the Defendant or is a forged one?

2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit or not ?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

4. To what relief ?

[5].To prove the case of the plaintif, the Plaintif himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A4.

To disprove the case of plaintif, the defendant himself is examined as D.W.1, but no document is marked on his behalf.

[6].Heard both sides.

Issue No. 1 : - [7].The brief allegation of the plaintif is that he fled the suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,03,180/- on the premise of Ex.A1 Promissory Note as the defendant did not repay the amount inspite of repeated demands, he got issued Ex.A.2-legal notice [ofce copy] on 01-06-2018 demanding the defendant to discharge the debt. In spite of receiving notice and Ex.A.4- Reply notice dated 13-06-2018.

Per contra, the defendant denied the execution of Ex.A1 Promissory

Note and contended that he had no necessity to borrow such amounts and that Plaintif is not having capacity to lend such huge amount. In view of the disputes between the families of Plaintif and himself regarding masonary works, the plaintif got created the suit pronote with the active support of attestors and got fled this suit for wrongful gain and prays to dismiss the suit.

[8]. On perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the plaintif sought for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,03,180/- from the defendant 4 based on the suit promissory note Ex.A1 executed by the defendant. But, the defendant has contended that he denied the execution of suit promissory note and it was created by the Plaintif in order to get wrongful gain. It is settled principle of law that the initial burden was on the plaintif to establish the execution of the suit promissory notes.

Therefore, in order to prove his case, the plaintif himself was examined as P.W.1 and he fled his chief-examination reiterating the contents of plaint and in support of his case he got marked Ex.A1 Suit promissory note dt.25-06-2015, Ex.A2 is the Ofce copy of legal notice dt.01.06.2018 and Ex.A.3 is the postal acknowledgment and Ex.A4 is the reply notice dated 13-06-2018 got issued by the defendant.

During cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that the defendant is his brother-in-law and he is an illiterate. He stated further that at the time of issuing notice and at the time of fling of suit himself and the defendant are residing at Lakkavaram village and that said Lakkavaram village comes under the jurisdiction of Darsi Court. He deposed further that

Ex.A.1 was executed about three years ago and the Defendant owns an extent of Ac.4-00 cents and he cannot examine the attestors and scribe of Ex.A.1 as they were threatened by the defendant. He denied the suggestions that he forged the signature of defendant and got fled the suit with a view to get wrongful gain.

[9]. To substantiate the version of Defendant, he fled afdavit in lieu of examination-in-chief as D.W.1, which is nothing but replica of the contents in the Written statement.

(a) During cross-examination D.W.1 stated that on confrontation with the signatures on vakalath, written statement and Ex.A.1, he denied the signature on Ex.A.1, as it does not belongs to him. He stated further when he received legal notice, he has been at Chimakurthy and that he 5 can send Ex.A.1 for expert opinion to prove his plea of forgery. He denied the suggestion that he borrowed an amount of Rs.60,000/- from P.W.1 and executed Ex.A.1.

[10]. Now coming to the discussion, it is the contention of the plaintif that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.60,000/-on the premise of promissory note dated 25-06-2015. On the other hand, the plea of the defendant is that he did not borrow any amount and had no necessity to borrow such amount and that the Plaintif had no capacity to lend such amount and is forged one.

The plaintif by examining himself as P.W.1, has proved his case that the defendant has borrowed the amount from him and executed

Ex.A1 suit promissory note and discharged his burden in proving the execution of promissory note. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a decision Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao vs. Thadikonda

Ramulu Firm and others., reported in 2008 (4) A.L.D. 15 (SC)1, had clearly observed as follows :- “Under Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court is obliged to presume, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the Court to believe the non-existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal.”

Their Lordships had also observed in the said Judgment as follows:- “Refusal to extend beneft of presumption to appellant on basis of mere denial by respondents that no consideration had been passed and that evidence of appellant was inconsistent with subject pronotes, not justifed.”

Once the burden is discharged by the plaintif, the onus of disproving the same shifts to the defendant to disprove the passing of consideration 6 with regard to Ex.A1 promissory note. In view of the same, this court has carefully perused the evidence of DW.1 wherein he categorically denied the execution of promissory note and passing of consideration under

Ex.A.1.

The defendant after perusal of vakalath, written statement and

Ex.A.1, categorically stated that the signatures on vakalath and Written statement are that of him and denied the signature on Ex.A.1. A further perusal of cross-examination of D.W.1, he categorically stated that he can send Ex.A.1 for expert to prove the plea of forgery. Mere asserting that Ex.A.1 is forged one, he has to prove that it is forged. Further, what is the need and necessity to forge the signature of D.W.1 on Ex.A.1. If it is forged as alleged by him, he has to state the circumstances preventing him from preferring the same for expert in order to ascertain truthfulness of Ex.A.1. Admittedly, he stated in his cross-examination that he can send Ex.A.1 for opinion of the expert. A perusal of the record, the defendant did not fle any petition to send Ex.A.1 and A.2 in order to compare his admitted signatures with the disputed signatures on Ex.A.1 and A.2.

The further contention of the defendant is that the plaintif had no capacity to lend such huge amount. Admittedly, the plaintif having landed properties and also doing masonry work. So, the question of incapacity of plaintif to lend such amount, does not arise. Mere assertion of defendant that there are disputes in respect of mansonary work in between him and P.W.1, no evidence either oral or documentary evidence is adduced in this behalf. Apart from that, no criminal cases were pending against them. As such, it cannot be said that the plaintif by keeping view of the alleged disputes in between the defendant and 7 himself, got created/ forged the signature of defendant with a view to get wrongful gain against the defendant.

[11]. The learned counsel for the defendant pointed out that the plaintif did not examine the attestors of Ex.A.1/promissory note and So, the plaintif fails to prove the execution of pronote. No doubt, the plaintif did not examine the attestors. Since, the defendant pleads that

Ex.A.1/promissory note is a forged one, it is his burden to prove the same. Thus, the plaintif needs no corroboration for his version.

Therefore, mere non-examination of attestors of Ex.A.1/promissory note, which is not a compulsorily attestable document, would also not afect the plaintif's case, in any manner.

[12]. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the foregoing discussion coupled with the evidence of

P.W.1 and D.W.1, this Court is of the considered opinion that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintif and executed

Ex.A1promissory note, but denied the same without any cogent evidence in order to evade the payment of the amount covered under the promissory note. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case between

Rangammal AND Kuppuswami & Anr. reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 712, had clearly observed as follows :- “If the defendant had taken the allegation that the promissory note is sham and bogus, the burden will be on him to prove that allegation.”

But in the present case the defendant has failed to discharge his burden by adducing cogent evidence and on the other hand the plaintif has clearly established that the promissory note was, in fact, executed by the defendant.

Therefore, in view of my foregoing discussion, without any hesitation it can be said that the suit promissory note under Ex.A1 was 8 executed by the defendant and he had also received consideration of

Rs.60,000/-under Ex.A1 and there is no cogent and convincing evidence on the part of the defendant to disprove the evidence fled on behalf of the plaintif and that there is no material put-forth by the defendant that the Ex.A.1 are forged. Hence, the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintif. Accordingly, I hold this issue in favour of the plaintif.

[13]. ISSUE No.2:-

Admittedly, both the Plaintif and the Defendants are residents of

Lakkavaram village, which comes under the jurisdiction of Darsi jurisdiction. The defendant strenuously contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. As seen from the cross-examination of

D.W.1, he is the laborour in quarry at Chimakurthy and received legal notice at Chimakurthy and used to go to Chimakurthy daily.

For better appreciation in respect of this Issue, I have extracted the

Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as__

20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises :- - Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suits shall be instituted in a court. within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- :

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that insuch case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action,-wholly or in part, arises. 1 [Explanation]. A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal ofce in 3[India] or, in respect of 9 any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate ofce at such place.

As per the sacrosanct view of Section 20 of Sub-clause (b), it is clear that the defendant admittedly resides or works at Chimakurthy for his avocation. Further, the defendant received the legal notice at

Chimakurthy. A fortiori, the suit summons against the defendant are served at Chimakurthy against the wife of the defendant, in turn, he turned up and fled the written statement in order to contest the suit.

So, the contention of the defendant that the instant suit is lack of jurisdiction, can not be countenanced. This issue is also holds against the defendant and in favour of the Plaintif.

ISSUE No.3:

[14]. The learned counsel for the defendant would submit that the suit is barred by limitation as the same is not within the time limit. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Plaintif states that the limitation to fle a suit on a promissory note is three years and it is within the limitation.

Admittedly, the execution of suit promissory note dated 25-06-2015. The limitation to fle a suit on promissory note is three years. Therefore, calculating from 25-06-2015, the three years period will fall on 24-06-2018. The presentation of suit is, on 22-06-2018. Therefore, the three years will expire on 24.06.2018. So, the suit pro note is not time barred and within the limitation. The issue is answered against the defendant and in favour of plaintif.

ISSUE NO.4:

[15].In view of the above discussion and fnding on material

Issues 1 to 3, the Court holds that the plaintif is able to establish that 10 the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount, covered under Ex.A1 promissory note. Apparently, the defendant did not repay any amount under the suit promissory note. Hence, the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, Issue No.4 is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendant.

[16]. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.1,03,180/- (Rupees one lakh three thousand one hundred and eighty only) together with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.60,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27th day of May, 2020.

Sd/-V.Pallavi

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif For Defendant

P.W.1: Kunchala Venkateswarlu D.W.1: Tammisetty Srinivasa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif

Ex.A1/ : Original Promissory Note dt.25.06.2015 for Rs.60,000/- got executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif,

Ex.A2/ : Legal notice (ofce copy) dated 01-06-2018,

Ex.A3/ : Postal acknowledgment;

Ex.A4/: Reply notice dated 13-06-2018.

For Defendant : - Nil -

Sd/-V.Pallavi

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

PRESENT: Smt. V.Pallavi, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, FAC: III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 27TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 466 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

Prakasam District Permanent Fund Limited, Ongole rep. By its Managing Director, D.No.34-1-8, Opp. Old Government Hospital, District Court street, Ongole. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Kommu Danaiah, S/o. Prasad, Security Guard in I.T.C. aged about 47 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.6-17, S.C. Colony, Throvagunta Village, Ongole Mandal.

2.Atluri Salman Raju, S/o. Aseervadam, aged about 48 years, Field Officer, Central Farmer’s service Co-operative Society Limited, Lingamgunta Village, Maddipadu Mandal. … Defendants/ D1 and D2

This suit is coming on 06.11.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Venkateswara Reddy, Advocate for Plaintifand the defendants 1 and 2 are remained set ex-parte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,1,9,656/- and Rs.9,944/- being the

principal and interest due under mortgage debt and promissory note debt

dt. 21.12.2010 and 10.02.2016 separately.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: The plaintif is a company registered as a company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, representing by Managing Director and its recognized as a “NIDHI” by Government of India and the 1st defendant approached the plaintifs company along with 2nd defendant for sanction of mortgage loan and on 16.12.2010 1st defendant made an application for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for mortgaging the plaint schedule property. On 21.12.2010, 1st defendant executed a simple mortgage deed vide doc. No. 17078/2010 with 2

S.R.O., Ongole in favour of plaintif. The 1st defendant handed over the registered sale deed dt. 27.09.2010 stands in the name of plaintif and 2nd defendant stood as guarantor by executing a guarantee agreement dt. 22.12.2010 for amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. On the same day, 1st defendant executed demand promissory note and defendants 1 and 2 executed a Demand promissory note delivery letter. Again on the same day, plaintif transferred Rs.50,000/- to 1st defendant by cheque bearing no. 109685. Again on 04.02.2011, the plaintif transferred remain Rs.50,000/- to 1st defendant by cheque bearing no. 109706. The 1st defendant received Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif as a loan. The loan is a term loan to be paid in 30 installments Rs.3,333/- with accrued interest @ 17% p.a., The plaintif has been maintaining the accounts due court of their business. The 1st defendant was allotted a loan No. 1/2010 and his account being maintained in the loan ledger. The defendant did not pay regularly as agreed, but he paid some amounts to the plaintif and they were entered in his loan account. Finally, he paid an amount of Rs.38,000/- on 14.01.2016 and the same is entered in his loan account. Since then the 1st defendant not made any payment towards his loan account. The 1st defendant executed a debt revival letters on 17.12.2013 and on 10.02.2016 in favour of the plaintif. The outstanding loan amount as on 08.02.2019 is of Rs.1,1,9656/-.

Again on 10.02.2016, the 1st defendant made an application to a loan of Rs.5,000/- for his family expenses. The plaintif sanctioned the loan. The 1st defendant availed the same by executing a promissory note on 10.02.2016 for Rs.5,000/- under loan no. LAD No. 276/15. The 1st defendant also executed a D.P. Note delivery letter on the same day. The rate of interest is 20% p.a., with monthly rests. But the defendant did not choose to discharge the same. The plaintif issued several notices to the defendant, but in vain. Lastly, plaintif got issued a legal notice, dt. 30.01.2019 and the same ws received by defendants, but they are kept quite. The outstanding loan amount is Rs.1,19,656/- and of Rs.9,9,44/- is due from plaintif company. Hence, the plaintif filed the suit seeking preliminary decree in respect of the plaintif.

3. After receipt of summons, the defendants 1 and 2 engaged counsel, but they failed to file their written statements within stipulated period and thereby remained ex-parte to proceedings on 26.09.2019.

4.During the course of plaintif side evidence, the plaintif got examined himself as PW.1 and exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.16.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif.

3

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants as prayed for?

PW.1-Y.Sambasiva Rao/Plaintif has stated on oath in his chief examination affidavit with regard to averments in plaint. The chief examination affidavit of PW.1 is nothing but replica of plaint pleadings. Ex.A1 is photostat copy of certification of incorporation (compared with original); Ex.A2 is photostat copy of certificate of commencement (compared with original); Ex.A3 is loan application dated.16.12.2010 presented by the defendants, Ex.A4 is Registered mortgage dated.21.12.2010 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintif; Ex.A5 is Registered sale deed dated.27.09.2010 stands in the name of the 1st defendant; Ex.A6 is Guarantee agreement dated.22.12.2010 executed by the 2nddefendant; Ex.A7 is Demand promissory note dated.22.12.2010 executed by the 1st defendant and endorsed by the 2nd defendant; Ex.A8 is D.P note delivery letter dated.22.12.2010; Ex.A9 is Debt revival letter dated.10.02.2016 executed by the 1st defendant; Ex.A10 is Photostat copy of loan ledger dated. 08.02.2019 relating to loan account No.1/2010(compared with original); Ex.A11 is loan application dated.10.02.216 presented by the 1st defendant; Ex.A12 is Demand promissory note dated.10.02.2016 executed by the 1st defendant; Ex.A13 is D.P Note delivery letter dated.10.02.2016; Ex.A14 is Photostat copy of loan ledger dated.08.02.2019 relating to loan ledger relating to loan account (compared with original); Ex.A15 is Office copy of notice dated.31.01.2019 issued by the plaintif’s firm and Ex.A16 is Postal acknowledgment cards are marked in his evidence. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.16 remained unchallenged. The defendants 1 and 2 did not chose to contest the case to deny the claim of the plaintif. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A16 supports the contention of plaintif. Hence, the suit claim is proved. Therefore, the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants. Accordingly, point is answered.

7. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.1,19,656/- [towards loan account No.01 of 2010] against the Defendants 1 and 2 [jointly and severally] with costs and the interest on principal amount of Rs.1,29,300/- is at 6% p.a., from the date of filing the suit till realization. The preliminary decree is passed in respect of plaint schedule property.

Time of redemption is 3 [three] months.

It is further decreed against the 1st Defendant for an amount of Rs.9,444/- [towards loan account vide LAD No. 276/15] together with interest 4 @6%. p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.5000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of DECEMBER,

2019.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC: III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For defendant:

P.W.1: Yanamadala Sambasiva Rao Ex-parte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1: - - : Compared photostat copy of certificate of Incorporation.

Ex.A2: - - : Compared photostat copy of certificate of commencement of business.

Ex.A3: 16.12.2010 : Loan application presented by the defendants.

Ex.A4: 21.12.2010 : Registered mortgage deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintif.

Ex.A5: 27.09.2010 : Registered sale deed stands in the name of 1st defendant.

Ex.A6: 22.12.2010 : Guarantee agreement executed by 2nd defendant.

Ex.A7: 22.12.2010 : Demand promissory note executed by the 1st defendant and endorsed by the 2nd defendant.

Ex.A8: 22.12.2010 : D.P. note delivery letter.

Ex.A9: 10.02.2016 : Debt revival letter executed by the 1st defendant.

Ex.A10: 08.02.2019 : Compared photostat copy of loan ledge relating to the loan account no. 1/2010.

Ex.A11: - – : Loan application presented by the 1st defendant.

Ex.A12: 10.02.2016 : Demand promissory note executed by the 1st defendant.

Ex.A13: 10.02.2016 : D.P. note delivery letter.

Ex.A14: 08.02.2019 : Compared photostat copy of loan ledge relating to the loan account LAD No. 276/2015.

5

Ex.A15: 31.01.2019 : Office copy of notice issued by the plaintifs firm.

Ex.A16: - - : Postal Acknowledgment cards (2 in number)

For defendant:-

N I L

I A.J.C.J., ONGOLE,

FAC:III A.J.C.J., ONGOLE,

6

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

PRESENT: Smt. V.Pallavi, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, FAC: III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 27TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 466 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

Prakasam District Permanent Fund Limited, Ongole rep. By its Managing Director, D.No.34-1-8, Opp. Old Government Hospital, District Court street, Ongole. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Kommu Danaiah, S/o. Prasad, Security Guard in I.T.C. aged about 47 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.6-17, S.C. Colony, Throvagunta Village, Ongole Mandal.

2.Atluri Salman Raju, S/o. Aseervadam, aged about 48 years, Field Officer, Central Farmer’s service Co-operative Society Limited, Lingamgunta Village, Maddipadu Mandal. … Defendants/ D1 and D2 This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,1,9,656/- and Rs.9,944/- being the principal and interest due under mortgage debt and promissory note debt

dt. 21.12.2010 and 10.02.2016 separately.

Plaint presented on: 11.02.2019 Plaint filed on: 11.06.2019

Cause of action: Cause of action for the suit arose when on 16.12.2010 the 1st defendant made an application for a loan on security of immovable property, when on 21.12.2010 the defendant executed a mortgage deed in favour of the plaintif under document no. 17078/2010, when on 22.12.2010 the 2nd defendant executed a guarantee agreement for the loan, when on the same day the 1st defendant executed a D.P. note and a D.P. note delivery letter by both the defendants, when the 1st defendant did not pay the loan amount properly as agreed, lastly he paid an amount of Rs.38,000/- on 14.01.2016 and when on 17.12.2013 and 10.02.2016 the 1st defendant executed a debt revival letters and when subsequently the defendants failed to pay the loan and when on 10.02.2016 the 1st defendant made an application for a loan an amount of Rs.5,000/- and borrowed the same by executing a D.P. note and D.P. note delivery letter agreeing to pay the interest at 20% p.a., with monthly rests, when the plaintif demanded the defendants by several registered notices, lastly on 31.01.2019 got issued a legal notice and the same was received by 7 the defendants and the defendants kept quite, the mortgaged property is situated at Throvagunta Village all are within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Valuation and Court Fee: Valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs.1,19,656/- on which a court fee of Rs.3,626/- is paid and Rs.9,944/- on which a C.F. of Rs.786/- is paid U/Sec. 20 of A.P. C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956. Total court fee of Rs.4,412/-. (Rs.3,626/-+Rs.786/-)

This suit is coming on 06.11.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Venkateswara Reddy, Advocate for Plaintifand the defendants 1 and 2 are remained set ex-parte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:-

1. that the 1st defendant do pay an amount of Rs.9,444/- (towards loan account Vide LAD No. 276/15) together with interest @ 6% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.5,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization; and

2. that the 1st defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.7,408/- towards costs of the suit.

PRELIMINARY DECREE AGAINST DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintif on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to this the 27th day of March, 2020 is the sum of Rs.1,19,656/- for the suit claim amount; the sum of Rs.8,749/- for interest (i.e. @ 6 % per annum from the date of presentation of suit i.e., 11.02.2019 till the date of realization i.e., upto redemption period i.e., 27.03.2020 of Rs.1,29,300/- and the sum of Rs.7,408/- for costs of the suit awarded to the plaintif, making in all the sum of Rs.1,35,813/-.

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

(i) that the defendants do pay in to court on or before the 27 th day of March, 2020, or any other date upto which time for payment may be extended by the court, the said sum of Rs.1,35,813/-.

(b) If the defendants failed to pay the above amount within the time mentioned, the defendant to pay subsequent interest at 6% p.a. on Rs.1,29,300/- from the date of redemption till the date of realization.

(ii) that on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix on such amount on the court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable 8 under Rule II of Or. XXXIV of the 1st schedule to the Code of Civil procedure 1908, the plaintif shall bring into court all documents in this or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant, or to such person as he appoints and the plaintif shall, if so required re-convey or re transfer the said property free from the said mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintif or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall if so required, deliver up to the defendant quiet and peaceful possession of the said property.

3.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that in default to payment as aforesaid the plaintif may apply to the court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and on such application being made the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof shall be directed to be sold and for the purposes of such sale the plaintif shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoint all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

4.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and be duly applied (after deduction there from the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintif under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintif in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10, order XXXIV of the 1st schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the balance, if any shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same.

5.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintif as said the plaintif shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant personally and if the sale proceeds of the Plaint schedule property is not sufficient to realize the decree debt, for the amount of the balance and that the parties are at liberty to apply the court from time to time as they may be occasioned and on such application or otherwise the court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

Time for redemption is three (3) months.

9

Further interest is granted at 6% p.a., on principal amount of Rs.1,29,300/-.

(Plaint schedule attached to the decree)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 27 th day of December, 2019.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC: III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.

//TABLE OF COSTS//

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

Stamp on Vakalat2-00 Stamp on Plaint 4412-00 Process100-00-- Advocate fee2794-00 Type & writing charges100-00 Total 7408-00

I A.J.C.J., ONGOLE,

FAC:III A.J.C.J., ONGOLE.

NOTE: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all the exhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to destroy after the stipulated period from this date.

1

\IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

ONGOLE

PRESENT: Smt. V.Pallavi, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ongole, FAC: III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ongole.

SATURDAY, THIS THE 28th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019.

CALENDAR CASE No. 114 OF 2017

Between:

The state: Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk P.S., Ongole (Cr. No.86/2017) … Complainant.

And

1. Inakollu @ Inkollu Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Chenchupnniaha, aged about 64 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Retd. RTC Driver, R/o. Pernamitta Village, S.N. Padu Mandal.

2. Inakollu @ Inkollu @ Kotisastri @ Kotusastri, S/o. Chenchupunnaiah, aged about 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, R/o. Pernamitta Village, S.N. Padu Mandal.

3. Inakollu @ Inkollu Surendra, S/o. Kotusastri, aged about 26 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Pernamitta Village, S.N. Padu Mandal.

4. Inakollu @ Inkollu @ Venkata Jagadeesh Babu @ Jagadeesh, S/o. Kotisastri, aged about 30 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, R/o. Pernamitta Village, S.N. Padu Mandal.

… Accused/A1 to A4

This case is coming on 16.12.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri P.M.Sridhar, Learned defence counsel for A1 to A4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1. The factual score emanates from the First Information Report which is in essence as follows:

On 28.02.2017 at about 5.00 P.M., while Kondpi Madhavi latha (LW.1) was in her parents house, at that time, A1 to A4 barged in to their house and picked quarrel with LW.1 and abused her in a filthy language and also A3 beat LW.1 with a stick on her head, left hand and on waist thereby causing bleeding and swelling injuries and A1 to A3 beat LW.1 with hands. LW.1 informed about the incident to Kondapi Sivaramakrishnamacharyulu (LW.2) and he came to pernamitta and took her to the RIMS Hospital and after the occurrence the 2 report was lodged and after termination of investigation the case was culminated into final report U/s.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

2. This Court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A4.

3.When the accused A1 to A4 put in appearance before the court and they are supplied with all copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.,

4.When the accused A1 to A4 are examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., with regard to offences alleged against them, for which, they did not plead guilty of the offence Under Section 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC. and thus, the charges are framed

U/Sec.324 against A1, a Charge under under Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.323 of

IPC against A2 to A4 and whereupon, the accusation was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied to have committed the offence and claimed to be tried.

5.When the accused are examined U/sec.313(1)(a) Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied and reported no evidence to be adduced on their behalf.

6.The prosecution in order to prove the complicity of the accused examined

Pw.1 to PW.8, and got Exs. P1 to P8 marked. The evidence of Abburi Subbulu (LW.4) is given up by the prosecution.

7.The learned prosecution counsel invited the attention of this court through the testimony of P.W.1 coupled with the testimony of investigating officer maintains that accused beat P.W.1 and through PW6 who treated PW1 and issued wound certificate it can be seen that P.W.1 received injury in the hands of A1 to A4 and therefore, pronouncing the verdict of conviction is highly sustainable.

8.The learned counsel for the accused traversed the arguments advanced by the learned APP and inter alia contends that there is no corroboration from independent evidence and further contends that there were contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 to her earlier statements and in view of these reasons pronouncing the verdict of conviction is wholly unsustainable.

3

9.Now the point for considerations are :

1.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused A1 for the

offence under Section 324 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

2.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused A2 to A4

for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt ?

3.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused A2 to A4 for the offence under Section 323 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

Point No. 1 and 3:

10. P.W.1, who is the De-Facto complainant cum injured deposed in evidence that at about one year back on one day in the evening time while she was at her parents house at Pernamitta village, A1 to A4 came upon her and picked quarrel with her and threatened her not to purchase the house site and not to construct any house and not to stay in their village and A1 to A4 beat her with sticks on her head and also on her both hands and both legs due to which she sustained bleeding injuries and thereafter she was shifted to hospital for treatment. Ex.P1 is the statement given by PW.1 to Police.

11. P.W.2, who is the husband of PW1, deposed in his evidence that at about one year back at about 5.00 P.M, PW.1 telephoned to her and informed that the accused beat her and caused injuries and immediately he went to her parents house and shifted her to the hospital for treatment and police examined him.

12. Pws. 3 to 5, who are direct eye witnesses to the occurrence deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they never witnessed anything about this case. During cross examination by learned APP, no worthwhile, proof forth came, in favour of the prosecution from the testimony of

P.Ws.2 to 5. Exs.P2 to P4 are section 161 Cr.P.C., statements of PWs.3 to 5 respectively.

4

13. PW.6, who is working as Civil Asst. Surgeon at RIMS Hospital, deposed in his evidence that on 28.02.2017 at about 11.30 P.M that he examined P.W.1 and noticed the injuries 1) Abrasion of left hand 2) laceration of middle of skull MLC.

No. 1012 pain CT scan of brain normal study and issued Ex.P.2 wound certificate. Ex.P5 is wound certificate of PW.1.

14.P.W.7, K.Hari Babu, who is an investigation officer deposed in his evidence that on 01.03.2017 at about 9.00 A.M,, he received statement of PW.1 along with Hospital intimation i.e., Ex.P6 and registered the case and Ex.P.7 FIR is drawn up and proceeded to the scene of crime situated near panchayat office,

Pernamitta and the rough sketch Ex.P8 was drawn up and recorded the statement of witnesses and after termination of investigation the charge sheet was filed.

15.P.W.8, who is the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur Police

Station deposed in his evidence that on 28.02.2017 at about 11.30 P.M, he received hospital intimation and recorded statement of PW.1 and sent the statement of PW1 to Ongole Taluka Police Station on point of jurisdiction.

16.To bring home the guilt of the accused for offence punishable Under

Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, it is the burden of prosecution to prove the following ingredients.

i) that the accused caused hurt, ii) that it was caused voluntarily i.e., with knowledge or intention to cause and; iii) that it had been caused by any instrument or weapon which is likely used to cause death.

17.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for offence punishable

Under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, it is the burden of prosecution to prove the following ingredients:

i) that the accused did an act which caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to PW.1; 5 ii) that the accused did such act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to PW.1 or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt.

18. Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, P.W.1 stated in her examination-in-chief that A1 to A4 threatened her not to purchase the house site and not to construct any house and not to stay in their village. The said aspects were not stated by her in her earlier version ie., Ex.P.1. PW.1 stated in her examination-in-chief that A1 to A4 beat her with sticks, but she stated in her earlier version that A3 beat her with a stick. From the material emerged above there are inconsistencies in the evidence of PW.1 with regard to her earlier version.

19. As per PW.6 and Ex.P5 PW.1 is found with injuries after the alleged incident but that injuries were caused by A1 to A4 to PW.1 is not established by the prosecution due to contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 with regard to her earlier versions. The evidence of PW.2 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution as it is hearsay. The direct eye witnesses i.e., Pws. 3 to 5 also not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore the court holds that the evidence of PW.1 could not be believed without cogent and convincing independent evidence.

20. In view of above discussion, when the evidence of PW.1 is not found truthful and trustworthy with regard to contradictions to her earlier versions and also there is no independent material evidence to support the version of PW.1, the court is of the considered opinion that it is not safe to rely only on the evidence of PW1 which is impaired with material contradictions and exaggerations, in order to bring home the guilt of both the accused. Therefore, the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offences levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

6

21. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for offence punishable under

Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, A2 to A4 are found not guilty under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC. Therefore, A1 to A4 are acquitted under

Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the A1 to A4 as well as their sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months. No property is produced in this case as such there is no orders with regard to property.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of December,

2019.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC:III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:For Defence: NIL

PW1/LW1 – Kondapi Madhavi Latha PW2/LW2 – Kondapi Sivaramakrishnamacharyulu PW3/LW3 – Annu Chilakamma PW4/LW5 – Inkollu Lakshmikantham PW5/LW6 – Annu Madhavi PW6/LW7 – Dr.N.Hanuma Naik PW7/LW9 – K.Hari Babu, Head Constable PW8/LW8 – M.Hanumantha Rao, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:For Defence: NIL

Ex.P1 – Statement of PW.1 given by police. Ex.P2 – Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3. Ex.P3 – Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4. Ex.P4 – Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.5. Ex.P5 – Wound Certificate of PW.1. Ex.P6 – Hospital Intimation. Ex.P7 – First Information Report. Ex.P8 – Rough sketch of scene of offence.

7

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

N I L

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC:III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ONGOLE.

8

Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No. 114 OF 2017 on the file of the III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

1. Date of Offence: 28.02.2017

2. Date of report: 01.03.2017

3. Date of arrest of accused: --

4. Date of release on bail: --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 23.02.2018

6. Date of close of trial: 20.11.2019

7. Date of judgment: 28.12.2019

8. Complainant: State: Sub Inspector of police, Ongole Taluk P.S.,

9. Accused:

1. Inakollu @ Inkollu Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Chenchupnniaha, aged about 64 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Retd. RTC Driver, R/o. Pernamitta Village, S.N. Padu Mandal.

2. Inakollu @ Inkollu @ Kotisastri @ Kotusastri, S/o. Chenchupunnaiah, aged about 55 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, R/o. Pernamitta Village, S.N. Padu Mandal.

3. Inakollu @ Inkollu Surendra, S/o. Kotusastri, aged about 26 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, Pernamitta Village, S.N. Padu Mandal.

4. Inakollu @ Inkollu @ Venkata Jagadeesh Babu @ Jagadeesh, S/o. Kotisastri, aged about 30 years, Caste by Viswa Brahmin, R/o. Pernamitta Village, S.N. Padu Mandal.

10. Offence : U/sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or order: In the result, A1 is found not guilty for offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, A2 to A4 are found not guilty under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC. Therefore, A1 to A4 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the A1 to A4 as well as their sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months. No property is produced in this case as such there is no orders with regard to property.

14. Explanation for delay:This case was taken on file on 06.04.2017 against the accused for the offences U/sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC. On 06.06.2017, Accused called present, copies of all documents were furnished to them U/s.207 of Cr.P.C., and posted for examination; On 06.09.2017, the accused were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., explaining the substance of accusation made out against him for the offence U/sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC for consideration of charges, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and posted for trial. On 23.02.2018, PW.1 examined in chief and Ex.P.1 marked; On 26.04.2018; PW.2 examined; On 27.06.2018, PW.1 examined in cross; On 22.03.2019, PW.3 and PW.4 examined and Exs.P.2 to P.4 marked; On 29.03.2019, PW.6 examined and Ex.P.5 marked; On 10.05.2019, PW.7 examined and Exs.P.6 to P.8 marked; On 18.09.2019, PW.10 examined and Exs.P.5 to P.7 marked; On 20.11.2019, PW.8 examined. On the same day, prosecution side evidence was closed. On 02.12.2019, accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., examination, explaining the incriminating evidence against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. On 16.12.2019, Arguments heard on 9 both sides and posted for Judgment. On 28.12.2019, Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC:III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ONGOLE.

Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole for favour of information.

Copy to:- The Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ONGOLE

PRESENT : Smt.V. Pallavi,

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Monday, the Thirty­first (31st) day of December, 2018

Original Suit No.321/2013

Between:

1. Pabbisetty Venkata Sukanya (Died)

2. Pabbisetty Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Narasimham, Hindu, aged 56 years,

3. Pabbisetty Venkata Hari Prasada Rao, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 32 years, employee,

4. Pabbisetty Venkata Harika, D/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 30 years,

All are residents of Chejarla Lakshmanachari Street, Ongole Town, Prakasam District

Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are added as parties as per the Orders in I.A.No.404/2018, dt.16­07­2018 … Plaintiffs

And

Dumpala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Subbaiah, Hindu, aged 50 years, R/o. Opp. to FCI Godown, Indira Colony, Masjid Lane, Koppole Road, within Ongole Municipal Corporation… Defendant

This suit is coming on 27­12­2018, for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.V.S.R.K. Murthy, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the defendant remained exparte; upon hearing on plaintiff side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for the relief of declaration and consequential possession of 'B' marked vacant site in the plaint plan after removal of the illegal constructions made by the defendant and for grant of permanent injunction and for costs.

02.The brief averments of the amended plaint are as follows:­ 2

The 1st plaintiff being a houseless poor person, applied for house site under Rajiv Gruhakalpa scheme and she was allotted Plot

No.159 along with patta issued by the Tahsildar, Ongole in her favour on 08­04­2008 and she paid 10% of contribution of unit cost as directed and in the said patta, it was mentioned as measurements are as per approved layout.

It is further submitted that, there are no specific measurements given in the patta and upon enquiry from her neighbours, the 1st plaintiff came to know that, all the pattas were issued for 18' x 30' measurements and thereafter she constructed a house in the site of 18' x 30' and she left some site on northern side in her house and one person by name Y.Muniratnam stated that a patta was issued to her and the vacant site left by the 1st plaintiff is allotted to her and the plaintiff made a representation to the Superintendent of

Police, to enquire into the matter and accordingly, the Superintendent of Police directed the C.I., Ongole Taluk P.S. to enquire into the matter and to take action.

It is further submitted that, the said Muniratnam filed a suit in O.S.No.109/2012 against the 1st plaintiff on the file of Prl. Junior

Civil Judge's Court, Ongole for bare injunction and subsequently the

suit was dismissed for default on 17­06­2013. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff to know the exact measurements of her site, allotted to her, applied to the concerned authorities for issuance of duplicate approved layout plan under Right to Information Act and accordingly she was issued approved layout plan on 14­02­2012 by the T.P.O.,

Ongole and on verifying it, she came to know that, the schedule property is admeasuring 18' x 64', but not 18' x 30' and she constructed the house only in an extent of Ac.18' x 30' and the remaining 34 feet of site on the north of her house.

It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the suit filed by the said Muniratnam in O.S.No.109/2012, she stopped the plastering work and she measured the site and came to know that some 3 third parties encroached her site to a tune of 18' x 17' on northern side, which was shown as 'C' in the plaint plan and the site was encroached by the defendant, shown as 'B' in the plaint plan and her construction of house is shown as 'A' in the plaint plan and after disposal of the suit filed by Muniratnam, the plaintiff started proceeding with the construction of work in the site shown as 'B' in the plaint plan, but the defendant obstructed her stating that he is the owner of the said site and she could not resist the illegal acts of the defendant and stopped the construction work as the police intervened and directed both the parties to stop construction work, till the dispute is settled and in the said circumstances, she approached this Court and got filed this suit for declaration and consequential recovery of possession and for permanent injunction.

Since the 1st plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, her legal representatives i.e. plaintiffs 2 to 4 were impleaded as per

Orders in I.A.No.404/2018, dt.16­07­2018.

03.Though the Defendant received the summons, but failed to make his appearance before this Court and remained exparte.

04.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential recovery of possession of 'B' marked property as per plaint plan, after removal of

illegal structures made by the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the 'B' marked property as per plaint plan?

3. To what relief?

05.On behalf of plaintiffs, the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs got examined themselves as Pws­1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked.

06.I have heard the learned counsel for plaintiffs.

4

07. POINT NO.1:­

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of

declaration and consequential recovery of possession of

'B' marked property as per plaint plan, after removal of

illegal structures made by the defendant?

PW1­Pabbisetty Venkata Sukanya/1st plaintiff has stated on oath in her chief examination affidavit with regard to averments in the plaint. The chief examination affidavit of PW1 is replica of contents in the plaint. Ex.A1 is the original copy of police report, Ex.A2 is the valuation certificate dt.30­10­2013, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of

Judgment in O.S.No.109/2012, dt.17­06­2013, are marked in her evidence. 

08.During the pendency of the suit, as PW­1 died, the 2nd plaintiff got examined himself as PW­2 and he stated on oath in his chief examination affidavit with regard to averments in the plaint. The chief examination affidavit of PW­2 is replica of contents in the plaint.

Ex.A4 is the attested copy of D.K.T. Patta issued by M.R.O. Ongole to the wife of PW­2 by name Pabbisetty Venkata Sukanya i.e. 1st plaintiff.

Ex.A5 is the Rajeev Gruhakalpa Occupation, Ex.A6 is the allotment passbook, Ex.A7 is the layout copy with measurements and approved layout and Ex.A8 is the list of Rajeev Gruhakalpa Beneficiaries, are marked in his evidence. 

09.The evidence of Pws­1 and 2 establishes that, the 1st plaintiff was granted D.K.T. patta in her favour in respect of the plaint schedule property and as per Ex.A7, it clearly shows that, she was allotted Plot No.159 with measurements of 18' x 64' as stated by the plaintiffs. The defendant did not contest the suit to deny the claim of the plaintiffs. The evidence of Pws­1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A8, remained unchallenged. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and for recovery of possession of 'B' marked property as 5 per plaint plan, after removal of illegal constructions made by the defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

10.POINT NO.2:­

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of

permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his

men and followers from interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the 'B'

marked property as per plaint plan?

In view of my discussion in the point No.1, the evidence of

Pws­1 and 2 establishes that the defendant is interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the 'B' marked property as per plaint plan. As such, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.POINT NO.3:

To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed declaring the right of the plaintiffs in respect of the 'B' marked property as per plaint plan and permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the 'B' marked property as per plaint plan.

The defendant is directed to remove the structures made in 'B' marked property as per plaint plan and handover the vacant possession of the property to the plaintiffs on or before 12­03­2019, failing which, the plaintiffs can recover the same through the process of the Court. In the circumstances of the case, I direct all parties to bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31 st day of December, 2018.

Sd/- V. Pallavi,

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole 6

//Appendix of Evidence//

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs : For Defendant:

PW.1: Pabbisetty Venkata Sukanya Ex-parte PW.2: Pabbisetty Srinivasa Rao

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs

Ex.A1/ –: Original copy of police report. Ex.A2/30­10­2013: Valuation certificate.

Ex.A3/ –: Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.109/2012.

Ex.A4/ –: D.K. Patta issued by M.R.O., Ongole in favour of his wife by name Pabbisetty Venkata Sukanya i.e. 1st plaintiff.

Ex.A5/ –: Rajeev Gruhakalpa occupation.

Ex.A6/12­08­2017: Allotment passbook.

Ex.A7/13­08­2017: Layout copy with measurements and approved layout.

Ex.A8/ –: List of Rajeev Gruhakalpa Beneficiaries.

Documents marked on behalf of Defendant

-NIL-

Ild/- V.Pallavi

I-AJCJ , ,

FAC/PJCJ, FAC/PJCJ, On On gole gole

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ONGOLE

PRESENT : Smt.V. Pallavi,

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Monday, the Thirty­first (31st) day of December, 2018

Original Suit No.321/2013

Between:

1. Pabbisetty Venkata Sukanya (Died)

2. Pabbisetty Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Narasimham, Hindu, aged 56 years,

3. Pabbisetty Venkata Hari Prasada Rao, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 32 years, employee,

4. Pabbisetty Venkata Harika, D/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 30 years,

All are residents of Chejarla Lakshmanachari Street, Ongole Town, Prakasam District

Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are added as parties as per the Orders in I.A.No.404/2018, dt.16­07­2018 … Plaintiffs

And

Dumpala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Subbaiah, Hindu, aged 50 years, R/o. Opp. to FCI Godown, Indira Colony, Masjid Lane, Koppole Road, within Ongole Municipal Corporation… Defendant

The suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for the relief of declaration and consequential possession of 'B' marked vacant site in the plaint plan after removal of the illegal constructions made by the defendant and for grant of permanent injunction and for costs.

Valuation:

The relief of declaration and possession is valued as per the S.R.O. Certificate is Rs.68,000/­; 3/4th of the same is Rs.51,000/­, on which a Court Fee of Rs.2,466/­ is paid under Sec.24(a) of APCF & SV Act. The relief of permanent injunction is valued at Rs.5,000/­ on which a Court Fee of Rs.411/­ is paid under Sec.26(c) of APCF & SV Act. Total jurisdiction value is Rs.73,000/­. Total Court Fee paid is Rs.2,877/­.

Cause of action: The cause of action for the suit arose when the 1st plaintiff applied for a patta under Rajiv Gruhakalpa scheme, when one Y. Muniratnam tried to encroach the site of 1st plaintiff shown as 'B', when the suit in

O.S.No.109/2012 filed by said Muniratnam was dismissed for default, when the

defendant encroached and constructed illegal constructions shown as 'B' in the plaint plan, when the 1st plaintiff died intestate on 18­02­2016 leaving behind the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as legal heirs and at Ongole, where the property situated within the jurisdiction of this court.

Plaint presented on 06­11­2013 and filed on 12­11­2013.

This suit is coming on 27­12­2018, for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.V.S.R.K. Murthy, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the defendant remained exparte; upon hearing on plaintiff side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. it is hereby declared that the right of the plaintiffs in respect of the 'B' marked property as per plaint plan;

2. that the defendant be and is hereby restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the 'B' marked property as per plaint plan;

3. that the defendant be and is hereby directed to remove the structures made in 'B' marked property as per plaint plan and handover the vacant possession of the property to the plaintiffs on or before 12­03­2019, failing which, the plaintiffs can recover the same through the process of the Court; and

4. that each party do bear its own costs; (No C.M. & F.C. filed by plaintiffs) ­ Plaint schedule and plan are hereto enclosed ­

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 31st day of December, 2018.

I­Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

//TABLE OF COSTS//

­ N I L ­

I-A.J.C.J. FAC/P.J.C.J., ONGOLE

NOTE: The exhibited documents and non­exhibited documents, which are marked, have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.