Y Naga Raja

1

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION)

AT MANGALAGIRI.

Present: Sri Y. Gopala Krishna, I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Guntur. FAC Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Mangalagiri.

Monday this the 9th day of December, 2024

O.S. No. 31/21

Between:-

Nalluri Ranga Rao, S/o Subbaiah, Hindu, aged 80 years, Cultivation,

R/o Mothadaka village, Tadikonda mandal, Guntur District.

. . . Plaintiff.

And

Nallapaneni Rambabu, S/o Seshagiri Rao, aged about 45 years, Hindu, business, R/o Mothadaka Village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District.

. . . Defendant.

-o0o-

This suit came before me on 29.11.2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri D. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff, Sri P. Vijayendra Raju, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory notes.

2. The main case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that,

i) On 5.6.2019, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.

2 14,00,000/- from the plaintiff to meet family expenses and executed a promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with compound interest at 24% p.a.

ii) Later, on 6.6.2019, the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.13,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with compound interest at 24% p.a.

iii) Subsequently, despite repeated demands by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant did not choose to repay the same, except by making empty promises. While so, the plaintiff reliably learnt that the defendant was heavily indebted to several persons and was trying to alienate his property to avoid debts. Hence, the present suit is filed for recovery of money.

3. On the other hand, the defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing a written statement. The defendant denied borrowing the amount and execution of promissory notes. The main case of the defendant, in brief, is that:

i) He knows the plaintiff, and both of them were neighbours about 10 years ago. During that period, there are family and political disputes between them. Though they belong to the same community, disputes are continuing between them. Surprisingly, with ill-advise and political advise, the plaintiff created fabricated 3 and forged two promissory notes with huge amounts and filed the present suit at the instigation of political leaders with the intention to gain wrongfully and cause wrongful loss to the defendant. Hence, he urged the court to dismiss the suit.

4.After hearing both sides and based on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor framed the following issues:

1.Whether the suit promissory note No.1 is true, genuine one and supported by consideration ?

2.Whether the suit promissory note No.2 is true, genuine one and supported by consideration ?

3.Whether the suit promissory notes 1 and 2 are fabricated and forged document and press into service for wrongful gain as prayed by defendants ?

4.To what relief ?

4.1.The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. On the other hand, the defendant denied the plaintiff's entitlement to claim the suit amount. But no issue has been framed regarding the entitlement of the suit amount as prayed by the plaintiff.

4.2.Or.14, R.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure1 empowers the

Court to frame an additional issue or recast the issue at any stage of the suit before pronouncing judgment. In view of the above facts and circumstances and U/Or.14, R.5 of the Code, this court framed the following additional issue :

Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for ?

1For brevity, “the Code” 4 4.3.Having been conscious of the pleadings of both parties, they adduced evidence. This court feels that evidence on record is sufficient to answer the additional issue. Therefore, it is needless to reopen the suit for further evidence.

5. At the trial, the plaintiff examined PWs 1 to 3 while relying on Ex. A1 and A2. On the other hand, the defendant examined DWs 1 and 2, and no document was marked on behalf of the defendant.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

7. Perused the record.

ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:

1. Whether the suit promissory note No.1 is true, genuine one and supported by consideration ?

2. Whether the suit promissory note No.2 is true, genuine one and supported by consideration ?

3. Whether the suit promissory notes 1 and 2 are fabricated and forged document and press into service for wrongful gain as prayed by defendants ?

8. The above Issues are inter-connected to each other. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, issues Nos. 1 to 3 are discussed together.

9. It is the case of plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- and Rs. 13,50,000/- on 5.6.2019 and 6.6.2019, respectively, for his family expenses and executed promissory notes on respective dates. On the other hand, the defendant denied execution of promissory notes and lending amount thereunder; and that the suit promissory notes are forged documents.

5

10. In view of rival contentions of both parties and the above issues, it is obvious to say that the burden of proof is undoubtedly on the plaintiff to clinchingly establish that defendant borrowed Rs.

14,00,000/- and Rs. 13,50,000/- from him under promissory notes/Exs.A1 and A2, in the light of specific defence urged by the defendant. In order to prove the same, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He reiterated the averments of plaint in his chief examination affidavit. The defendant cross-examined him on two aspects: one is the capacity of plaintiff and another is the suit promissory notes transaction.

11. In so far as the first aspect is concerned, PW1 testified that he has Ac.3.00 cents of land and earns Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per annum; and apart from that, he is doing cultivation in an extent of

Ac.10.00 of land. Further, he testified that he sold Ac.1.00 of land for

Rs.60,00,000/-, out of which Rs.27,50,000/- was lent to the defendant. But he did not file any of those documents. However, the capacity of plaintiff would be discussed at the appropriate time.

12. Coming to the promissory notes transaction, PW1 testified that Kankanala Chaitanya Krishna and Gutta Ram Mohan Rao (PW2) are attestors to promissory note/Ex.A2, and at the time of its execution, three persons were present along with himself and the defendant. Further, he testified that the promissory note/Ex.A2 transaction was held at 4:00 p.m. at his house, and the denomination of amount is Rs. 500/- rupee notes in 27 bundles. He further testified 6 that at the time of the execution of promissory note, Gutta Ram Mohan

Rao and N. Suresh are attestors to the promissory note/Ex.A1 and his grandson is the scribe of the two promissory notes/Ex.A1 and A2.

13. Besides the above, the plaintiff examined Gutta Ram

Mohan Rao and Mannava Chandra Sekhar Rao as PWs 2 and 3. They claimed to be one of the attestors and scribe of promissory notes/Exs.

A1 and A2, respectively. They supported the case of plaintiff by testifying in their respective chief examination affidavits that the defendant borrowed Rs. 14,00,000/- and Rs. 13,50,000/- on 5.6.2019 and 6.6.2019, respectively, and executed promissory notes on the respective dates. Further, they testified in their respective chief examination affidavits that PW2 and Suresh are attestors to the first promissory note, and PW2 and K. Chaitanya Krishna are the attestor to second promissory note/Ex.A2. The defendant cross-examined them.

14.In the cross-examination, PW2 testified that the total consideration of Rs. 27,50,000/- was paid out of the sale proceeds of

Ac. 1.00 of land at Mothadaka village. Further, PW2 testified that he got acquaintance with the defendant for the past 10 years and defendant called him to act as a attestor at the time of execution of promissory notes/Exs. A1 and A2 and that the entire transaction was held in the house of plaintiff. He further deposed that the first promissory note was executed between 10:30 and 11:00 on 5.6.2019, and the second promissory note was executed between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on 6.6.2019, and the denomination of the amount is 500 7 rupee notes. He further testified that he, along with M. Nimmagadda

Suresh and PW3, were present at the time of the promissory note/Ex.P1.

15. In the cross-examination, PW3 testified that the plaintiff is his maternal grandfather; and that promissory notes/Exs.A1 and A2 are executed at the house of plaintiff. Promissory note/Ex.A1 was executed between 10.00 am and 11.00 a.m. and the denomination is 500 rupee currency notes. He further testified that promissory note/Ex.A2 was scribed between 4.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m.

16. In addition to the above, the defendant put his defence by way of suggestions. Of course, PWs 1 to 3 denied the same.

17. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 evinces minutes things under promissory notes/Exs.A1 and A2 transactions, such as date, time, place, quantum of lending amount, denomination of lending amount, particulars of persons in whose presence promissory notes were executed, etc.

18. In order to make the court disbelieve promissory notes transactions and lending amounts thereunder, learned counsel for defendant invited the attention of this court to the evidence of PW1 and submitted that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend such an amount, and thereby, the entire case of the plaintiff falls down.

Thus, the defendant disputed the financial capacity of plaintiff.

19.But as seen from pleadings, the defendant did not dispute the financial capacity of plaintiff. The first time, during the course of 8 trial, the defendant introduced a new defence contending that the plaintiff had no financial capacity to lend such a huge amount. It is well settled that any amount of evidence that may be adduced without a foundation in the pleading would be of no avail2. In view of settled law, learned counsel is not supposed to argue on financial capacity of the plaintiff.

20. For instance, if the defendant is allowed to take defence and argue on the financial capacity of the plaintiff, now the question is whether the plaintiff has the financial capacity to lend such a huge amount? It can be seen from the evidence that PW1 testified in his cross-examination that he has Ac.3.00 of land and is also doing cultivation to an extent of Ac.10.00 on lease. He further testified that he sold Ac.1.00 of land for Rs.60,00,000/- and lent Rs.27,50,000/- to the defendant out of said Rs.60,00,000/-. Further, he testified that he cannot file a copy of the sale deed of Ac. 1.00 of land. Learned counsel highlighted this portion of evidence, contending that as the plaintiff did not sell the same, he did not file it. Thus, learned counsel questioned the sale of Ac.1.00 of land.

21. Whatever the contentions of learned counsel, the plaintiff did not file any document regarding the sale of Ac.1.00 of land. But in the cross-examination of PW1, the defendant suggested that with the sale consideration of said agricultural land, the plaintiff constructed a 2Bollineni Srihari Rao Vs. Manukondu Ramadevi and others : MANU/HY/0320/2018 9 building by spending Rs. 25,00,000/-. It is worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portion of the evidence of PW1 is hereunder:

“It is true I constructed the building after sold the agriculture land and I spend the 25 laksh worth of Rs. for construction of my building. Witness adds that he spent his own money for construction of building.”

22. From the above, it is established that the defendant also admitted selling of Ac.1.00 land by the plaintiff. So, selling of Ac. 1.00 cents of land is not in dispute.

23. In order to disprove the financial capacity of plaintiff, the defendant strongly relied upon the evidence of DW2. The defendant examined M. Srinivasa Rao as DW2. He claims to be the lessee of the plaintiff’s agricultural land. He testified in his chief examination affidavit that he cultivated Ac.3.20 cents of land of the plaintiff’s family at Pedaparimi village for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17 on payment of maktha of Rs.12,000/- per acre. Further, he testified that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such a huge amount. Thus, DW2 claims to be lessee of the plaintiff’s agricultural land.

24.In the cross examination, he pleaded ignorance about the survey number, names of neighbouring land owners in which he is doing cultivation. If really, he cultivated lands of the plaintiff on a lease, certainly he would know neighboring land owners. This circumstance creates strong doubt on his claim as lessee of the plaintiff. Except for his oral statement, he did not file any scrap of 10 paper to show that he is the lessee of plaintiff. In view of the circumstances, based on his evidence, the financial capacity of the plaintiff cannot be doubted.

25. However, the defendant admitted selling of Ac.1.00 of land by the plaintiff as stated above. Thereby, the financial capacity of the plaintiff is proven to lend the amount.

26.In view of the above facts and circumstances, the arguments of learned counsel are not tenable.

27. It is relevant to note that, as per evidence of PWs 1 to 3, besides PW2, another attestor by the name N. Suresh is one of the attestors to the first promissory note, and K. Chaitanya Krishna is another attestor to the second promissory note. But they were not examined. The plaintiff examined one of the attestors – PW2 and scribe – PW3 of both promissory notes/Exs. A1 and A2. Their evidence supports the case of plaintiff regarding the execution of promissory notes and the lending amounts thereunder. It is well settled that3 the legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses.

Though a promissory note is not a compulsory attestable document, the plaintiff examined one of the attestors. Therefore, the non- examination of another attestor of promissory notes/Exs.A1 and A2 is not fatal to the plaintiff's case.

3Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra : (2007) 14 SCC 150 11

28.It is to be mentioned here that the defendant cross- examined PWs 1 to 3 at length. But nothing was elicited from them to doubt the promissory note transactions. Admittedly, the plaintiff and defendant are known to each other. PW3, who is the scribe of promissory notes/Exs.A1 and A2, is the grandson of plaintiff (PW1).

While getting attestation and scribing the promissory note, the creditor would done through his known persons but not strangers. So, simply because PW3 is the grandson of plaintiff, his evidence cannot be thrown aside.

29. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 corroborates each other with regard to execution of the promissory note and lending amount thereunder. On thorough scrutiny, this court has not found any circumstance to doubt the execution of promissory notes and lending amounts thereunder. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is consistent, inspires confidence and trustworthy that the defendant borrowed the amount and executed promissory notes/Exs.A1 and A2. Thereby the plaintiff discharged his burden.

30. Now the onus shifts to the defendant. It is the case of defendant that he never borrowed any amount, and promissory notes/Exs.A1 and A2 are forged documents. To substantiate his case, he examined himself as DW1. He reiterated averments of written statement in his chief examination affidavit. In the cross-examination, he denied the signature on promissory notes, admitting acquaintance with the plaintiff.

12

31. Except for the above self-testimony of DW1, the defendant did not place any material to disprove the execution of promissory notes and lending amounts. On the other hand, the plaintiff discharged his burden by examining attestor and scribe of promissory notes.

32.In Bonala Raju and Another Vs. Sarupuru Sreenivasulu4, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. considered Sections 72, 73 and 102 of Evidence Act and Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act and held that: “the burden of proof is upon the defendant when he takes the plea of forgery and the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish that the defendant has executed the suit promissory note”.

'In the above case, the defendant has taken a plea of forgery.

However, he has not taken any steps for sending the disputed document to any hand writing expert for the purpose of comparison and opinion and has not taken any steps to file his admitted signatures for the purpose of Section 73 of Evidence Act.

The Hon’ble High Court further held that the promissory note is not a compulsorily attestable document and in view of Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act the defendant has to establish the fact of non-passing of consideration.'

33. In the present case also, the plaintiff discharged his burden by examining P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the onus shifts to the defendants. He has to establish that the promissory notes are forged documents.

Whereas, he failed to take any steps to send the suit promissory notes to the hand writing expert. Further, he failed to file his admitted signatures before the court, enabling the court to compare the 42006 (1) ALD 745 13 disputed signature on the promissory notes with them5. In view of the circumstances, the above judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn against the defendant.

34. Except for the above-stated self-testimony, the defendant did not place any material to probablize his defence. On the other hand, the plaintiff proved the execution of promissory notes and lending amount through the evidence of PWs 1 to 3.

35. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the plaintiff proved the execution suit promissory notes and passing of consideration thereunder.

Accordingly, these issues are answered.

ADDITIONAL ISSUE :

Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

36. In view of my findings at issues Nos. 1 to 3, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.4:

To What relief ?

37.In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.

39,64,600/- (Rupees thirty nine lakhs sixty four thousand and six hun- dred only) and interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @6% per annum till the date 5Section 73 of the Evidence Act.

14 of realization on Rs. 27,50,000/-.

Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 9th day of December, 2024.

Sd./- Y. Gopala Krishna, I Additional Civil Judge( Sr. Division), Guntur. FAC Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Mangalagiri

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For plaintiff:

P.W.1 : Nalluri Ranga Rao P.W.2 : Gutta Rama Mohana Rao P.W.3 : Mannava Chandra Sekhar Rao

For defendant:

DW1 : Nallapaneni Rambabu DW2 : Mupparaju Srinivasa Rao

Documents marked:

For plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Promissory note dated 5.6.2019

Ex.A2 : Promissory note dated 6.6.2019

For Defendant:

-Nil-

Ild./- Y.G.K., I Addl. C.J(Sr.D), Guntur. FAC C.J (Sr. D.) Mangalagiri 15

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION)

AT MANGALAGIRI.

Present: Sri Y. Gopala Krishna, I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Guntur. FAC Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Mangalagiri.

Monday this the 9th day of December, 2024

O.S. No.31/2021

Between:-

Nalluri Ranga Rao, S/o Subbaiah, Hindu, 80 years, Cultivation, R/o. Mothadaka village, Tadikonda mandal, Guntur District,

Mangalagiri JCJC. ... Plaintiff.

And

Nallapaneni Rambabu, S/o Seshagiri Rao, Hindu, 45 years, Business, R/o. Mothadaka village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District, Mangalagiri JCJC. … Defendant.

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.39,64,600/- on the foot of two promissory notes i.e., I) for Rs.14,00,000/- dated 5.6.2019 and ii) for Rs.13,50,000/- dated 6.6.2019 executed by the defendant agreeing to repay the said amounts with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

Plaint Presented on : 09.04.2021

Plaint numbered on : 15.04.2021

Cause of action for the suit arose on 05.06.2019 and 06.06.2019 when the defendant borrowed Rs.14,00,000/- and Rs.13,50,000/- respectively and executed promissory notes on respective dates in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, at Mothadaka village, Tadikonda Mandal, where the suit promissory notes transactions took place and where both the plaintiff and the defendant reside are all within the jurisdiction of this court.

16

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION:-

1. Principal amount due under Promissory note

dated 5.6.2019Rs.14,00,000/-

Interest thereon at 24% per annum from 5.6.2019 to 8.4.2021Rs. 6,18,800/- ------------------- TotalRs.20,18,800/- on which a court fee of Rs.22,626/- is paid under Section 20 of APCF and SV Act, 1956. 2 Principal amount due under Promissory note

dated 6.6.2019Rs.13,50,000/-

Interest thereon at 24% per annum from 6.6.2019 to 8.4.2021Rs. 5,95,800/- ------------------- TotalRs.19,45,800/- on which a court fee of Rs.21,926/- is paid under Section 20 of APCF and SV Act, 1956.

Total Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.39,64,600/- (Rs.20,18,000/-+Rs.19,45,800/-)

Total court fee paid is Rs.44,552/- (Rs.22,626/-+Rs.21,926/-)

This suit came before me on 29.11.2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri D. Suresh Kumar, Sri D. Kishore Kumar, Sri D. Manohar, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri P. Vijayendra Raju, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows :

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed for a sum of Rs.39,64,600/- (Rupees thirty nine lakhs sixty four thousand and six hundred only) and interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @6% per annum till the date of realization on Rs.27,50,000/-;

2. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,04,720/- and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil (CM & FC not filed) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 9th day of December, 2024. Sd./- Y. Gopala Krishna, I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Guntur. FAC: Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Mangalagiri.

17

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff:For Defendant: Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps.

1. Stamp on Vakalath 2-00CM & FC not filed

2. Plaint Fee 44552-00--

3. Process 66-00--

4. Advocate Fee (Sr.)120000-00--

5. Advocate Fee (Sr.)40000-00--

6. Typing Charges50-00--

7. Writing charges50-00--

Total: 204720-00 NIL

Ild./- Y.G.K., I A.C.J.(Sr.Dvn.), Gnt., FAC: C.J. (Sr. Dvn.)Mgl.,

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. DIVISION) :: MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT:- Y. GOPALA KRISHNA

I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Guntur,

FAC Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mangalagiri

Monday, this the 9th day of December, 2024.

APPEAL SUIT NO.7/2024

Between: Kandukuri Krishnaveni w/o Venkata Ramana Rao, Hindu, House wife, 46 yrs. R/o H.No.1-36/2/3/4/A, Jawahar Colony,

Road No.4, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...Appellant.

And

1. Yarlagadda Sundari W/o Veeranjaneyulu, Hindu, 38 yrs. House wife, R/o H.No.4-2-14/B/1, SCB Nagar, Opp. Bharath Public School, Ramavaram Post, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Kollapalli Venkateswara Rao S/o late Rama Murthy, Hindu, 66 yrs. Business, r/o D.No.17-1-02/3 A, Sitarama Nagar Colony, Bhadrachalam Town, Khammam District.

3. Paruchuri Naga Radha Devi W/o Ramesh Kumar, Hindu, 40 yrs. House wife, Flat No.118, Netaji Subash Apartments Poket 1, Phase No.2, Sector-13, Dwaraka, New Delhi.

4. Kolapalli Venkata Phani Rama Swaroop S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, 30 yrs. Private employee, R/o H.No.311. 1st floor, Site No.9 and 10, Sy.Bengaluru Town, Karnataka State. …Respondents.

On appeal against the Judgment and Decree dt.10.08.2018 in OS No.105/2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Mangalagiri where in the parties are:

Between:

1. Yarlagadda Sundari W/o Veeranjaneyulu, Hindu, 38 yrs. House wife, R/o H.No.4-2-14/B/1, SCB Nagar, Opp. Bharath Public School, Ramavaram Post, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Kandukuri Krishnaveni w/o Venkata Ramana Rao, Hindu, House wife, 46 yrs. R/o H.No.1-36/2/3/4/A, Jawahar Colony, Road No.4, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Plaintiffs.

And

1. Kollapalli Venkateswara Rao S/o late Rama Murthy, Hindu, 66 yrs. Business, r/o D.No.17-1-02/3 A, Sitarama Nagar Colony, Bhadrachalam Town, Khammam District.

//2//

2. Paruchuri Naga Radha Devi W/o Ramesh Kumar, Hindu, 40 yrs. House wife, Flat No.118, Netaji Subash Apartments Poket 1, Phase No.2, Sector-13, Dwaraka, New Delhi.

3. Kolapalli Venkata Phani Rama Swaroop S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, 30 yrs. Private employee, R/o H.No.311. 1st floor, Site No.9 and 10, Sy.Bengaluru Town, Karnataka State. …Defendants.

This appeal is coming on this day before me, Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for Appellant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed U/Or. XLI and Sec. 96 of CPC to allow the Appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree, dt.10.08.2018 passed in OS No.105/2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Mangalagiri by decreeing the suit in favour of the appellant and for costs.

Appellant filed memo to not press the appeal.

Memo is recorded.

Hence, appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 9th day of December, 2024.

Sd/- Y. Gopala Krishna,

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Div.), GUNTUR, FAC CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. DIVISION)

MANGALAGIRI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For Appellant:- For Respondents.

None. None.

Documents marked

For Appellant:- For Respondents.

- Nil -- Nil -.

ILD/- Y. G. K. I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Div.), GUNTUR, FAC CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. DIVISION)

MANGALAGIRI.

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. DIVISION) :: MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT:- Y. GOPALA KRISHNA

I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Guntur,

FAC Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mangalagiri

Friday, this the 29th day of November, 2024.

O.S.No.36/2024

Between:-

1. Murikipudi Syam Sundar Kishore, S/o late Madhava Rao, 55 yrs. Private employee R/o D.No.3-105, Sangapu vari Street, Mangalagiri, Guntur District rep. By GPA holder Murikipudi Pavan Kumar.

2. Murikipudi Pavan Kumar S/o late Madhava Rao, 50 yrs. Private employee, R/o D.No.3-105, Sangapuvari Street, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur District. .…Plaintiffs.

AND

1. Ramanadham Madhu Bhanu S/o late Venkata Siva Naga Kumar @ Balu, 32 yrs. Hindu, Business, R/o Atmakuru village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Gali Sambaiah S/o Pullaiah, 70 yrs. Agriculturist, R/o D.No.4-96, Gowda Bazaar, Atmakuru village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Manem Sambaiah S/o Subbaiah, 72 yrs. Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o D.No.4-116, Gowda Bazaar, Atmakuru Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. ….Defendants.

This suit coming on this day before me, Sri L. Sivaram Prasad, advocate for plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte and this court 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 plaintiff, for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, restraining the defendants, their men, agents, associates, followers and confederates and from in any way interfering with and/or causing obstruction/damage to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule property and construction works of the compound wall on southern side as absolute and exclusive owners thereof and for costs.

//2//

Memo is filed on behalf of plaintiffs to not press the suit as matter is settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence, suit is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 29th day of November, 2024.

Sd/- Y. Gopala Krishna,

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. Div.), GUNTUR FAC CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

“ No oral or documentary evidence is adduced”

ILD/- Y.G.K I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. Div.), GUNTUR FAC CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

30/11/2024, 14:42Case History Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI

Case No. :OS/0000227/2017 Majji Kalyani Vs Pachava Subba Rathnam and another

Date : 29-11-2024

Business: This case is suo motto advanced to this day ie., on 29.11.2024 from 17.12.2024. Both parties called, they are absent. Copy of Orders dt.14.10.2024 passed in TOP No.1461/2022 by the Hon’ble Principal District Court, Guntur are received. As per the said order, the TOP No.1461/2022 is allowed withdrawing the transferring the present suit ie., OS No.227/2017 on the file of this court to the court of Hon’ble V Addl. District Judge Court, Guntur to try along with the suit OS 255/2018. Hence, the present suit is withdrawn and transferred to the Hon’ble V Addl. District

Judge’s Court, Guntur as per Order in TOP. Office is directed to send the suit record immediately duly indexed.

Nature of Disposal: TRANSFERRED Disposal Date: 29-11-2024

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI

172.17.62.2/swecourtis/kiosk/1/1

30/11/2024, 14:41Case History Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI

Case No. :OS/0000226/2017 Majji Bala Santhosh Vs Pachava Subba Rathnam

Date : 29-11-2024

Business: This case is suo motto advanced to this day ie., on 29.11.2024 from 17.12.2024. Both parties called, they are absent. Copy of Orders dt.14.10.2024 passed in TOP No.1462/2022 by the Hon’ble Principal District Court, Guntur are received. As per the said order, the TOP No.1462/2022 is allowed withdrawing the transferring the present suit ie., OS No.226/2017 on the file of this court to the court of Hon’ble V Addl. District Judge Court, Guntur to try along with the suit OS 255/2018. Hence, the present suit is withdrawn and transferred to the Hon’ble V Addl. District

Judge’s Court, Guntur as per Order in TOP. Office is directed to send the suit record immediately duly indexed.

Nature of Disposal: TRANSFERRED Disposal Date: 29-11-2024

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI

172.17.62.2/swecourtis/kiosk/1/1