Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge

II Addl District Court Madanapalle · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy, Principal Junior Civil Judge, is posted at II Addl District Court Madanapalle, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,828 court orders on record since 2017. 20 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

1,828

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/25/2021

B.Gopinath vs N.Eswaramma

12 Feb 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

MADANAPALLE.

Present: Sri V.VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

Wednesday, the 12th day of February, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 25 of 2021

Burra Gopinath, aged about 45 years, S/o late B.Siddappa, cultivation, R/at D.No.12-31, Kothavaripalle Village and Post, Madanapalle Mandal.

...Plaintiff

-Vs-

1. Nallappagari Eswaramma, aged about 55 years, W/o N.Pedda Reddeppa,

2. Nallappagari Eswaraiah, aged about 35 years, S/o Nallappagari Pedda Reddeppa, Both are R/at D.No.35, Cultivation, Upparapalle village, Pothabolu Post, Madanapalle Mandal,

3. Chittaiahgari Rukmini, aged about 31 years, W/o Chittalaiahgari Venkatesh, cultivation, Permanent resident of Upparapalle Village, Pothabolu Post, Madanapalle Mandal, Presently R/at D.No.216, Thammavaram Road, Charan Complex, Medarametla Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasham District,

4. N.Amrutha, aged about 30 years, W/o C.S.Nanjundapalle Village, Chikkaballapur Taluk, Karnataka State.

...Defendants

This suit came up on 29.01.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Nagi Reddy, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri B.Amaranatha Reddy, learned Advocate for defendants and upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing the learned counsels, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 2 / 13 OS No.25/2021 the relief of specific performance of contract directing the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for the suit schedule property and failing which, the same may be effected through process of law and for costs of the suit and for other or further reliefs as this

Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

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

(a)That the suit schedule property is owned by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 having succeeded the same from their ancestors. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for valid consideration. The plaintiff accepted to purchase the suit schedule property from the defendant Nos.1 to 4 for consideration and thereafter, the terms and conditions were settled between the plaintiff and the defendants as follows:

1) The total consideration of the plaint schedule property was fixed at

Rs.4,25,000/-, 2) out of total consideration of Rs,.4,25,000/- the plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards earnest amount, 3) the balance of sale consideration amount of Rs.25,000/- is to be paid within one year from the date of agreement of sale to be executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, 4) in the event if the plaintiffs fails to pay the balance of sale consideration and obtained regular registered sale deed in his favour, the plaintiff is not entitled for the earnest amount paid by him, 5) in the event the defendants fails to come forward to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff though the plaintiff is ready to pay balance of sale consideration amount and obtained registered sale deed, the defendants are liable for civil and criminal action to be initiated by the plaintiff, and 6) the defendants assured the plaintiff that the property is free from all encumbrances and further assured that the defendants did not enter into any agreement of sale over the suit schedule property.

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 3 / 13 OS No.25/2021

b) That in accordance with the above said terms and conditions, on 10.09.2020, the plaintiff transferred a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from her wife’s bank account bearing No.50025662679, Sapthagiri Gramaneena Bank, CTM to the account of the defendant No.1 bearing No.6819056676 through RTGS.

Thereafter, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 executed agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 15.09.2020 by incorporating the above said terms and conditions. The plaintiff demanded the defendant Nos.1 to 4 to execute registered sale deed after receiving balance of consideration of Rs.25,000/-, but the defendants postponed the same on one pretext or the other. On 21.12.2020, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants through registered post demanding them to come over to the Sub-Registrar’s Office,

Madanapalle on 28.12.2020 and execute registered sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration. All the defendants received the legal notice, but they failed to execute resisted sale deed by coming over to the Sub-

Registrar’s Office, Madanapalle on 28.12.2020. The plaintiff received the acknowledgments of defendant Nos.1 to 4, but did not receive the postal acknowledgment of defendant No.1. and tracking the legal notice through official website of postal department, it revealed that the defendant No.4 received the legal notice.

c) That the plaintiff waited at Sub-Registrar’s Office, Madanapalle on 28.12.2020 to perform his part of contract and to obtain registered sale deed from the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property, but the defendants did not turn up. The plaintiff purchased non-judicial stamp from the office of SRO, Madanapalle to prove that he was available in Sub-Registrar’s

Office, Madanapalle to perform his part of contract on the day stipulated in the legal notice. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying balance of sale consideration amount of Rs.25,000/- and obtained registered sale deed with his cots. But, the defendants are not coming forward to perform their part of contract. Hence, the plaintiff is

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 4 / 13 OS No.25/2021 constrained to file the suit against the defendants for specific performance of the agreement of sale dt.15.09.2020 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

3.The defendants filed their written statement admitting the execution of agreement sale dt.15.09.2020 on receiving of the earnest amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. But they denied to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in furtherance of agreement of sale dt.15.09.2020 and they took the following contentions in their written statement:

a)The defendants submitted that as the plaintiff did not pay entire consideration amount, they have no need to appear before Sub-Registrar’s

Office, Madanapalled to register the document. That the plaintiff waited at

Sub-Registrar’s Office, Madanapalle on 28.12.2020 to perform his part of contract and obtain registered sale deed from the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property and the defendants did not turn up and the plaintiff purchased non-judicial stamp of Rs.100/- from the office of SRO, Madanapalle to prove that he was available in Sub-Registrar Office, Madanapalle to perform his part of contract on the day stipulated in the legal notice is not true and correct, and the plaintiff might have purchased the stamp paper to give colouring the document as if true and genuine. That after the agreement of sale, the plaintiff did not keep up his promise to pay entire sale consideration amount and now new National Highway road is under formation from

Madanapalle – Piler in the place of old National Highway. Now the value of the suit schedule property is more than Rs.10,00,000/-. In view of changed circumstances, if the plaintiff come forward to pay at least Rs.5,00,000/- in addition to balance of sale consideration the defendants are ready to execute the registered sale deed. There is no cause of action to the plaint and particulars of valuation are incorrect. The suit agreement is barred by limitation

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 5 / 13 OS No.25/2021 and it is unenforceable document and the said document is not properly stamped. Hence, the defendants prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement and after hearing the both counsels and after perusing the draft issued filed on behalf of the defendants, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff failed to pay the balance of sale consideration within time agreed between the parties under the suit agreement as pleaded by the defendants or not?

2. Whether the suit agreement is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not?

3. To what result?

5.During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and the attestors of the agreement of sale dt.15.09.2020 as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the agreement of sale dt.15.09.2020 jointly executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff; Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.21.12.2020 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants; Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgments (3 in number), postal receipts and postal track record; and Ex.A4 is the Non-Judicial stamp worth

Rs.100/- dt.28.12.2020 purchased from SRO, Madanapalle. The 1st defendant herself examined as DW-1, the 4th defendant was examined as DW-2 and 3rd defendant was examined as DW-3. No documents were marked on behalf of the defendants.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants.

Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

7.Issue No.1 :

The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the defendants and they succeeded to the same from their ancestors and offered to sell away the same property to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- and out of the total sale consideration, the plaintiff

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 6 / 13 OS No.25/2021 has paid earnest amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendants by way of account transfer from his wife’s Bank account on 10.09.2020 and the defendants executed the Ex.A1 agreement of sale in his favour on 15.09.2020 by incorporating the terms and conditions and they further agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed in his favour within one year after receiving the balance consideration of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff, but the defendants postponed the same on some pretext or the other and that therefore, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 notice demanding the defendants to come over to the

Sub-Registrar’s Office, Madanapalle on 28.12.2020 and execute registered sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration, but the defendants failed to execute the same though they received Ex.A2 notice.

8.On the other hand, the version of the defendants is that the plaintiff did not keep up his promise to pay entire consideration amount and now new National Highway road is under formation from Madanapalle to Piler in the place of old National Highway and that the value of the plaint schedule property is more than Rs.10,00,000/- and in view of changed circumstances if the plaintiff come forward to pay at least Rs.5,00,000/- in addition to balance of sale consideration, the defendants are ready to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

9.A perusal of the above, it is evident that the defendants have admitted the execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. The specific case of the defendants is that since, the plaintiff did not keep up his promise to pay entire consideration amount and as the price of the suit schedule property was escalated on account of formation of new National Highway road from Madanapalle to Piler in the place of old National Highway, they denied to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in furtherance of Ex.A1 agreement of sale and demanding him to pay at least Rs.5,00,000/- in addition to the balance of sale consideration. Since, the defendants have pleaded that the plaintiff did not

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 7 / 13 OS No.25/2021 keep up his promise to pay entire consideration and in view of the changed circumstances, the plaintiff did not entitle to specific performance of contract of

Ex.A1 agreement of sale, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that whether he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

10.In order to obtain a decree for specific performance, the plaintiff must aver and prove that he has performed his part of the contract and has always been ready and willing to perform the terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates ‘readiness and willingness’ of the plaintiff to be averred and proved and it is a condition precedent to obtain the relief of specific performance. The plaintiff in order to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon Exs.A2 to A4.

11.A perusal of the evidence of PW-1, it is evident that the PW-1 has stated in his evidence in-chief as that of his plaint averments. In the cross- examination of PW-1, it is evident that the PW-1 has stated that the balance of consideration payable to the defendants is Rs.25,000/- and he did not have

Rs.25,000/- with him on the date of Ex.A1 agreement of sale. Hence, it seems that the plaintiff did not pay the total sale consideration to the defendants as on the date of Ex.A1 agreement of sale on account of he did not have Rs.25,000/- with him. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer the Ex.A1 agreement of sale.

A perusal of recitals of Ex.A1 agreement of sale, it indicates that the total sale consideration of the suit schedule property was fixed at Rs.4,25,000/- and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards earnest amount and the defendants agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one year after receiving the balance consideration of

Rs.25,000/-. Hence, it seems from the recitals of Ex.A1 agreement of sale one year time was stipulated to pay the balance consideration amount of

Rs.25,000/- to the defendants to get regular registered sale deed.

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 8 / 13 OS No.25/2021

12.As can be seen from the evidence on record, it is evident that the plaintiff demanded the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance consideration of Rs.25,000/- but they postponed the same on one pretext or the other and that therefore, he got issued Ex.A2 notice. A perusal of Ex.A2 notice, it is evident that the plaintiff got issued the same on 20.12.2020 and demanded the defendants to come over to the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Madanapalle on 28.12.2020 and execute a registered sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration and the same notice was received by the defendants as is evident from Ex.A3, but the defendants did not come over to the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Madanapalle on 28.12.2020 though the plaintiff was attended as is evident from Ex.A4. It seems that the plaintiff went to the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Madanapalle on 28.12.2020 as specified in Ex.A2 notice and to mark his presence at the Sub-

Registrar’s Office, Madanapalle on the specified date he got purchased the

Ex.A4 Non-Judicial stamp from the Office of Sub-Registrar, Madanapalle.

Though the learned counsel for the defendants cross-examined the PW-1, nothing could be elicited from his evidence that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It seems from the above evidence, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 notice within the stipulated period of one year from the date of Ex.A1 agreement of sale expressing his readiness and willingness to get a registered sale deed after paying the balance consideration of

Rs.25,000/- to defendants, but the defendants did not come forward to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in furtherance of Ex.A1 agreement of sale. Hence, this Court is of view that the version of defendants that the plaintiff did not keep up his promise to pay entire consideration amount and that therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get a registered sale deed in furtherance of Ex.A1 agreement of sale do not hold water.

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 9 / 13 OS No.25/2021

13.As can be seen from the evidence on record, it is evident that the

DWs. 1 to 3 have stated in their evidence in-chief in one voice that they received earnest amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff and they executed

Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff with the terms and conditions recited therein and they further stated that the plaintiff did not pay entire sale consideration to them and that therefore, they did not execute the regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and now four lane National

Highway was under construction and as on the date of execution of agreement of sale the plaintiff was aware of new proposal highway but the defendants are not aware and there is a lot of price escalation in the price of land and that therefore, they demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- additionally in addition to the advance amount, but the plaintiff did not come forward to pay the same and that therefore, they did not execute the registered sale deed. Hence, it seems from the above evidence that the defendants denied to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in furtherance of Ex.A1 agreement of sale on account of escalation of price in the price of suit schedule land. It is appropriate to law laid down by the Supreme Court on the aspect of denying the execution of registered sale deed on account of escalation of price in the price of the land already sold away by the vendor. In Narinderjit Singh Vs.

North Star Estate Promoters Limited, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 712, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 25 that :

“25. We are also inclined to agree with the lower appellate court that escalation in the price of the land cannot, by itself, be a ground for denying relief of specific performance. In K. Narendra v. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. this Court interpreted Section 20 of the Act and laid down the following propositions: (SCC p.91, para 29) “29. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; the discretion of the court is not

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 10 / 13 OS No.25/2021 arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal. Performance of the contract involving some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee while non-performance involving no such hardship on the plaintiff, is one of the circumstances in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance. The doctrine of comparative hardship has been thus statutorily recognised in India. However, mere inadequacy of consideration or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not constitute an unfair advantage to the plaintiff over the defendant or unforeseeable hardship on the defendant.”

14.As can be seen from the evidence of DWs.1 to 3, it is evident that they categorically admitted about execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and receiving of earnest amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff. It is evident from the cross-examination of DWs.1 to 3 that they stated that they are not ready to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as the price of Ex.A1 agreement of sale deed land was escalated due to formation of National Highway road and they are demanding

additional amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It can be seen from the cross-examination

of PW-1 that the learned counsel for the defendants nothing could be elicited that the PW-1 was aware of formation of National Highway road near to the suit schedule land and whereas the defendants were not aware of the same and thereby, he approached the defendants and entered into Ex.A1 agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule land. It is denied by PW-1 in his cross-examination that he suppressed about the information relating to formation of road and induced the defendants to execute Ex.A1 agreement of sale for less amount suppressing information from them. Since, the defendants are the natives of village where the suit schedule land is located, this Court is

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 11 / 13 OS No.25/2021 of view that it cannot be said that they were not aware of formation of National

Highway near to the suit schedule land. It is obvious that the defendants are the natives of the suit schedule land and that therefore, they might have known the formation of the said National Highway. It can be seen from the evidence on record that there is no any other difficulty to the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in furtherance of Ex.A1 agreement of sale except demanding additional amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on account of formation of National Highway near to the suit schedule land. In view of the fact that the defendants failed to elicit that the plaintiff was aware of the formation of National Highway near to the suit land well in advance from the evidence of PW-1 and whereas the defendants are not aware of the same, in view of the law laid down above this Court is of view that the defendants cannot deny to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under the guise that the price of the suit schedule land was escalated. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of view that the plaintiff was ready to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- to the defendants within three months though the time was stipulated for one year and to get a regular registered sale deed in his favour in furtherance of Ex.A1 agreement of sale, but the defendants did not come forward to execute the same in favour of the plaintiff on account of escalation of suit schedule land price subsequent to the Ex.A1 agreement of sale. Hence, the issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

15.Issue No.2:

A perusal of evidence on record, it is evident that the PW-1 has stated in his evidence that suit schedule property was owned by the defendants having succeeded to from their ancestors and offered to sell the same property to the plaintiff for Rs.4,25,000/- and that therefore, he paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendants towards earnest amount by way of transfer through his wife’s account to the account of the 1st defendant and the

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 12 / 13 OS No.25/2021 defendants agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one year after receiving the balance consideration of

Rs.25,000/- and with the said terms and conditions, they executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale in his favour. The evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 who witnessed the transaction and attested the

Ex.A1 agreement of sale. It can be seen from the evidence on record that there is no dispute with regard to execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants and receiving of the balance consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff as the defendants themselves admitted in their pleadings as well as in their evidence. It can be seen from the averments of Ex.A1 agreement of sale that the defendants agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one year after receiving the balance consideration of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff. But the defendants did not obey the terms of Ex.A1 agreement of sale though the plaintiff was ready and willing to get a regular registered sale deed within the stipulated period of one year and they denied to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on account of escalation of the price of the land covered in Ex.A1 agreement of sale. Since, there is no dispute with regard to execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale, it can be held that the suit agreement is true, valid and binding on the defendants. Hence, the issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

16.Issue No.3:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for specific performance of contract dated 15.09.2020 in favour of plaintiff and against defendants with direction that the plaintiff shall deposit Rs.25,000-00 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards balance of sale consideration before the

Court within one month from the date of decree with intimation to the defendants by way of registered post with acknowledgment due and on such

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 13 / 13 OS No.25/2021 deposit of the balance, the defendants shall execute a registered sale deed with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the date of decree at the expenses of the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff will be entitled to get the registered sale deed executed through the process of Court.

Typed to my dictation by the Addl. Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW.1: P.Gopinath.DW.1: N.Eswaramma. PW.2: A.Chandra Sekhar.DW.2: N.Amrutha. PW.3: O.Gopala Krishna.DW.3: C.Rukmini.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Agreement of sale dt.15.09.2020 jointly executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2:Office copy of legal notice dt.21.12.2020 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. Ex.A3:Postal acknowledgment (3 in number), Postal receipts and postal track record. Ex.A4:Non-Judicial stamp worth Rs.100/- dt.28.12.2020 purchased from Sub- Registrar Office, Madanapalle.

FOR DEFENDANTS :

- Nil -

Sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

// Fair copy //

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 14 / 13 OS No.25/2021 // True copy //

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

// Fair copy //

OS/663/2020

Reddy Basha vs A.Krishna murthy

13 Feb 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

MADANAPALLE.

Present: Sri V.VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

Thursday, the 13th day of February, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.663 of 2020

K.Reddy Basha, S/o late K.Babu Sab, aged about 52 years, Cultivation, R/at Tatigondaraju Palle, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District.

...Plaintiff

-Vs- Akula Krishna Murthy, S/o Akula Papanna, aged about 64 years, Business, R/at D.No.1-1, Gangapuram, Chinnathippasamudram Village and Post, Madanapalle Mandal.

...Defendant

This suit came up on 13.02.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.S.Reward, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri B.Bhujanga Rao, learned Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff together with interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a. on Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit and for such other or further reliefs as this Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle.2 / 11 OS No.663/2020

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

That on 05.04.2018, the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff for his legal necessities, business purposes and justifiable causes agreeing to repay the same together with interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a. on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order and in evidence thereof, the defendant executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date at Madanapalle. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff with the defendant on number of occasions to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note, the defendant went on postponing the same on some pretext or the other. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for recovery of amount covered under the suit promissory note together with interest and costs.

3.The defendant filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations and further took the following contentions:

a)That the suit promissory note is a forged and created one by the plaintiff with his close associates B.Chengalrayudu and others in order to make wrongful gain and to coerce the defendant to come to their terms. The defendant never executed the suit promissory note and it does not contain his signatures and they are all forged and fabricated documents. The defendant’s brother’s son one Akula Nagaraju had filed a suit for partition in respect of the properties of his mother Kondamma which was acquired by him by virtue of a registered Will dt.08.09.2017 bequeathing all her properties in favour of the defendant which was executed by her in a sound disposing state of mind due to love and affection towards him as the defendant had looked after all her needs and comforts till her last breath and the said Will was acted upon and intended to be acted upon after her death.

b)That the plaintiff and his supporters along with other real estate brokers wanted to purchase the said properties for their business and forced the defendant to enter into compromise with the said Akula Nagaraju in the

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle.3 / 11 OS No.663/2020 suit in OS.No.537/2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Madanapalle by show of muscle force and local influence and took the defendant’s signatures forcibly in the compromise petition to be filed into the

Court during the pandemic season of Corona decease and the defendant did not pay any heed to their words and did not co-operate with them for the said compromise issue due to which, they bore grudge and filed this suit and also another suit in OS.No.545/2020 by setting up one B.Chengalrayudu by creating another promissory note which is also being contested by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and there was no passing of consideration under the same and the suit promissory note was only created by the plaintiff with the help of his henchmen, i.e., attestors and others to make the defendant to come to their terms. Therefore, there is no debtor and creditor relationship between the defendant and only in order to blackmail the defendant and to force him to agree for compromise in order to knock way the properties of the defendant which are valuable properties and filed the suit with false allegations.

c)That there is no cause of action to file the suit and the alleged cause of action set out in the plaint is only imaginary. The particulars of valuation and the Court fees paid thereon is incorrect. The frame of the suit is incorrect and the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing upon the averments of the plaint and written statement and after hearing both sides, this Court framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the defendant executed the suit promissory note dt.05.04.2018 undertaking to repay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) with interest at 24% p.a to the plaintiff or his order on demand or not?

2. To what relief?

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle.4 / 11 OS No.663/2020

5.During the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and one of the attestor of promissory note dt.05.04.2018 was examined as PW-2 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dt.05.04.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/-. On behalf of defendant, the defendant himself filed his evidence affidavit and examined as

DW-1 in-chief. Inspite of availing sufficient time and imposing condition, the defendant did not come forward for his cross-examination by the plaintiff and that therefore the evidence in-chief of DW-1 was eschewed by this Court on 25.08.2023 and posted for arguments.

6.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff. In spite of passing conditional order and imposing costs, the learned counsel for the defendant did not come forward to advance his arguments and that therefore, the arguments of the defendant treated as heard. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

7.Issue No.1:

The case of the plaintiff is that on 05.04.2018, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff to meet his legal necessities, business purposes and justifiable causes agreeing to repay the same together with interest thereon at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and in evidence thereof, the defendant executed the Ex.A1 suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Madanapalle. The further case of the plaintiff is that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not discharge the amount due under the suit promissory note together with interest. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount basing on Ex.A1 promissory note.

8.On the other hand, it appears from the written statement of the defendant that his specific case is that he never borrowed amount from the defendant and never executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour. The further case of the defendant is that the defendant’s brother’s son by name

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle.5 / 11 OS No.663/2020

Akula Nagaraju filed a suit for partition in respect of the property of his mother

Kondamma which was acquired by him by virtue of a registered Will dt.08.09.2017 and the plaintiff and his supporters along with other real estate brokers wanted to purchase the said properties for their business and forced the defendant to enter into compromise with the said Akula Nagaraju in the suit in OS.No.537/2017 on the file of this Court by show of muscle and local influence and took his signatures forcibly in the compromise petition to be filed into the Court during the pandemic corona decease and the defendant did not pay any heed to their words and did not cooperate with them for the said compromise issue, due to which they bore grudge and filed this suit and also another suit in OS.No.545/2020 by setting up B.Chengalrayudu by creating another forged promissory note. The further case of the defendant is that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and the same promissory note is a rank forged one.

9.Since, it appears from the pleadings of the defendant that he has taken specific plea that the Ex.A1 promissory note is a rank forged promissory note and not binding upon the defendant, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the Ex.A1 promissory note was executed by the defendant in the manner stated in the plaint. Once the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note is proved by the plaintiff, the presumption under Sec.118(a) of Negotiable

Instruments Act comes into aid in favour of the plaintiff with regard to passing of consideration. But, the defendant may also rebut the said statutory presumption and in order to rebut the said presumption, the defendant need not produce direct evidence by entering into witness box in all the cases and he can rebut the presumption even from the evidence of plaintiff by showing the circumstances or the preponderance of probabilities which are suffice for rebutting the legal presumption. Once the defendant is able to rebut the said presumption, the burden again shifts on to the plaintiff to establish the passing of consideration in respect of Ex.A1 promissory note.

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle.6 / 11 OS No.663/2020

10.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed his chief- examination affidavit which is nothing but just replica of plaint. The evidence of

PW-1 goes to show that on 05.04.2018, the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff to meet his legal necessities, business purposes and justifiable causes agreeing to repay the same together with interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order and in evidence thereof, the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date at Madanapalle. The evidence of

PW-1 further goes to show that in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant did not discharge the amount due together with interest under Ex.A1 promissory note and postponed the same on some pretext or the other.

11.It is evident from the cross-examination of PW-1 that it is stated by the PW-1 that he got acquaintance with the defendant while commuting to and from Madanapalle in the bus and the defendant took his tractor for lease for a period of 3 months for the purpose of ploughing lands in 2016 or 2017. It is further stated by the PW-1 in his cross-examination that the Ex.A1 was executed at the office of Sub-Registrar, Madanapalle at 11.00 AM in the presence of Reddy Ramu, Prasad, Venkatesu and the defendant. It is further stated by PW-1 in his cross-examination that the defendant requested him to arrange money around 3 months prior to the date of Ex.A1 and he got

Rs.3,00,000/- out of his income from cultivation and milk business and he kept the same amount with him at his house for the purpose of giving it to the defendant. It is denied by the PW-1 that himself, B.Chengalrayudu and other real estate business men forced the defendant and his brother Nagaraju to go for compromise in OS.No.537/2017 with an intention to purchase the properties which are liable for partition between the defendant and his brother and since the defendant did not come to their terms for compromise, he created Ex.A1 promissory note against the defendant to exert coercion against

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle.7 / 11 OS No.663/2020 the defendant. It is further denied by the PW-1 in his cross-examination that the Ex.A1 promissory is not supported by consideration and the same is forged and fabricated. A perusal of the above evidence, the learned counsel for the plaintiff nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of PW-1 to disbelieve or discard the evidence of PW-1 in so far as the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note is concerned by the defendant and passing of consideration under the said promissory note. The admissions which are elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 by the learned counsel for the defendant are of no avail and they do not come way in aid of the defendant.

12.The evidence of PW-1 is further corroborated by the evidence of

PW.2 who is one of the attestor of ExA1 promissory note. It is evident from the evidence in-chief of of PW.2 that he stated in his evidence as that of PW.1 in respect of borrowing the said amount from the plaintiff by the defendant in his presence and execution of the Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

It is stated by the PW-2 in his cross-examination that the defendant asked him to act as attestor of the suit transaction and on his request, he went to SRO,

Madanapalle at 11.00 AM on the date of suit transaction and by that time, the plaintiff, the defendant and document writer Reddy Ramu were already present at SRO, Madanapalle. It is further stated by the PW-2 in his cross- examination that one Reddy Ramu scribed the suit transaction in a promissory note in his presence in his own handwriting and the consideration under the suit promissory note was given in the form of cash. It is further stated by the

PW-2 in his cross-examination that the defendant signed in the suit promissory note in Telugu. It is denied by the PW-2 that the Ex.A1 promissory note was created against the defendant because of grudge against him as he failed to agreed to compromise terms as suggested by him and Bojanapu

Chengalrayudu in real estate business. It is further denied the suggestion by the PW-2 that the defendant never borrowed any debt from the plaintiff and was deposing false at the instructions of plaintiff. A perusal of the above

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle.8 / 11 OS No.663/2020 evidence, it is evident that the learned counsel for the plaintiff nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of PW-2 to disbelieve or discard his evidence in so far as Ex.A1 promissory note transaction is concerned. This

Court is of view that the admissions which are elicited from the cross- examination of PW-2 are of no avail to the defendant as the evidence of PW-2 is consistent on material particulars.

13.Since, the evidence of PW.1 is cogent and consistent and is supported by the evidence of PW.2, the presumption U/Sec.118(a) of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has to be drawn in favour of the plaintiff that the Ex.A1 promissory note is supported by consideration and therefore, the onus rests on the defendant to prove his case. As can be seen from the written statement pleadings, the version of the defendant is that he never borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour and the same promissory note is a rank forged promissory note and not supported by consideration. However, the defendant failed to substantiate his version by entering into the witness box and even failed to prove his version from the cross-examination of PWs. 1 and 2. It is evident that the PWs. 1 and 2 have categorically stated in their evidence about the borrowing of the amount by the defendant from the plaintiff and execution of Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the respective date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. It is well settled in law that mere suggestions to a witness in his cross-examination is of no avail unless the same suggestions are supported with material evidence. Therefore, this Court is of view that the suggestions which were put forth by the learned counsel for the defendant in the cross-examination of

PWs. 1 and 2 is of no avail to prove the version of defendant. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be safe to held that the Ex.A1 promissory note is created by the plaintiff for wrongful gain.

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle.9 / 11 OS No.663/2020

14.Since, it is specific case of the defendant that the Ex.A1 promissory note is a rank forged promissory note and not supported by consideration, the burden lies upon him to prove the same by sending the

Ex.A1 promissory note to any handwriting expert that the same promissory note was forged. But, the available record did not disclose that the defendant had taken any steps in doing so. Hence, the conduct of the defendant itself is sufficient to draw a presumption that the contention raised by the defendant is not correct. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Duggineni

Seshagiri Rao Vs. Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao, 2001 (6) ALT 95 (DB)

held that when the defendant has raised the plea of forgery, the burden lies on the defendant to prove the same. In the present case also, as already stated though the defendant took plea of forgery but he did not take any steps to send the Ex.A1 promissory note to any handwriting expert to compare with his admitted signatures that the signature found in the Ex.A1 promissory note does not belongs to him. In Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikya Rao, AIR 1999 SC 1441, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. The same view was reiterated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in another Judgment reported in a matter between

Adivekka -Vs- Hanamavva Kom Venkatesh, AIR 2007 SC 2025 wherein it was held that for non-examination of a party to the suit, the adverse inference can be drawn against that party by virtue of section 114 (g) of the Evidence

Act.

15.A perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that the defendant filed his evidence affidavit and examined as DW-1 in-chief. Since, the defendant inspite of availing sufficient time and imposing condition did not come forward for cross-examination by the plaintiff, this Court eschewed evidence in-chief of DW-1. Hence, this court is of view that the failure on the

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle.10 / 11 OS No.663/2020 part of the defendant in entering into the witness box itself shows that the defendant took a false plea in his written statement and adverse inference can be drawn against him under Sec.114(g) of Indian Evidence Act. Since, the defendant even failed to rebut the presumption which is in favour of the plaintiff as is envisaged U/Sec.118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act and in view of the consistent testimonies of PWs. 1 and 2 available in the record, this Court do not have any hesitation in saying that the plaintiff has proved his case. At the same time, it can be safely held that the defendant executed the Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the amount covered under Ex.A1 promissory note with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Accordingly, the Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

16.Issue No.2:

As can be seen from the pleadings of the written statement, it is evident that the defendant has taken a specific plea that the particulars of valuation of the suit and the Court fee paid thereon are incorrect. It is evident from the valuation of the suit, the plaintiff claimed interest at 24% p.a which was agreed in between the plaintiff and the defendant as per Ex.A1 promissory note. It is evident that the plaintiff has valued the suit at

Rs.4,92,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.7,426/- was paid thereon under Section 20 of APCF Act. Hence, it seems that the plaintiff has valued the suit in correct perspective and he paid correct court fee thereon. It appears from the Ex.A1 promissory note that the purpose of borrowing amount by the defendant is to meet the legal necessities and justifiable causes. It is not the case of the defendant that he is an agriculturist and that therefore, the interest claimed by the plaintiff is exorbitant and usurious. Since, the plaintiff has claimed the interest at 24% p.a. which is a contract rate of interest as per the Ex.A1 promissory note, this Court do not find any substance in the version of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff valued the suit correctly and correct Court fee

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle.11 / 11 OS No.663/2020 paid thereon. Hence, this Court is of view that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for. The issue No.2 is answered accordingly, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

17.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of

Rs.4,92,000/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety two thousand only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit i.e., from 08.12.2020 till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only).

Typed to my dictated by the Additional Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW.1: K.Reddy Basha DW.1: A.Krishnamurthy PW.2: K.Prasad Babu(eschewed)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dt.05.04.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- undertaking to repay with interest at 24% p.a. to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

FOR DEFENDANT :

- Nil-

Sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle.12 / 11 OS No.663/2020 // Fair copy //

OS/525/2024

T.pavan Kumar vs B.Chinna Reddeppa

01 Nov 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

:: MADANAPALLE.

Present: Sri V.VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

FAC II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle.

Friday, the 1st day of November, 2024.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.525 of 2024

Tangi Pavan Kumar, S/o T.Parasuram, aged 28 years, residing at Door No.7-7, Ramalayam Street, Tangivanipeta, Pedapadu Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Plaintiff

-Vs-

Bathala Chinna Reddeppa, S/o Late Bathala Lakshmaiah, Aged 74 years, residing at c/o R.Venkata Siva Naidu, D.No.17/181-32, Nimmanapalle Circle, Madanapalle, Annamayya District.

...Defendant

This suit came up on 29.10.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.L.Bala Jyothi, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant remained exparte, and upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by granting Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendant, his followers, creditors, family members, henchmen, friends and relatives from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit and for such other or further reliefs as this

Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

II AJCJ, Madanapalle. 2 / 8 OS No.525 of 2024

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

(a) That the plaintiff is a permanent resident of Srikakulam and now residing at Madanapalle and he is a cousin brother of the husband of the youngest brother of the defendant and thus he got acquainted with the defendant. The defendant approached the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule property and stated that the defendant and his elder brother jointly purchased the plaint schedule property from Beedam Nirmala and Subhadramma by way of two registered sale deeds bearing Nos.5579/1977 and 5529/1977 on 22.11.1977 respectively for valuable sale consideration with their own earnings and got the possession delivered to them on the even date. The defendant and his brother also obtained registered relinquishment deeds pertaining to plaint schedule property from Beedam Sai Vara Prasad and Ravi

Babu who are the sons of Nirmala and Subhadramma respectively by way of registered relinquishment deeds bearing Doc.Nos.5370/1978 dt.13.09.1978 and 1391/1979 dt.13.09.1979. Subsequently, Pedda Reddeppa gifted his share over the plaint schedule property to the defendant by way of registered gift deed vide Doc.No.7572/2014 dt.30.12.2014. So, the defendant became the sole rightful owner for the entire plaint schedule property and he perfected his right and titled with lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and it is his self acquired property.

(b) That the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from the defendant through registered sale deed dt.06.05.2024 for valuable sale consideration and got possession delivered to him and his name also mutated in Madanapalle Municipality records as owner cum enjoydar of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff also got water connection and electricity supply connection transferred to his name by following due process of law. That from last few days, unknown persons approached the plaintiff and told him that the defendant owed them large sums of money and they want to recover their loans by demolishing the plaint schedule property and develop it into

II AJCJ, Madanapalle. 3 / 8 OS No.525 of 2024 commercial shopping complex so the plaintiff should handover the plaint schedule property to them. On the next day, the defendant along with some strangers and a bulldozer owner entered into the suit schedule property in spite of objections and resistance of plaintiff started discussing as to how to demolish the house in suit schedule property and remove entire debris in quick manner to avoid traffic congestion. In addition to this, some people are coming to plaintiff and saying that they are kith and kin of the defendant and that the plaintiff should return the suit schedule property to them for development of commercial shopping complex in the suit schedule property.

The plaintiff pleaded with all these strangers and defendant and he told that he purchased the property in lawful manner and has nothing to do with loans of defendants or his personal transactions, but no one paid any heed to him.

(c) That the plaintiff immediately approached the local police to lodge a report against the defendant and his henchmen, but the police bluntly advised plaintiff to get Court orders and only after that they provide necessary protection to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also requested the defendant to allow him to remain in peaceful possession, but the defendant has shockingly, now completely turned aggressive and telling that the plaintiff should cooperate with his creditors and family members as they are very dangerous people and plaintiff should obey their instructions and the defendant will arrange the plaintiff to get a share in property once the defendant and his associates complete the construction of commercial shopping complex in the suit schedule property and sell the shops at very good profitable rates.

(d) That the plaintiff is a young person aged 28 years and native of

Srikakulam and working at Bangalore. The plaintiff stays at Madanapalle on weekend days and holidays and then returns to Bangalore to work from

Monday to Friday. The plaintiff is totally new person in Madanapalle and he has no one to inform about any illegal actions of defendant on his suit schedule property. The plaintiff tried his best to arrive at peaceful settlement

II AJCJ, Madanapalle. 4 / 8 OS No.525 of 2024 by asking his well wishers and elders to mediate with the defendant but all discussions totally failed. The defendant said that he has got a good offer to develop a commercial shopping complex in the suit schedule property and he is pressurizing the plaintiff to part with the possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant has colluded with his family members and some strangers, all of them have formed into one group and they are very high handed persons having high political influence in Madanapalle town and they are threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences and told that they would go to any extent to disposes the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men and followers from interfering in any way with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

3. Despite of service of summons, the defendant did not appear

before the Court and therefore he was set exparte to the suit proceedings on

12.09.2024 and posted to plaintiff’s side evidence.

4. The plaintiff in support of his contention, got examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.

5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

7. POINT: -

Since the suit is filed for grant of Permanent Injunction to restrain the defendant, his followers, creditors, family members, henchmen, friends and relatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff is required to

II AJCJ, Madanapalle. 5 / 8 OS No.525 of 2024 establish that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the defendant and his men are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

8. The plaintiff in order to prove his version, he examined him self as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dt.06.05.2024 bearing Doc.No.14995/2024 in between plaintiff and defendant. A perusal of the Ex.A1 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.06.05.2024, it discloses that the suit schedule property is in the name of the plaintiff as he got purchased the same from the defendant and defendant delivered the possession of the same to the plaintiff on the even date. Ex.A2 is the valuation certificate dt.01.08.2024 issued by Sub-Registrar Office,

Madanapalle. A perusal of Ex.A2 valuation certificate, it discloses that the valuation of the suit schedule property. Ex.A3 is the original copy of the

Madanapalle Municipality water charge receipt dt.05.08.2024. A perusal of

Ex.A3 Madanapalle Municipality water charge receipt, it discloses that the plaintiff paid water charges to the Madanapalle Municipality. Ex.A4 is the original copy of Madanapalle Municipality Property Tax receipt No.08/2024- 25/13529 dt.05.08.2024. A perusal of Ex.A4 Madanapalle Municipality

Property Tax receipt, it discloses that the plaintiff has paid property tax to the

Madanapalle Municipality. Exs.A1 to A4 are the original documents issued by the competent authorities and that therefore, this Court finds no reason to suspect the authenticity and genuinely of those documents. As such, this

Court holds that the Exs.A1 to Ex.A4 documents categorically shows that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property on 06.05.2024 for valuable consideration and got possession delivered to the plaintiff on the even date itself and got plaintiff’s name was also mutated in all Madanapalle Municipality records as an owner cum enjoyer of the plaint schedule property and he also got water connection and an electric supply connection transferred to plaintiff’s name for the plaint schedule property as per law and the plaintiff is perfected

II AJCJ, Madanapalle. 6 / 8 OS No.525 of 2024 his right and tile and peaceful possession since the date of purchase. In addition to the above documentary evidence, to substantiate the version of the plaintiff, he got examined himself as PW.1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief examination. The said chief examination is nothing but just replica of his pleadings. The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that he has categorically stated in his evidence that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of Ex.A1 sale deed and that the defendant has been interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the pretext of constructing a commercial shopping complex. The evidence of PW.1 further goes to show that the defendant has colluded with his family members and some strangers, all of them have formed into one group and they are very high handed persons having high political influence in Madanapalle and they are threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences and told they will go to any extent to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property overnight and demolish it and therefore the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit against the defendant for grant of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

9. Since the evidence of PW1 as well as documentary evidence ie.., that the Exs.A1 to A4 adduced by him remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, this Court do not find any reason to suspect or reject the same. Though the defendant received the summons from this Court but he did not appear before the Court to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff and he was remained set exparte. Therefore, this Court holds that the evidence of

PW.1 coupled with the contents of Exs.A1 to A4 documents, clinchingly shows that the plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendant has been interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, the action of the defendant should be restrained by granting injunction or else the ends of justice cannot

II AJCJ, Madanapalle. 7 / 8 OS No.525 of 2024 be meted out. Therefore, this Court is of view that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of grant of Permanent Injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property as prayed for. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting

Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the defendant, his men, followers, agents and representatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1st day of November, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW.1: T.Pavan Kumar -EXPARTE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.06.05.2024 bearing No.14995/2024 in between plaintiff and defendant.

Ex.A2: Valuation certificate dt.01.08.2024 of Sub-Registrar Office, Madanapalle.

Ex.A3: Original copy of Madanapalle Municipality water charge receipt dt.05.08.2024.

II AJCJ, Madanapalle. 8 / 8 OS No.525 of 2024

Ex.A4: Original copy of Madanapalle Municipality property tax receipt No.08/2024-25/13529 dt.05.08.2024.

FOR DEFENDANT:

- NIL –

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle.

II AJCJ, Madanapalle. 9 / 8 OS No.525 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

:: MADANAPALLE.

Present: Sri V.VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

FAC II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle.

Friday, the 1st day of November, 2024.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.525 of 2024

Tangi Pavan Kumar, S/o T.Parasuram, aged 28 years, residing at Door No.7-7, Ramalayam Street, Tangivanipeta, Pedapadu Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Plaintiff

-Vs- Bathala Chinna Reddeppa, S/o Late Bathala Lakshmaiah, Aged 74 years, residing at c/o R.Venkata Siva Naidu, D.No.17/181-32, Nimmanapalle Circle, Madanapalle, Annamayya District.

...Defendant

Plaint presented on: 14-08-2024 LRP on: --- Filed on: 14-08-2024

Market value of the plaint schedule property is Rs.22,55,348/- Notional value for permanent injunction is Rs/2,25,535/- Court fee of Rs.4,726/- is paid under section 26© of APCF Act.

Cause of action arose on 06-05-2024 when the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from the rightful owners through registered sale deed bearing document No.14995/2024 and on 27-07-2024 and subsequent days when the defendant along with some unknown persons have threatened the plaintiff to handover the plaint schedule property to defendant for demolishing and construction f commercial shopping complex in the plaint schedule property which is situated at Gundluru street, Madanapalle town.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, his followers, creditors, family

II AJCJ, Madanapalle. 10 / 8 OS No.525 of 2024 members, henchmen, friends and relatives from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

This suit came up on 12.09.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.D.Murali Krishna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant remained exparte, this court doth and decree as follows:

This suit came up on 29.10.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.L.Bala Jyothi, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant remained exparte, this day, this Court delivered the following:

1)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;

2)that the defendant, his men, followers, agents and representatives are hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property

3)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. towards institutional costs of the suit ( Given under my hand and the seal of this the 1st day of November, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle.

SCHEDULE

Annamayya District – Madanapalle Sub District – Madanapalle village – Madanapalle town – 7th ward – Survey No.77-4 – Gundlooru street – Door Nos.7-101, 7-102, 7-103 – Assessment No.1009009511 Bounded by : East : D. Muniappa house West: Gundluru street North:Chamanagiri Lakshmidevamma sandu South: Municipal sandu

II AJCJ, Madanapalle. 11 / 8 OS No.525 of 2024

In the middle of this east to west 28.5 feet or 8.69 meters, North to south: 25.5 feet or 7.77 meters, total area is 726.75 sq. feet or 80.75 sq. meters is the total extent having

i)Built in ground floor with east to west 28.5 feet and north to south 25.5 feet so total extent 726.75 sq. feet. ii)First Floor with east to west 28.5 feet and north to south 25.5 feet so total extent 726.75 sq. feet. iii)Second floor with east to west 28.5 feet and north to south 25.5 feet so total extent 726.75 sq. feet. With doors, door frames, windows, Shelf’s, ACC roofing, electrical fittings, stairs, electricity and water tap connection etc, total 2/3 share in right of way, yielding land area of 53.83 sq.mtrs with built up area of Ground Floor 484.5 Sq.Ft, First floor: 484.5 sq.ft, Second Foor 484.5 sq. feet RCC .

Statement of costs.

Sl.No. Description Rs. 1 Stamp on plaint 4,726-00 2 Stamp on power 2-00 Total 4,728-00 (Costs memo not filed. Hence, not certified)

PCJ(Jr.Div.)

FAC/II AJCJ,MPL.

II AJCJ, Madanapalle. 12 / 8 OS No.525 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW.1: A.Sreenivasulu - EXPARTE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Suit promissory note Dt.20.10.2021 for Rs.50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt.14.02.2023 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A3: Postal receipt dt.14.02.2023.

Ex.A4: Postal track report for RN433868109 (Internet downloaded copy).

FOR DEFENDANT :

- Nil-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

FAC II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle.

OS/229/2024

Murthynayuni Chakrapani Naidu vs Avula Gopalu

11 Feb 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

MADANAPALLE.

Present: Sri V.VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle.

Tuesday, the 11th day of February, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.229 of 2024

Muthynayuni Chakrapani Naidu, S/o M.Narayana, aged about 50 years, R/at Murthynayunipalle, H/o Thettu Village and post, Kurabalakota Mandal, Annamaiah District.

...Plaintiff

-Vs- Avula Gopalu, S/o Avula Avulanna, aged about 52 years, R/at Pujarivaripalle, H/o Thettu Village, Kurabalakota Mandal, Annamaiah District.

...Defendant

This suit came up on 05.02.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Nagi Reddy, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant was remained ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass a preliminary decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay suit amount within the time stipulated by the Court with further interest at 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and failing which to order for sale of the suit

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 2 / 7 OS No.229/2024 schedule property, for costs of the suit and for such other or further reliefs as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

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

a)That on 25.03.2014, the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and as a security for the loan availed by the defendant mortgaged the property own by him described in the suit schedule by executing a simple mortgage deed dated 25.03.2024 in favour of the plaintiff and the same mortgage deed was attested by two witnesses and the same was registered in accordance with the Registration Act at SRO, Madanapalle.

b)That the plaintiff demanded the defendant on number of occasions to discharge the amount borrowed under the mortgage deed but he postponed the payment on some pretext of the other. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a notice dated 27.04.2023 demanding the defendant to discharge the said debt with interest, but the said notice was returned with false endorsement that the defendant left the village. The defendant and his family members and his relatives have got knowledge about issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff. After issuance of the said notice, the plaintiff orally demanded the defendant to discharge the mortgage deed debt, but he is postponing the payment. The plaintiff got mediated the matter with the defendant through elders, but the defendant and his family members refused to pay the suit amount. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount basing on the simple registered mortgage deed.

3.Summons to the defendant served and he engaged his counsel.

Inspite of availing sufficient time and imposing costs, the defendant did not file his written statement and that therefore, he was set ex parte to the suit proceedings on 05.11.2024 and posted to plaintiff’s ex-parte evidence.

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 3 / 7 OS No.229/2024

4.The plaintiff in support of his contention got examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the original Registered simple mortgage deed dt.25.03.2014 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff vide document No.1639/2014 of SRO, Madanaplle; Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 27.04.2023 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant;

Ex.A3 is the returned postal cover containing the legal notice issued to the defendant dated 28.04.2023; and Ex.A4 is postal receipt for sending legal notice to the defendant dated 27.04.2023. The plaintiff also got examined one of the attestor of Ex.A1 mortgage deed as PW-2.

5.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Plaintiff. Perused, the material available on record.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property, as prayed for ?

7. POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that on 25.03.2014, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff to meet his family and legal necessities agreeing to repay the same with 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and in consideration received thereof, the defendant executed Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed dt.25.03.2014 towards security in respect of the suit schedule property. The further case of the plaintiff is that inspite of repeated demands made to the defendant by the plaintiff, he did not discharge the mortgage debt with interest and that therefore, he got issued

Ex.A2 notice demanding the defendant to discharge the mortgage debt, but the same notice was returned with false endorsement that the defendant left the village. The further case of the plaintiff is that after issuing Ex.A2 notice, again he approached the plaintiff and demanded him orally to discharge the mortgage debt, but he is postponing the same on one pretext or the other.

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 4 / 7 OS No.229/2024

8.In order to prove the same, the plaintiff got examined himself as

PW-1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief- examination. The said chief-examination affidavit is nothing but just replica of his plaint pleadings. The plaintiff also got also got marked Exs.A1 to A4.

Ex.A1 is the simple Registered mortgage deed dt.25.03.2014 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. A perusal of the Ex.A1 mortgage deed, it discloses that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff by mortgaging the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. It further discloses that the defendant mortgaged the suit schedule property as security for repayment of debt amount by retaining the possession and further agreed that he would not alienate the same to 3rd parties till realization of the debt amount. It is submitted by the plaintiff in his evidence that on repeated demands made by him the defendant did not discharge the amount due under the Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed and that therefore, he got issued Ex.A2 notice demanding him to discharge the mortgage debt. A perusal of the Ex.A2 notice, it is evident that the plaintiff got issued the same notice on 27.04.2023 to the defendant demanding him to discharge the amount due under the Ex.A1 mortgage deed together with interest, but the same notice was returned as the defendant left the village as is evident from Ex.A3.

9.The evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2. It is evident from the evidence in-chief of PW-2 that on 25.03.2014, the defendant executed the simple mortgage deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a. and on the date of execution of the said mortgage deed, the PW-2, plaintiff, defendant, 1st attestor by name

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 5 / 7 OS No.229/2024

E.Sreenivasulu were present and that the plaintiff paid the said amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- in their presence to the defendant.

10.The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed establishes that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and after receiving the said amount on the same day, the defendant executed Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed dt.25.03.2014 by mortgaging the suit schedule property, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. It is further evident from the above evidence that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the amount due under the Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed several times, but the defendant postponed the same on some pretext or the other and that therefore, he got issued Ex.A2 notice dated 27.04.2023 demanding the defendant to discharge the mortgage debt, but the same notice was returned as the defendant was left the village. Since the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the Ex.A1 mortgage deed categorically shows that the defendant borrowed the said amount under Ex.A1 mortgage deed, there is a liability on the defendant to pay the said amount to the plaintiff.

Since, the evidence on record is undisputed and unchallenged by the defendant this Court do not find any reason to disbelieve the same evidence. It is evident that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff by mortgaging the suit schedule property as disclosed under Ex.A1 mortgage deed dt.25.03.2014. As the defendant failed to discharge the suit amount, this

Court is of view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant and if he fails to pay the same by sale of mortgaged property.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11.In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff in the following manner:

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 6 / 7 OS No.229/2024

i) The defendant is directed to pay Rs.5,08,500/- (Rupees five lakhs eight thousand and five hundred only) to the plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 11.03.2024 till the date of decree and thereafter, with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousands only) within six (6) months from the date of decree; and ii) if, the defendant fails to pay the said amount within six (6) months as fixed by this Court, the plaintiff is entitled to apply for a final decree for sale of the mortgaged property for realization of the suit amount with subsequent interest and if the said sale proceeds are not sufficient, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed against the defendant personally.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW.1: M.Chakrapani Naidu- EXPARTE – PW.2: C.Venu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Registered simple mortgage deed dt.25.03.2014 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff vide document No.1639/ 2014 of SRO, Madanaplle.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 27.04.2023 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 7 / 7 OS No.229/2024

Ex.A3: Returned postal cover containing the legal notice issued to the defendant dated 28.04.2023.

Ex.A4: Postal receipt for sending legal notice to the defendant dated 27.04.2023.

FOR DEFENDANT :

- Nil-

Sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

// Fair copy //

OS/292/2023

V.Srinivasulu vs P.Sreenivasulu

12 Feb 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

MADANAPALLE.

Present: Sri V.VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle.

Wednesday, the 12th day of February, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.292 of 2023

Vannarapu Srinivasulu, S/o V.Venkataramana, aged about 40 years, R/at 4-5-3-2, Marpuri Street, Madanapalle, Annamaiah District.

...Plaintiff

-Vs- Pothuri Sreenivasulu, s/o P.Chinna Reddeppa, aged about 45 years, R/at Pitchalavandlapalle, H/o Ponnutipalem Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Annamaiah District.

...Defendant

This suit came up on 03.02.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Rahamath Basha, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant was remained ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass a preliminary decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay the suit amount together with interest thereon at 24% per annum on Rs.50,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realization to the plaintiff within the time fixed by this Court for redemption; in the event of the defendant fails to make payment of the amount due within the time fixed by the Court, the plaint schedule property be brought for sale

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 2 / 6 OS No.292/2023 and the same may be sold in Court auction and the amount so realized to be paid to the plaintiff, the amount due to him as per law with future interest; and for costs of the suit and for such other or further reliefs as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: a) That on 06.05.2011, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash from the plaintiff for his legal necessities and justifiable causes agreeing to repay the same together with interest thereon at rate of 24% per annum on demand to the plaintiff and in evidence thereof, the defendant executed a registered simple mortgage deed vide document No.4220/2011 in favour of the plaintiff on the even date mortgaging the suit property. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant went on postponing the same on some pretext of the other. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a demand notice on 13.03.2023 demanding the defendant to discharge the amount due under the suit mortgage deed, but he evaded to receive the notice and failed to make any payment and nor gave reply. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount together with interest thereon basing on the mortgage deed.

3.Despite of publication, the defendant did not appear before the

Court and that therefore, the defendant was set ex parte to the proceedings on 18.03.2024 and posted to plaintiff’s ex-parte evidence.

4.The plaintiff in support of his contention got examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the original Registered simple mortgage deed dt.06.05.2011 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 13.02.2023; Ex.A3 is the postal returned cover.

5.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Plaintiff. Perused, the material available on record.

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 3 / 6 OS No.292/2023

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property, as prayed for ?

7. POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that on 06.05.2011, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash for the plaintiff to meet his legal necessities and justifiable causes agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a to the plaintiff and in evidence thereof, the defendant executed Ex.A1 mortgage deed in favour of of the plaintiff on the even date mortgaging the suit schedule property. The further case of the plaintiff is that inspite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant did not discharge the amount due under the said mortgage deed and that therefore, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 notice to the defendant demanding him to discharge the amount due under the said mortgage deed, but he evaded to receive notice and failed to make the payment.

8.In order to prove the same, the plaintiff got examined himself as

Ex.A1 is the simple Registered mortgage deed dt.06.05.2011 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. A perusal of the Ex.A1 mortgage deed, it discloses that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash from the plaintiff by mortgaging the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. It further discloses that the defendant mortgaged the suit schedule property as security for repayment of debt amount by retaining the possession and further agreed that he would not alienate the same to 3rd parties till realization of the debt amount. It is

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 4 / 6 OS No.292/2023 submitted by the plaintiff in his evidence that on repeated demands made by him the defendant did not discharge the amount due under the Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed and that therefore, he got issued Ex.A2 notice demanding him to discharge the mortgage debt. A perusal of the Ex.A2 notice, it is evident that the plaintiff got issued the same notice on 13.02.2023 to the defendant demanding him to discharge the amount due under the Ex.A1 mortgage deed together with interest, but the same notice was returned as the defendant was not residing in that address as is evident from Ex.A3.

9.The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed establishes that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff for his necessities and justifiable causes and after receiving the said amount on the same day, the defendant executed Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed dt.06.05.2011 by mortgaging the suit schedule property, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. It is further evident from the above evidence that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the amount due under the

Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed several times, but the defendant postponed the same on some pretext or the other and that therefore, he got issued Ex.A2 notice dated 13.02.2023 demanding the defendant to discharge the mortgage debt, but the same notice was returned as the defendant was not in that address. Since the evidence of PW.1 and the Ex.A1 mortgage deed categorically shows that the defendant borrowed the said amount under Ex.A1 mortgage deed, there is a liability on the defendant to pay the said amount to the plaintiff. Since, the evidence on record is undisputed and unchallenged by the defendant this Court do not find any reason to disbelieve the same evidence. It is evident that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff by mortgaging the suit schedule property as disclosed under Ex.A1 mortgage deed dt.06.05.2011. As the defendant failed to discharge the suit amount, this Court is of view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 5 / 6 OS No.292/2023 amount from the defendant and if he fails to pay the same by sale of mortgaged property. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

10.In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the following manner:

i) The defendant is directed to pay Rs.1,93,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninty three thousand only) to the plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 06.04.2023 till the date of decree and thereafter, with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousands only) within six (6) months from the date of decree; and ii) if, the defendant fails to pay the said amount within six (6) months as fixed by this Court, the plaintiff is entitled to apply for a final decree for sale of the mortgaged property for realization of the suit amount with subsequent interest and if the said sale proceeds are not sufficient, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed against the defendant personally.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW.1: V.Srinivasulu- EXPARTE –

PCJ(Jr.D), Madanapalle. 6 / 6 OS No.292/2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Registered simple mortgage deed dt.06.05.2011 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 13.02.2023.

Ex.A3: Postal returned cover.

FOR DEFENDANT :

- Nil-

Sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

// Fair copy //

Order Record 1,808 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/663/2020	Reddy Basha vs A.Krishna murthy	13 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/25/2021	B.Gopinath vs N.Eswaramma	12 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/292/2023	V.Srinivasulu vs P.Sreenivasulu	12 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
EP/32/2023	A.Venkatanageswar vs B.Balaji and another	11 Feb 2025	Order	—
OS/229/2024	Murthynayuni Chakrapani Naidu vs Avula Gopalu	11 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/741/2022	Shaik Shakeera vs Shaik Kursheed	11 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
STC/279/2024	P Venkataramana Reddy (Sr. citizen) vs R Lakshmipathi	10 Feb 2025	Order	Acquitted
STC/280/2024	P Venkatramana Reddy (Sr. citizen) vs R Lakshmipathi	10 Feb 2025	Order	Acquitted
OS/199/2022	Bangalore Damodaram vs Bangalore Kiran	07 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/319/2023	J.Mohammed Khan vs Habib Shakirakhan	06 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/887/2023	Y.Narasimha Reddy vs D.Dhanamma	06 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
STC/240/2023	J Ravi Kumar vs V Venkatarama @ Venkatramappa	05 Feb 2025	Order	Acquitted
OS/274/2024	Jafar Sadiq vs Tasmiya Kousar	03 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/260/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq P.S. vs Chennaboyina Anil Kumar	29 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/848/2024	J.Subbaiah Naidu (Sr. citizen) vs K.Gangaraju	29 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
CC/340/2024	Sub-Inspector of Police, Madanapalli Taluq P.S. vs Gurram Sudhakar Reddy	27 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
CC/343/2024	Sub-Inspector of Police, Madanapalli Taluq P.S. vs S.T.Sudhakaran	27 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
CC/342/2024	Sub-Inspector of Police, Madanapalli Taluq P.S. vs Bandi Vijaya Babu	23 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
EP/133/2023	R.Veerabhadra Reddy vs P.Ravindrachari	10 Jan 2025	Order	—
OS/295/2023	R.Manjunatha Reddyand 2 others vs Bandi Anasuyamma	10 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/520/2024	J.Ramakrishna vs G.Eswarappa	10 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/669/2022	K.Sreenivasulu Reddy vs K.Sreenivasa Murthy Rao	10 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
CC/357/2024	SI of Police, Taluk PS vs Shaik Azaruddhin	09 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/825/2023	P.Viswanatha vs V.Mal Reddy	07 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/666/2024	K.Munieswar Reddy vs M.Janardhan Reddy	06 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
MC/29/2023	T.Pallavi vs G.Suresh	03 Jan 2025	Order	—
EP/29/2019	Sajjaila sailaja vs Anantha Munisekhar	31 Dec 2024	Order	—
OS/33/2021	N.Nirupama vs G.Sudhakar	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/35/2016	E.Papanna vs E.Ramachandra	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/127/2015	B Kondaiah vs P Eswaraiah	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/133/2018	Janne Sudhakara vs K.Ramesh Babu and 9 others	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/149/2016	KOTTE RAMA LAKSHMAMMA vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/165/2015	P Venkataramana Reddy vs S Subramanyam	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/253/2015	Beerangi Venkataramana vs Smt.Banasi Venkatalakshmamma	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/255/2015	Smt. A.Gowri Bai vs Saik Ahmammad Hussain	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/331/2015	GangarapuNagarathnamma vs G.Sreelakshmi	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/407/2015	Pulla Kamalamma vs Pulla Sreeramulu	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/555/2016	B.GOPAL vs B.ESWARAIAH	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
EP/11/2019	K.Anjaneyulu vs C.Sreenivasulu	26 Dec 2024	Order	—
MC/36/2023	Smt. G.Kalpana vs Sri V.Reddy Siddarth @ Reddeppa	26 Dec 2024	Order	—
OS/171/2020	Syed Ahammed Basha vs Bandi Damodara	24 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/441/2019	B.Rathnamma vs B.Lakshmidevi and other	24 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/453/2019	C.Jayasimha Reddy vs K.Ramesh	24 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/517/2019	P.Venkatachalapathi vs P.Ramakrishna Reddy	24 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/743/2021	C.Padmanabham vs P.Sudhakar	24 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/336/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalli Talq UPS. vs V.Mohan Kumar	23 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/483/2021	Shaik Ameenullah vs P.Srinivasa Raju	19 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/265/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq P.S. vs K.Somasekhar	19 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/266/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq P.S. vs Shaik Nayaz Basha	19 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/238/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq P.S. vs Palagorla Kanaka Sabapathi	18 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/338/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalli Talq UPS. vs Kadimella Raghavendra Prasanna Kumar	18 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/250/2024	Madanapalle Taluk PS vs Ammireddy Srinivasulu Reddy	17 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/264/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq P.S. vs P.Naresh	17 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/22/2024	SI of Taluk P.S. vs S.Santhilal	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/234/2020	SI of Police, Madanapalle taluk PS vs M.Suresh	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/445/2024	Madanapalle Taluk PS vs Shaik Mahammad Shakeer and others	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/447/2024	Madanapalle Taluk PS vs Patan Khajapeer Khan @ Khaja	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/532/2024	Andhra Pradesh vs S.GAyaz	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/570/2024	Andhra Pradesh vs Subbareddygari Kiran Kumar Reddy	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/601/2024	SI of Police vs Shaik Mohamad Rafiulla	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/613/2024	SI of Police, Madanapalle Taluk P.S. vs C.Samba	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/614/2024	SI of Police, Madanapalle Taluk P.S. vs M.Janankiram	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/617/2024	SI of Police, Madanapalle Taluk P.S. vs M.Dineesh	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/645/2024	Andhra Pradesh vs Chilimpalli Dinesh	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/646/2024	Andhra Pradesh vs Chinepalle Nagendra	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/662/2024	SI of Police vs L.M.Mansoor	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/664/2024	SI of Police vs Shaik Nasir	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/671/2024	SI of Police vs Shaik Showkath Ali and 6 others	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/672/2024	SI of Police vs Shaik Mahammad Ali	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/1078/2022	SHO, Madanapalle Taluk PS vs M Sreeramulu	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/1091/2022	SHO, Madanapalle Taluk PS vs P Khaja Khan	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/4000/2021	SHO.Madanapalle Taluk PS vs Durgaprasadh	14 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/254/2024	Madanapalle Taluk PS vs Kesarla Prasad	12 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/658/2024	Andhra Pradesh vs Derangula Prasad	12 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/659/2024	Andhra Pradesh vs Kotakonda Sudharshana	12 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/248/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq P.S. vs Yamanooru Shukoor	11 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
EP/50/2023	M.Vijaya vs R.Suri Babu	10 Dec 2024	Order	—
CC/243/2024	Madanapalle Taluk PS vs Busineni Chenrayulu	10 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/246/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq P.S. vs M.Sekhar	10 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/262/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq P.S. vs I.Manjunath	09 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/344/2024	Sub-Inspector of Police, Madanapalli Taluq P.S. vs P.Venkata Subba Reddy	09 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/242/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq P.S. vs P.Reddy Pradeep	05 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/259/2024	Madanapalle Taluk PS vs Garaburuju Manasa	05 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/337/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalli Talq UPS. vs Pagadala Anjineyulu	05 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/661/2022	G.Govindu Naidu vs K.Sreenivasa Chari	04 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/241/2024	Taluk PS MPL vs V.G.Sivamurthy	04 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/255/2024	Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq P.S. vs Kukkata Dana Kumar	04 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/479/2022	S.Krishnamma and another vs B.Rangamma and 4 others	03 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/483/2020	V.Sreenivasa Reddy vs N.Nowshad Ali Khan	29 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
OS/493/2024	B.Dadavali vs L.Reddisab	29 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
OS/559/2023	P.Venkatnarayana vs P.Viswanath	29 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
OS/569/2020	T.Ravi Kumar vs U.Rajasekhar	29 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
OS/803/2021	T.Nagaraja vs K.Khader Valli	29 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
CC/58/2023	The Sub Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq vs Mude Shankar Naik	29 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
OS/562/2024	A.Vidya Sagar Reddy vs P.Sasidhar REddy	28 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
MC/78/2022	T Bharathi vs S Muni Raja	28 Nov 2024	Order	—
OS/325/2020	K.Prabhakar reddy vs P.Ravindrachari	27 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
OS/425/2020	P.Vinay kumar vs K.Srinivasamurthy Rao	27 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
CC/59/2023	The Sub Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluq vs Edagotti Revathamma	27 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
CC/308/2024	Sub-Inspector of Police, Madanapalli Taluk UPS vs Moode Sailaja	27 Nov 2024	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 1,808 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Feb 2025		13
Jan 2025		13
Dec 2024		62
Nov 2024		57
Oct 2024		41
Sep 2024		60
Aug 2024		36
Jul 2024		69
Jun 2024		37
May 2024		13
Apr 2019		32
Mar 2019		114

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy handled?

Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy has handled 1828 court orders since 2017 at II Addl District Court Madanapalle. The average disposal rate is 20 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy hear?

Based on available records, Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at II Addl District Court Madanapalle.

Where is Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy currently posted?

Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy is posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge at II Addl District Court Madanapalle, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy available online?

Yes. 20 judgments by Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy dispose cases?

Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy disposes approximately 20 cases per month, based on 1828 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl District Court Madanapalle.

Since when is Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy serving?

Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy has been serving at II Addl District Court Madanapalle since 2017.

Case Types

CC 48%

OS 36%

EP 9%

PRC 4%

MC 2%

STC 1%

DVC 1%

RCC 0%

Posting History

Jan 2025 — Feb 2025

Principal Junior Civil Judge · 5 orders
Aug 2024 — Nov 2024

II Additional Junior Civil Judge · 6 orders
May 2024 — Feb 2025

Principal Junior Civil Judge · 390 orders
May 2024 — Feb 2025

I Additional Junior Civil Judge
May 2017 — Apr 2019

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 1,427 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 3

Terminated Disposal Date: 30-04-2019 1

Other Judges at this Court

SMT K Jayalakshmi

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle

396 orders

N. Sirish

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle

799 orders

P.V.S. Surya Narayana Murthy

II Additional District Judge

755 orders

Smt R Srilatha

VII Additional District Judge

223 orders

Sri Bande Subhan

Principal Junior Civil Judge

272 orders

Smt J Keerthana

II Additional Junior Civil Judge

388 orders

← View all judges at II Addl District Court Madanapalle