Smt. Y.Premalatha

1 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) AT GAJUWAKA

Present: Smt. Y.PREMALATHA,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gajuwaka

Monday, this the 15th day of April, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.52/2017

Between :

Karri Kanaka Rao, S/o. Karri Adiyya @ Adinarayana, aged 49 years, residing at D.No.28-5-2, Vadlapudi R.H.Colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ...Plaintif And :

Karri Yesamma, W/o. Late Appala Raju, aged about 35 years, residing at D.No.28-5-1, Vadlapudi R.H.Colony, Near Government Hospital, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 08.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.L.Srinivasamma, Sri.A.Murali Mohan Rao &

Mr.S.Raghavendra, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri.J.V.Prema Sai &

Sri. J.Shyamala Rao, Advocates for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction restrain the defendant, kith and kin and all of her men from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit and for such other relief or reliefs.

2.Brief averments of the plaint is that :

(a) The elder brother of the plaintiff i.e., Karri Appa Rao, land looser of landed property which was acquired by the Government for the 2 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

purpose of construction of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant as a benevolent legislation, the acquisition authorities along with the Government has allotted to each land looser whose residence has been acquired by allotting 107 square yards of house site plot and a rehabilitation card. As such, since the plaintiff's elder brother Karri Appa Rao also one among the beneficiary of several land loosers and the said Karri Appa Rao has been allotted R-Card

No.301 and the house site bearing Plot No.1541 for an extent of 107 square yards by the Special Grade Deputy Collector Steel Plant (Land Acquisition),

Visakhapatnam which is situated at Vadlapudi R.H.Colony, Vadlapudi Village,

Gajuwaka within the limits of Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation,

Visakhapatnam. After allotment made by the Government Authorities, the said Karri Appa Rao constructed R.C.C slabbed house with his hard earnings.

Out of love and affection, the said Karri Appa Rao executed a Registered Gift

Settlement Deed, dt.19-09-2011 for an extent of 62.22 square yards out of total extent of 107 square yards along with R.C.C slabbed house bearing

D.No.28-5-2 in his favour and handed over the physical possession to him.

(b) It is further submitted that since from the date of execution of the Gift deed, he alone has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute legal right, title too possession, occupation and ownership free from all encumbrances without any manner of interruption from whomsoever and till to date much in the knowledge of one and all in the locality including the defendant and govermental authorities. He has spent huge amounts for the development of the suit schedule property and paying taxes and electricity consumption charges to the concerned departments, which are in the name of Karri Appa Rao. Since the date of execution of the 3 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

Gift deed, he let out the plaint schedule property to the various individuals by collecting rents.

(c) It is further submitted that in the month of March, 2017 the tenant of the plaintiff vacated the schedule property and handed over the vacant possession to the plaintiff. The defendant is the wife of the plaintiff's younger brother named Appala Raju and totally stranger to the schedule property. During the life time, there were money transactions between the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant, even though the plaintiff cleared all the debts payable by him to the husband of the defendant, the defendant without any manner of right, title too, highhandedly, unlawfully trying to enter into the plaint schedule property by taking law into her hands and trying to dispossess him from the suit schedule property to demand the amounts, which are allegedly due to her husband. The plaintiff in the presence of the village elders named Middi Tati Naidu and Karanamreddy Jagga Rao, questioned the high handed acts of the defendant, the defendant with a filthy language warned him and his family members that no body can question her.

However, the defendant thoroughly with a view to cause loss harm to him with that of her criminal conspiracy always used to threaten him to sell away the suit schedule property to her with a reason that the defendant residing towards eastern side of the plaint schedule property. Whereas, he refused to do so and a result of the same the defendant is trying to dispossess him from the plaint schedule property with dire consequences and thereby to obtain a wrongful gain.

4 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

(d) It is further submitted that day before yesterday, the defendant with her own kith and kin taking law into her hands trying to trespass into the suit schedule property with an evil intention to dispossess him from the schedule property. The plaintiff throughly questioned and resisted unlawful acts of the defendant and her supporters, the defendant created most unpleasant situation. He approached the Duvvada Law and Order Police and the police authorities refused to receive the complaint as it is civil nature and also advised to approach the court. The defendant by showing her strength in all corners, along with her supporters, kith and kin openly proclaimed there in the suit schedule property that certainly they will dispossess him from the suit schedule property and at any moment she may intrude into the suit schedule property thereby to mitigate the litigation. The defendant never deny the title of the plaintiff at any point of time. There is every possibility of danger to the life and property of the plaintiff and his family members from the hands of the defendants and their kith and kin. Hence, this suit.

3.The defendant filed Written statement by denying the allegations in the plaint and further submitted that :

(a) She is wife of the plaintiff's younger brother late Karri Appala

Raju. The plaintiff in a urgent need of money, he is trying to alienate the schedule property and the State Government is also not entertaining the registration in and around the plaint schedule property and requested her husband that the schedule property is also adjacent to her husband property on a confidence posed on the brother out of trust her husband paid an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only), the plaintiff 5 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

executed a sale deed coupled with possession on 20-11-2013, the plaintiff also put the husband of the defendant in possession of the schedule property.

The said negotiations and payment were made in the presence of the elders in that locality, since then i.e.,. 20-11-2013, her husband was enjoying the possession as a lawful and rightful owner. On 13-05-2016, her husband expired, subsequently on the demise of her husband, herself and her children as a legal heirs succeed to the plaint schedule property as a successors and they are in possession of the schedule property. Since then, herself and her children were only in possession as a rightful owner enjoying the plaint schedule property, the same was known to one and all in the locality including the plaintiff.

(b) It is further submitted that after alienating the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff i.e., 20-11-2013, the plaintiff was never in possession of the plaint schedule property, her husband used to pay necessary taxes and electricity consumption charges etc., to the concerned authorities. After the demise of her husband, she is paying necessary charges to the concerned authorities etc.,. regularly. The registration authorities has lifted the ban on registration in and around the plaint schedule property, she requested the plaintiff several times to come and execute a regular sale deed though the plaintiff received entire sale consideration on 20-11-2013, the plaintiff avoid to do so and used to postpone the issue of registration on one pretext or the other failed to do so till today. The named Middi Tati Naidu and Karanamreddy

Jagga Rao are the planted witness of the plaintiff.

6 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

(c) It is further submitted that taking advantage that the defendant not having any male assistance, the plaintiff with a sole view to grab the plaint schedule property and avoid to repay the consideration to him.

While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff hatched a plan on 11-04-2017, plaintiff, wife the plaintiff i.e., Smt.Lakshmi, Sri.Karri Narasinga Rao, second son of Karri Sathyanarayana and Sri. Karri Kanaka Raju all of the above mentioned entered into her house with an intention to dispossess her and her children and manhandled the herself and her children, they abused in filthy language abused herself and her children, at the intervention of the elders in the locality pacified the issue, on the next day Smt.Karri Lakshmi entered into her house and thrown out the house hold utensils belong to her and further tried to hang herself to the ceiling fan, she astonished to the said incident, she realized from the said shock and immediately shouted the elders in the locality, they came to her house and rescued Smt.Karri Lakshmi. Immediately, she lodged a complaint on the persons mentioned above at Duvvada Police

Station, the police enquired into the matter and registered FIR 117/2017 against the plaintiff and the plaintiff men as a counter blast to the above FIR, the plaintiff filed this suit with all false allegation with a sole view to harass her and to grab the plaint schedule property by illegal means. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintif was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit?

7 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for a permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, P.Ws 1 & 2 were examined and got marked

Exs.A1 to Ex.A7. On behalf of the Defendants, D.Ws 1 & D.W.2 were examined and got marked Ex. B1.

6.Heard on the both sides.

7.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 by reiterating the averments of plaint in his chief examination and Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.7 were marked. Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of

Gift Settlement Deed, dt.19-09-2011; Ex.A2 is the Original Patta issued by the

Tahsildar of Gajuwaka in favour of the donor of the plaintiff, dt.31-05-1987;

Ex.A3 is the Original Loan clearance certificate; Ex.A4 is the Original

Electricity payment receipt stands in the name of the donor of the plaintiff, dt.22-03-2017; Ex.A5 is the Original Tax pass book in the name of the donor of the plaintiff (2 Nos); Ex.A6 is the Original Tax payment receipt, dt.22-03-2017 and Ex.A7 is the positive photos with C.D (3Nos).

8.One Dakavarapu Gopi, who is residing in that locality of the schedule property was examined as P.W.2. He supported the evidence of

P.W.1. He further deposed that difference arose between the plaintiff and the defendant after the demise of defendant's husband. There were severe disputes between both of them and himself being well wisher of both sides 8 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

and along with other elderly persons have advised to solve the matter amicably. In the year 2017, the plaintiff gave a oral complaint to him and he visited the house of defendant which is on the eastern side of the plaintiff house and asked about the trouble. The plaintiff said that the defendant may occupy the house by trespassing into his property. He verified the version of plaintiff and asked the defendant, whose house is on the eastern side of suit schedule property. The defendant said, she will occupy the property if the plaintiff does not solve the financial issues. He came to know that in 2017, the plaintiff filed a case. After notices were served from the court, the defendant raised a galata, then again himself and other elderly persons, visited both the houses, and advised the defendant not to create any trouble, and solve the issue amicably.

9.On the other hand, the defendant herself was examined as D.W.1 by re-iterating the averments in her written statement and got marked Ex.B1.

Ex.B1 is the Certified copy of FIR 117/2017 against the plaintiff and the plaintiff men. One Debarika Rama Rao, who is residing in the locality of the plaint schedule property was examined as D.W.2. He supported the evidence of D.W.1.

ISSUE Nos.1 & 2 :

10.The contention and evidence of the plaintiff is that property of the elder brother of the plaintiff i.e., Karri Appa Rao was acquired by the

Government by allotting the house site for an extent of 107 square yards.

After that, the said Karri Appa Rao constructed R.C.C slabbed house with his hard earnings. Out of love and affection, the said Karri Appa Rao executed a 9 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

Registered Gift Settlement Deed, dt.19-09-2011 for an extent of 62.22 square yards out of total extent of 107 square yards along with R.C.C slabbed house bearing D.No.28-5-2 in his favour and handed over the physical possession to him. Since from the date of execution of the Gift deed, he alone has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and he let out the plaint schedule property to the various individuals by collecting rents. In the month of March, 2017 the tenant of the plaintiff vacated the schedule property and handed over the vacant possession to the plaintiff.

11.The contention and evidence of the defendant is that she is wife of the plaintiff's younger brother late Karri Appala Raju. The plaintiff in a urgent need of money, he is trying to alienate the schedule property and the

State Government is also not entertaining the registration in and around the plaint schedule property and requested her husband that the schedule property is also adjacent to her husband property on a confidence posed on the brother out of trust her husband paid an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff executed a sale deed coupled with possession on 20- 11-2013, the plaintiff also put the husband of the defendant in possession of the schedule property. Since then, her husband was enjoying the possession as a lawful and rightful owner. On 13-05-2016, her husband expired, subsequently on the demise of her husband, herself and her children as a legal heirs succeed to the plaint schedule property as a successors and they are in possession of the schedule property. But, the defendant did not file any documentary proofto support her contention.

10 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

12.In support of contention, the counsel for the defendant relied on the following decisions:

(1) Peter Alan Basil and another Vs. East India

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., reported in AIR 1976 Calcutta 182, wherein it was held that “the defendant deliberately not producing material documents in his possession -Adverse inference can be drawn against him though onus of proof was on the opposite party”.

(2) Habeeb Khan and others, Vs. Valasula Devi and others,

reported in AIR 1997 ANDHRA PRADESH, 53, wherein it was held that "

Evidence led in case must according to pleadings and should not be extraneous to specific pleadings.”

(3). Capt.Haracharanjit Singh Thind Vs. Deeksh Thind and

others, reported in 2008 AIHC 2677, wherein it was held that" Suppressing of material fact- Party suppressing material fact not entitled to equitable relief of injunction”.

13.On careful perusal of the evidence, the plaintiff contended that his elder brother Karri Appa Rao executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed in his favour for the schedule property. Ex.A1 Registered Gift settlement deed executed by the brother of the plaintiff by name Karri Appa Rao is in the name plaintiff regarding the schedule property. Ex.A2 patta proceedings issued by the Tahsildar for property in an extent of 107 sq.yards is in the name of Karri

Appa Rao. Ex.A3 loan clearance certificate, Ex.A4 Electricity payment receipt and Ex.A5 original tax pass book are in the in name of Karri Apparao showing possession over the schedule property as on date of filing of the suit. Further, 11 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

plaintiff contended in his plaint that there were money transactions between the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant, even though the plaintiff cleared all the debts payable by him to the husband of the defendant, the defendant without any manner of right, title unlawfully trying to enter into the plaint schedule property to demand the amounts. P.W.2 stated in his evidence that the defendant told him that she would occupy the property if the plaintiff has not solved the financial issues. But, P.W.1 admitted in his evidence that he borrowed an amount by executing the promissory note for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the husband of the defendant prior to the year 2013 and her brother (husband of the defendant) has been taking the rents for the house covered under Ex.A1 Gift Deed as interest for the said amount and he has not cleared the said debt amount so far. P.W.2 also stated in his evidence that he knows that the plaintiff obtained loan from the husband of the defendant and husband of the defendant gave an amount of

Rs.6,50,000/-. It shows that the plaintiff suppressed material facts in his pledings which creates doubt on the version of the plaintiff.

14. Further, the defendant contended that after alienating the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff i.e., 20-11-2013, the plaintiff was never in possession of the plaint schedule property and after the demise of her husband, herself and her children as a legal heirs succeed to the plaint schedule property as a successors and they are in possession of the schedule property. D.W.1 admitted in her evidence that that all the brothers of her husband constructed houses in the site allotted by the Government including 12 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

the schedule property. D.W.1 further stated that on the date of complaint under Ex.B1, plaintiff entered into the plaint schedule property and tried to dispossess them by throwing out their things from the plaint schedule property and kept two cooking utensils, water can, 2 plastic chairs in the plaint schedule property. D.W.1 further stated that at present all the household articles of the plaintiff are there in the upside portion (Article storage place/attic) of the plaint schedule property. P.Ws 1 and 2 also admitted that at present defendant is residing in the schedule property since 2017.

15. At this stage, this court relied on the the decision of Hon’ble

Apex court in between Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P Buchi Reddy, reported in

LAWS (SC) 2008 3175, wherein it was held that " Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff’s title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession with or without a consequential injunction is the remedy.

Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction.

Where there is a merely an interference with plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of dispossession it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simplicitor”.

16.On considering the above facts and circumstances, admittedly defendant is residing in the schedule property since 2017. When plaintiff is out of possession, then the plaintiff has to take steps, but the plaintiff did not take steps to recover the possession from the defendant over the schedule property. Hence mere suit for injunction is not sufficient to prove the 13 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

contention of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction. Accordingly, the above issues are answered.

ISSUE NO.3:

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

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III and corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15th day of April,2024.

xxx,Sd/-Y.Premalatha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gajuwaka

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined

For Plaintif :

P.W.1 :Karri Kanaka Rao (Plaintiff)

P.W.2 :Dakavarapu Gopi

For Defendants :

D.W.1:Karii Yesamma

D.W.2 : Debarika Rama Rao

No. of Exhibits marked

For Plaintif : Ex.A.1/ Certified copy Registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document

No.1966/2011, dt.19-09-2011

Ex.A2/Original Patta issued by the Tahsildar of Gajuwaka in favour of the donor of the plaintiff, dt.31-05-1987

Ex.A3/Original Loan clearance certificate

Ex.A4/Original Electricity payment receipt stands in the name of the donor of the plaintiff, dt.22-03-2017

Ex.A5/Original Tax Pass Book in the name of the donor of the plaintiff

Ex.A6/Original Tax Payment receipt, dt.22-03-2017 14 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

Ex.A7/Positive photoes with C.D (3 nos).

For Defendants :

Ex.B.1/ Certified copy of FIR 117/2017 against the plaintiff and the plaintiff men xxx,Sd/-Y.Premalatha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gajuwaka //TRUE COPY//

JCJ/GWK

15 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

Date of Presentation: 07-04-2017 Date of Filing: 12.04.2017

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) AT GAJUWAKA

Present: Smt. Y.PREMALATHA,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gajuwaka

Monday, this the 15th day of April, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.52/2017

Between : Karri Kanaka Rao, S/o. Karri Adiyya @ Adinarayana, aged 49 years, residing at D.No.28-5-2, Vadlapudi R.H.Colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

...Plaintif And :

Karri Yesamma, W/o. Late Appala Raju, aged about 35 years, residing at D.No.28-5-1, Vadlapudi R.H.Colony, Near Government Hospital, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

...Defendant

The plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction restrain the defendant, kith and kin and all of her men from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit and for such other relief or reliefs.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction is Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and a Court fee of Rs.2,386/- (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Six Only) is paid thereon under Section 26(c) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, vide challan Nos. 92380, dt.07-04-2017 and 0076242,dt.06-04-2017, Andhra Bank, Gajuwaka Branch, Visakhapatnam..

This suit is coming on 08.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence ofSmt.L.Srinivasamma, Sri.A.Murali Mohan Rao & Mr.S.Raghavendra, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri.J.V.Prema Sai & Sri. J.Shyamala Rao, Advocates for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth Order; and

D E C R E E

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

2.that there be no costs.

16 J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.52/2017, dated 15.04.2024

(* A copy of the plaint schedule is hereto appended)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 15th day of April, 2024 xxx,Sd/-Y.Premalatha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gajuwaka

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

No costs memo filed Rs. Ps. Stamp on Vakalat : 2-00 Senior Advocate Fee : 3,000-00 Junior Advocate Fee : 1,000-00 -------------- Costs certified : 4,002-00 --------------- xxx,Sd/-Y.Premalatha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gajuwaka

1 J.C.J Court, Gwk R.C.C.1/2018, dated 22.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT GAJUWAKA

Present: Smt. Y.PREMALATHA,

Civil Judge (JUNIOR DIVISION), Gajuwaka

Tuesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2024

R.C.C.NO.1/2018

Between :

Sri. Kantumutchu Appanna, S/o. Late Nookanna, aged about 50 years, residing at D.No.15-1-86, Jalaripallepalem, Gangavaram Municipal Corporation, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

...Petitioner

And :

Sri. Kantumuchu Polayya, S/o. Late Appanna, aged about 40 years, residing at D.No.15-1-86, Jalaripallepalem, Gangavaram, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. ….Respondent

This petition is coming on 16.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Raja Rao and Sri.K.Lokesh, Advocates for the Petitioner and of Sri.B.Prabhakara Rao, Smt.S.B.Ch.Lakshmi, Advocates for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner under section 10 (2)(1)(vi) of A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property and direct the respondent to put the petitioner/landlord in vacant possession of the petition schedule property within the time stipulated by this Court and for costs of the petition and for such other relief or reliefs.

2 J.C.J Court, Gwk R.C.C.1/2018, dated 22.04.2024

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

(a) He is the absolute owner of the RCC building consisting of 2 portions bearing No.15-1-86, Assessment No.5201001088004414, constructed in a site measuring an extent of 107 square yards covered by plot

No.1106, Sy.No.38/3 and 34 situated at Jalaripallepalem, Gangavaram,

Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Out of the said two portions of the building, one portion was given to the respondent for monthly rent on 25-08- 2013. The respondent is the first son of Late Appanna who is the elder brother of the petitioner. The respondent along with his wife and children had been residing in respondent's father's residence bearing D.No.15-1-89 until more than 2 1/2 years ago by the time of issuing notice dt.21-03-2016.

(b) It is further submitted that due to cyclone in the month of

August, 2013 the house of Late Appanna in which the respondent had been residing until then was damaged and then the respondent approached him and requested to give the vacant with slabbed residential portion of R.C.C building i.e., the petition schedule property situated in front of the petitioner's house bearing D.No.15-1-86 on rent. Himself and his family members are residing in another portion of the R.C.C building covered by roof tiles side of the schedule premises. On the request of the respondent, he gave the said schedule portion to the respondent on rental basis @Rs.800/- per month on oral understanding without taking any advance amount and without demanding the respondent to execute any documents as the respondent is the son of the petitioner's brother.

3 J.C.J Court, Gwk R.C.C.1/2018, dated 22.04.2024

(c) It is further submitted that on 25-08-2013, the respondent has been residing in the said portion and had paid the monthly rent of Rs.800/- per month for only six months properly and from then onwards the respondent has been residing in the said portion without paying the monthly rents to him. The respondent taking advantage of the relationship of the petitioner, the respondent stopped payment of rent. He requested the respondent many times to pay the arrears of rent due to him till date and to vacate the said portion and hand over the vacant possession to him, but the respondent has been postponing to pay the arrears of rent amount of

Rs.38,400/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Only) for a period of 4 years i.e., 48 months, on one pretext or the other and with a malafide intention, the respondent has not vacated the said portion and not made payments of the rents to the petitioner to cause severe loss and injury to the petitioner.

(d) It is further submitted that the door number of the two portioned R.C.C building is wrongly noted in the house tax pass book and in demand notice by the GVMC Officials. It is noted as 15-1-85 instead of 15-1-

86. In fact the Door No.15-1-85 belongs to the house of Kantumutchu

Dhanayya, S/o. late Nookanna. The petitioners made applications to the

GVMC authorities for rectification of the wrong mentioned door number. The petitioner's son i.e., K.Appa Rao is unemployee and he is married one and having two children. The respondent in all the way without paying the rent at the rate of Rs.800/- per month, made deaf ear to the request and demand of the petitioner to vacate the premises and dragging on the same by occupying 4 J.C.J Court, Gwk R.C.C.1/2018, dated 22.04.2024 premises without coming forward to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the petition schedule property. As such, the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rents and stayed in the schedule premises.

(e) It is further submitted that on 21-03-2016, he got issued legal notice to the respondent demanding the respondent to vacate the premises by paying arrears of rent, since the respondent committed wilful default in payment of monthly rents as a required the petition schedule property for his own and personal use and occupation of his son. The said notice received by the respondent and got issued reply notice dt.14-04-2016 with all false allegations, without any bonafide with a view to evade the payment of the arrears of rent and vacate the schedule premises. However, the respondent came to petitioner and village elders with a request to grant some time for making the payment of the arrears of rents and vacating the schedule premises. On believing his version he waited till date. But the respondent did not turn up and committed default in payment of rents and vacating the schedule premises. The petition schedule premises is more than 15 years old building and the rent is Rs.800/- per month. Hence, this petition.

3.The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that:

(a) There is no cause of action to file this petition. There is no landlord and tenant relation in between himself and the petitioner. The schedule property was devolved on the respondent on the partition effected about ten years back. Since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without any interruption. The petitioner with a view to 5 J.C.J Court, Gwk R.C.C.1/2018, dated 22.04.2024 cause damage and to grab his property, the petitioner filed this vexatious petition taking advantage of the poor and illiteracy of the respondent.

Admittedly, the petition schedule property situated in Plot No.1106 and it was allotted to his grandfather Kantumuchu Nookanna by the Steel Plant authorities under the Rehabilitation scheme. While in the life time of

Nookanna, he constructed two portioned house. After demise of Nookanna, the schedule property was devolved on the legal representatives of the deceased Nookanna. Kantumuchu Nokanna, S/o. Nookanna is having four sons and one daughter i.e 1. Appanna (died) 2.Satteyya(died) 3.Kadiri

Durgamma, W/o.Danayya 4.Nookanna 5.Appanna(Petitioner).

(b) It is further submitted that all the legal representatives of

Kantumuchu Nookanna got allotted the individual plots from the steel plant authorities and constructed their individual houses in which they got allotment. The 5th person in Pedigree is the petitioner and the 1st person's son in pedigree is the respondent herein. After demise of Nookanna, the petitioner and the respondent got one portion each towards their share in the plot of Nookanna before the village elders about ten years back, since then the respondent is in the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property with an absolute rights, hence the question of tenancy does not arise. Hence it isprayed to dismiss the petition.

4. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, P.Ws 1 & 2 were and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked.

6 J.C.J Court, Gwk R.C.C.1/2018, dated 22.04.2024 5.Heard the arguments.

6.The contention of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the RCC building consisting of 2 portions bearing No.15-1-86 constructed in a site measuring an extent of 107 square yards covered by plot No.1106,

Sy.No.38/3 and 34 situated at Jalaripallepalem, Gangavaram, Pedagantyada

Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Out of the said two portions of the building, one portion was given to the respondent for monthly rent on 25-08-2013. The respondent is the first son of Late Appanna who is the elder brother of the petitioner. On 25-08-2013, the respondent has been residing in the said portion and had paid the monthly rent of Rs.800/- per month for only six months properly and from then onwards, the respondent has been residing in the said portion without paying the monthly rents to him.

7.856The counsel for the petitioner submitted the following decision to support his contention.

1.Omkar Tele & Another Vs. Mohd.Abdul Rahman & Others, reported in 2010 0 Supreme (AP) 401, wherein it was held that " Burden of proof lies on the tenant in an eviction petition to prove that he is not a willful defaulter in payment of rent".

2. Navabharath Educational Committee, represented by President,

Tirupathi Vs. P.Venkateswarlu, reported in 1997 0 Supreme (AP) 456, wherein it was held that " denying title of Land Lord-Eviction -Tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent for 63 months-Tenant spending huge amount for improvement of property without consent of Landlord-Not 7 J.C.J Court, Gwk R.C.C.1/2018, dated 22.04.2024 permissible-There must be tacit or express consent from the Landlord before rent is diverted-Tenant is liable for eviction".

3. P.Ramachaadra Reddy Vs. C.Desamma, reported in 2001 0

Supreme (AP) 282, wherein it was held that "Denial of title by tenant is not bona fide and tenant is a willful defaulter in payment of rents and landlady is entitled to seek eviction of tenant for her personal requirement".

4. Susheela Partani Vs. Mukund Das Partani, reported in 2005 0

Supreme (AP) 828, wherein it was held that " there may be cases that on the strength of the clear admissions made by the tenant, the landlord need not establish anything more and on the strength of such admissions, the tenant may be liable for eviction on one or the other ground specified under

Section 10 of the Act".

8.The contention of the respondent is that there is no landlord and tenant relation in between himself and the petitioner. The schedule property was devolved on the respondent on the partition effected about ten years back, since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without any interruption. Admittedly, the petition schedule property situated in Plot No.1106 and it was allotted to his grandfather Kantumuchu Nookanna and he constructed two portioned house. After demise of Nookanna, the petitioner and the respondent got one portion each towards their share in the plot of Nookanna before the village elders about ten years back. Since then, the respondent is in the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property with absolute rights, hence the question of tenancy does not arise.

8 J.C.J Court, Gwk R.C.C.1/2018, dated 22.04.2024 9.On considering the said rival contentions of both parties, the following point that arose for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to evict the respondents

from the petition schedule property as prayed for?

POINT :- 10.The Petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 by re-iterating the averments in his petition and he got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P3. Ex.P.1 is office copy of Legal notice, dt.21-03-2016 got issued by him to the respondent;

Ex.P2 is the Original acknowledgment of the respondent; and Ex.P3 is the original Reply notice, dt.14-04-2016 got issued by the respondent to him. He further deposed that the father of respondent i.e., late Kantumutchu Appanna severed relationship with his original family as he was adopted by the late

Kadiri Mutyalamma and her husband late Kaidiri Danayya at the age of 14 years of Appanna. The father of respondent is having individual house with plot No.1100 at Jalaripeta, Gangavaram Village. The said Appanna i.e., father of respondent has also acquired the house property bearing Plot No.1103,

Jalaripeta, Gangavaram village of the above said Kadiri Mutyalamma. As such, the respondent can acquire any share if he is entitled in the above said properties of late Kantumutchu Appanna i.e., father of the respondent and the other property of Kadiri Mutyalamma only. He further deposed that the respondent falsely incorporated the name of Vadamodulu Dhanaraju in two ration cards of Kantumutchu Satamma i.e., respondent's mother mother and another ration card of Kadiri Sairao. Infact, the said Dhanaraju is son of original father and mother i.e., Sri.Vodamodalu Rama Rao and Vodamodula

Pydamma. The said Pydamma is the third sister of respondent and residing at 9 J.C.J Court, Gwk R.C.C.1/2018, dated 22.04.2024

Kakinada along with her husband and her son Dhanaraju. However, the respondent has cheated the Government and officials by creating the false ration cards by inserting/incorporating the name of Dhanaraju as he is the son of Kantamutchu Appanna in one ration card and in another ration card is son of Kadiri Sairao and the respondent used the said false documents of ration cards and secured benefits of the Government for the said Dhanaraju by joining him in Government ITI, Visakhapatnam. The petition schedule property along with other portion was devolved on him after having partition of his family settlement and the same was allotted to him only and the respondent is no where concerned as his father is not their family member.

One Kantumutchu Appa Rao, who is son of the petitioner was examined as

P.W.2 and he supported the evidence of P.W.1.

11. The respondent himself was examined as R.W.1 by re-iterating the averments in his Counter and got marked Exs.R1 & R2. Ex.R1 is the Legal notice, dt.02-12-2023 issued by the petitioner to the respondent and 10 others and Ex.R2 is the understanding letter, dt.07-08-2022. One Kantumuchu

Nookanna, who is junior paternal uncle of respondent was examined as R.W.2.

He supported the evidence of R.W.1.

12.On careful perusal of the above evidence, the petitioner contended that he is the absolute owner of the RCC building consisting of 2 portions, one portion was given to the respondent for monthly rent on 25-08- 2013. As seen from the evidence, father of P.W.1 is Kantumutchu Nookanna and he is having four sons and one daughter and all the sons and daughter of his father were allotted five house plots by the Steel Plant Authorities.

10 J.C.J Court, Gwk R.C.C.1/2018, dated 22.04.2024

Respondent is elder brother’s son of the petitioner. P.W.1 admitted that the schedule property was originally allotted to his father by name Kantumutchu

Nookanna and at present respondent is residing in one portion of the schedule property and one Kadiri Mutyalamma is residing in another portion of the schedule property. On the other hand, the respondent contended that after demise of Nookanna, the petitioner and the respondent got one portion each towards their share in the plot of Nookanna before the village elders about ten years back, since then the respondent is in the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. P.W.1 admitted that during pendency of the suit, he got issued Ex.R1 legal notice to the respondent and 10 others during pendency of this petition. As per Ex.R1 notice, it is mentioned that he was forced to sign on Ex.R2 understanding letter by the 10 persons and caused injustice to him. P.W.1 further admitted that respondent and 9 members of village elders signed on the Ex.R2 understanding letter and also mentioned that the property of his father was divided into two equal shares and the same will be registered with their own expenses. The oral evidence of R.Ws1 and 2 coupled with Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 supported the contention of the respondent. If really, the respondent forcebly obtained the signatures of the petitioner by threatening in Ex.R2 understanding letter, the petitioner would have taken steps against respondent and village elders.

13.Further, the respondent contended that there is no landlord and tenant relationship in between himself and the petitioner. R.W.1 admitted that the door number mentioned in the ration card is 15-1-89 belongs to his father and stated that they resided in the said door number prior to the 11 J.C.J Court, Gwk R.C.C.1/2018, dated 22.04.2024 entering into the schedule property and they did not take any other fresh ration card on the present door number. R.W.2 who is junior paternal uncle of

R.W.1 stated that there are no cordial terms in between the petitioner and other family members. Admiitedly, the patta for the schedule property is in the name of his grandfather by name Kantumutchu Nookanna and the respondent is residing one of the portion of the schedule property. But, the petitioner did not file documentary proof to show that he let out the portion of the schedule property to the respondent or he did not file any receipts to show the payments of rents to him. Both parties are claiming right over the schedule property which shows there is dispute regarding the jural relationship as land lord and tenant in between the parties. But the petitioner did not take any steps to prove right over the schedule property. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no cogent evidence on record to prove the contention of the petitioner.

14.On considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove the jural relationship between himself and respondent as landlord and tenant. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property. Accordingly, the point is answered against the petitioner.

15.In the result, petition is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III and corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22rd day of April, 2024

xxx,Sd/-Y.Premalatha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Gajuwaka 12 J.C.J Court, Gwk R.C.C.1/2018, dated 22.04.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined

For Petitioners :

P.W.1 : Kantumutchu Appanna (Petitioner)

P.W.2: Kantumutchu Appa Rao

For Respondent :

R.W.1 :Kantumuchu Polayya Respondent)

R.W.2 : Kantumuchu Nookanna

No. of Exhibits marked

For Petitioners :

Ex.P.1/ Office copy of Legal notice, dt.21-03-2016 got issued by him to the respondent

Ex.P2/Original acknowledgment of the respondent

Ex.P3/Original Reply notice, dt.14-04-2016 got issued by the respondent to him

For Respondent :

Ex.R1/Legal notice dt.02.12.2023 issued by the petitioner to the respondent and 10 others

Ex.R2/Understanding letterdt.07.08.2022 xxx,Sd/-Y.Premalatha,

Civil Judge( Junior Division),

Gajuwaka

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No costs memo filed on either sides xxx,Sd/-Y.Premalatha,

Civil Judge( Junior Division),

Gajuwaka

//FAIR//

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

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Smt. Y.Premalatha,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Friday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026

OS.No.1116/2024

Between : State Bank of India, incorporated under State Bank of India Act 23/1955, having its Central Office at Mumbai and local head office at Amaravati and branches all over India and one such branch at NAD Kotha Road Junction, Visakhapatnam Reptd. by its Manager, Mr. Pratoori Krishna Mohan, Slo P. Venkata Ramana, Hindu, aged 55 years, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, NAD Kotha Road Branch, Visakhapatnam.

...Plaintiff

And : Bommakanti Pujita Vara Soumya, C/o Palteru Rajesh, aged 41 years, Employee, R/ at D.No:6-23-4/4, FF-1, Surya Residency, East point Colony, Opposite VUDA Park, Visakhapatnam.

...Defendant

This suit has come before me on 11-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Bevara (K) Deepthi Sree, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant having remained exparte and the matter 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 by the plaintiff bank against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.14,30,693/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Thousand

Six Hundred and Ninety Three Only) together with interest at 12.1 %, p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

//FAIR//

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

a) The plaintiff bank is a Corporation constituted under State Bank of

India Act, 1955 and having its head office in Mumbai, Maharashtra and one of its local head offices at Andhra Pradesh and amongst other places a branch office at

NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam.

b) The defendant approached the plaintiff's bank's branch at State

Bank of India, Waltair, Visakhapatnam and submitted an application dated 28-10- 2021 for sanction of Personal loan under Xpress Credit Scheme and having considered the request of the defendant and having satisfied with the information given by her, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen

Lakhs only) to the defendant as per arrangement letter dt:28.10.2021. The defendant has executed personal loan agreement on 28.10.2021 in favour of the plaintiff bank. The rate of interest agreed is 12.1% per annum with monthly rests linked to MCLR and the loan amount has to be repaid by the defendant in 72 equated monthly installments @ Rs.29,404/- and repayment commenced as per the repayment schedule i.e. from November, 2021. The plaintiff bank has also opened account No.40539016181 in the name of the defendant and the loan was debited to the defendant's account on 28-10-2021.

c)The defendant also availed another personal loan to a tune of

Rs.4,98,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand only) as per arrangement letter dt.12-11-2021 and she executed personal loan agreement on 11.11.2021 in favour of the plaintiff bank. The rate of interest agreed is 12.6% per annum with monthly rests linked to MCLR and the loan amount has to be repaid by the defendant in 72 equated monthly installments @ Rs.9,893/- and repayment commenced as per the repayment schedule i.e. from December, 2021. The plaintiff bank has also opened account No. 40573630544 in the name of the defendant and the loan was debited to the defendant's account on 12-11-2021.

//FAIR//

d)After availing the loan amount, the defendant paid 36 installments and 291 installments towards loan account 40539016181, 40573630544 respectively and thereafter the defendant defaulted in payment of the installments and failed to repay the loan installments regularly, as per terms of sanction agreed by her and both the loan accounts became a non performing asset (NPA) on 27-07-2024 in the books of the bank as per the guidelines of Reserve

Bank of India Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank through its officials, the defendant did not regularize the account and has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other. The plaintiff bank also got issued Registered

Lawyer's Notices on 05-08-2024 to the defendant demanding the defendant to repay the outstanding loan amount and the defendant received the notices as per acknowledgement dtd:06-08-2004. The defendant failed to comply with the terms of the notice and she failed to respond to the notices and requests made by the plaintiff bank to repay the outstanding loan amount

e)There is an outstanding loan amount of Rs.10,49,729/- (Rupees

Ten Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Nine only) and

Rs.3,52,543/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Forty

Three only) in the loan account bearing No.40539016181, 40573630544 respectively as on 27.07.2024 in the loan account of the defendant as per the statement of loan account maintained by the plaintiff bank in the ordinary course of business under The Banker's Books Evidence Act, which is filed along with the plaint.

f)As the loan account of the defendant became a Non Performing

Asset on 27.07.2024 in the books of the bank, interest from 27-07-2024 onwards is not applied as per instructions of Reserve Bank of India. Hence the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 12.1% from 27-07-2024 onwards on the outstanding loan amount Rs.10,49,729/- and Rs.3,52,543/- The plaintiff bank is entitled to charge interest @ 12.1% as per the contract rate made under S.21-A of The Banking //FAIR//

Companies Act, hence the defendant is liable to pay the amount along with contractual rate of interest. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.4,50,271/- towards the principle amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.1,45,457/- towards the principle amount of Rs.4,98,000/- borrowed by the defendant. The last payment made by defendant on July, 2024. Hence the suit.

3.In response to the summons issued by the Court, the defendant by way of paper publication, she did not appear before the Court and did not get represented the matter through counsel. Hence she was set exparte on 10.03.2026.

4.The Branch manager of plaintiff bank is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A13.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff bank.

6.Now the point that arise for determination is :

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

P O I N T :

7. Even though the defendant is exparte, it is for the plaintiff bank to prove its case to avail judgment in its favour. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff bank, its Manager was examined as P.W.1, who filed her affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief, wherein she reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such examination-in-chief of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of plaint. To prove the ocular evidence, P.W.1 exhibited Ex.A1 to A13. Ex.A1 is the original authorisation letter issued by the plaintiff bank in favour of Sri.Santosh Kumar Buddepu. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of under section 2A(b)(c) of banker's books of Evidence Act, dt.04.09.2024. Ex.A3 is the original application form. Ex.A4 is the original arrangement letter for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, dt.28.10.2021. Ex.A5 is the original personal loan agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff //FAIR// bank for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, dt.28.10.2021. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of statement of loan account of the defendant bearing No.40539016181 from 28.10.2021 to 04.09.2024. Ex.A7 is the original application form. Ex.A8 is the original arrangement letter for an amount of Rs.4,98,000/-, dt.12.11.2021. Ex.A9 is the original personal loan agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank for an amount of Rs.4,98,000/-, dt.12.11.2021. Ex.A10 is the certified copy of statement of loan account of the defendant bearing No.40573630544 from 12.11.2021 to 04.09.2024, dt.04.09.2024. Ex.A11 is the office copy of registered lawyer’s notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant for loan account

No.40539016181, dt.05.08.2024. Ex.A12 is the office copy of registered lawyer’s notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant for loan account

No.40573630544, dt.05.08.2024. Ex.A13 is the originals acknowledgements (2Nos) from the defendant, dt.06.08.2024.

8. On perusal of Exs.A1 to A13 along with evidence of P.W.1, it discloses that the the defendant approached the plaintiff bank's branch and submitted Ex.A3 - application for sanction of Personal loan under Xpress Credit Scheme and having considered the request of defendant and having satisfied with the information given by him, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs Only) to defendant, as per Ex.A4 - arrangement letter dt:28.10.2021 and agreed to repay the loan with interest @ 12.1% per annum with monthly rests linked to MCLR and the loan amount has to be repaid by her in 72 Equated Monthly

Installments at the rate of Rs.29,404/- per month and defendant executed Ex.A5 –

Personal loan agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- dt.28.10.2021. The defendant had also availed another loan to a tune of Rs.4,98,000/- by submitting Ex.A7 – Loan application and the same was arranged under Ex.A8 – Arrangement letter for an amount of

Rs.4,98,000/-, dt.12.11.2021 and agreed to the repay the same interest @ 12.6% pa., with monthly rests linked to MCLR and the loan amount has to be repaid by the defendant in 72 equated monthly installments @ Rs.9,893/-. After availing the loan //FAIR// amount, the defendant committed default in payment of installments and failed to repay the loan installments regularly, and the loan account of the defendant became NPA on 27.07.2024. The plaintiff got issued a Ex.A11- Registered lawyer’s notice on 05.08.2024 to the defendant demanding the defendant to repay the outstanding loan amount and the defendant received the notices as per acknowledgment,dt.06.08.2014. As the defendant remained ex-parte, the evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged.

9.The evidence of P.W.1 supported with Ex.A1 to A13 remains unchallenged. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to A13, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff bank has proved the case against the defendant to pay the outstanding loan amount of Rs.14,30,693/-(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty

Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Three Only) to the plaintiff bank with interest.

Therefore, this Court hold that the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered infavour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

10.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay Rs.14,30,693/- (Rupees

Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Three Only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization on the outstanding loan amount of Rs.14,30,693/- (Rupees Fourteen

Lakhs Thirty Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Three Only).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-Premalatha

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

//FAIR//

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant : NIL

P.W.1 : Santosh kumar Buddepu (Manager)

No. of Documents Marked

For Plaintiff : For Defendant : NIL

Ex.A1: Original authorisation letter issued by the plaintiff bank in favour of

Sri.Santosh Kumar Buddepu.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of under section 2A(b)(c) of banker's books of Evidence Act, dt.04.09.2024.

Ex.A3 : Original application form.

Ex.A4: Original arrangement letter for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, dt.28.10.2021.

Ex.A5 : Original personal loan agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, dt.28.10.2021.

Ex.A6 : Certified copy of statement of loan account of the defendant bearing

No.40539016181 from 28.10.2021 to 04.09.2024.

Ex.A7 : Original application form.

Ex.A8 : Original arrangement letter for an amount of Rs.4,98,000/-, dt.12.11.2021.

Ex.A9: Original personal loan agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank for an amount of Rs.4,98,000/-, dt.12.11.2021.

Ex.A10: Certified copy of statement of loan account of the defendant bearing

No.40573630544 from 12.11.2021 to 04.09.2024, dt.04.09.2024.

//FAIR//

Ex.A11: Office copy of registered lawyer’s notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant for loan account No.40539016181, dt.05.08.2024.

Ex.A12 : Office copy of registered lawyer’s notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant for loan account No.40573630544, dt.05.08.2024.

Ex.A13 : Originals acknowledgments (2Nos) from the defendant, dt.06.08.2024.

Sd/-Premalatha

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

//FAIR//

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION):: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Y.Premalatha,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam

Friday, the 15 th day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No : 1202 of 2024

Between:

Union Bank of India, Dwarakanagar Branch, D.No.47-11-7, Waltair Station Road, Visakhapatnam – 530016, rep., by the branch manager Satyabrata Mohanti, S/o Abhimanyu Mohanti, aged about 40 years.

...Plaintiff

and

Gorrepati Satya Rama Sirisha Devi, W/o G.Srinivasa Rao, R/at D.No.31-58- 24/4, Kurmannapalem Phase 7, Gloriya Public School, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam.

... Defendant

This suit came up before me for final hearing on 11.05.2025 in the presence of Sri.G.Lakshmi Rambabu, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte, upon hearing and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.12,42,411/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred only) against the defendant with subsequent interest at the rate of 7.4% with the monthly rests from the date of filing till the date of realization and for costs.

02. The necessary averments made by the plaintiff – bank in the plaint are narrated succinctly, as under :

a) The Plaintiff is a Union Bank of India, a Nationalized Bank con- stituted and functioning under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisi- tion and Transfer of undertaking) Act of 1970, having its Head Office at 239,

Union Bank Bhavan, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai 400021 and branches all over India, one of its branches at Visakhapatnam Main Branch, Dwarakana- gar Branch, D.No.47-11-7, Waltair Station Road, Visakhapatnam-530016 rep by the Branch Manager Satyabrata Mohanti, S/o Abhimanyu Mohanti,

b) The defendant approached Union Bank of India, Dwarakana- gar Branch, Visakhapatnam on 04.01.2021 for purchase of new Four Wheeler (Tata Harrier XT +BS6, Bearing Reg.no. AP39HU3379) vehicle loan an amount of Rs.16,50,000/- to the defendant for the purpose of purchase of new vehicle and submitted an application. The same was sanctioned to the defen- dant on 08.01.2021 under Account no. 010630100079849. The defendant agreed to repay the loan with interest @ 7.4% per annum (i.e.2% above base rate of the bank) with compounded monthly rests, subject to revised rates of interest as per the guide lines of RBI from time to time. The defendant also agreed to repay the loan amount. The defendant accepted the terms of sanc- tion and executed Four Wheeler Loan for the self purpose for which the de- fendants have executed all necessary loan documents in favour of the bank.

The said documents are filed herewith and the same may be read as a part of the plaint.

c) The defendant have availed the loan sanctioned by the Plaintiff

Bank and irregular in paying the installments to the plaintiff bank. Hence the account became NPA on 06.01.2024. In spite of repeated demands made both oral and in writing, the defendant failed to pay the amount due in the loan account of the defendant and postponing the same on one pretext or the other. The last payment made by the defendant is an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 06.11.2023. The plaintiff bank has issued a Registered Lawyer notice on 29.04.2024 to the defendant to repay the amount due. The defendant failed to keep up their promise and failed to repay the amount due as promised in the loan documents. The defendant owed an amount of Rs.12,91,144/-, as on 06.01.2024 as per the statement of account filed herewith, which shows the amount due and the particulars of amounts paid by the defendant etc.

d) The account maintained by the Plaintiff Bank in ordinary course of business under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act, Information

Technology Act and other relevant laws in force. The defendant as a principal borrower liable to repay the amount due with the present rate of interest @ 7.4% per annum with compounded monthly rests. The efforts taken by the of- ficials of the Plaintiff Bank are not yet fruitful and the defendant have not made the repayment of the amount due. Hence, the suit.

03.In response to the summons issued by the Court, the defendant by way of paper publication, he did not appear before the Court and did not get represented the matter through on his behalf. Hence he was set exparte on 13.03.2026.

04.During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff-bank, the Chief Manager of

Union Bank of India, Dwarakanagar branch was examined as PW.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A11.

05.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-bank and perused both oral and documentary evidence.

06.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the plaintiff - bank is entitled to recover the

suit claim from the defendants, as prayed for?”

POINT :-

07. In a suit for recovery of money, though the defendant is set ex-parte, the legal burden rests on the plaintiff to prove its case. The facts and evidence placed on record are required to be examined carefully, to arrive at a just decision as to whether the plaintiff has sufficiently proved the case or not.

08.The plaintiff – bank examined its chief Manager as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. As per the evidence of PW.1, the plaintiff–bank was in- corporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. PW.1 testified by way of filing chief deposition affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief stating that defendant approached the plaintiff bank for the purpose vehicle loan and sub- mitted Ex.A1 – loan application, dt.02.01.2021, the plaintiff-bank has sanc- tioned Loan of Rs.16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Laks Fifty Thousand only) to the defendant under Ex.A2 – Sanction letter, dt.08.01.2021. The defendant have executed all necessary documents i.e, Ex.A3 – Hypothecation agree- ment of vehicle loan, dt.08.01.2021 agreeing to repay the loan with interest @ 7.4% p.a and executed Ex.A5 – letter guarantee, dt.08.01.2021. And also exe- cuted Ex.A4 – General Term loan agreement, dt.08.01.2021. The plaintiff bank has issued Ex.A6 – registered lawyers notice, dt.29.04.2024 to the defendant to repay the amount due. There is outstanding liability due to the plaintiff bank is Rs.12,91,144/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Ninety One Thousand One hundred and Forty Four only) as on 06.01.2024 as per the Ex.A8 - The statement of account from 08.01.2021 to 09.09.2024. As the defendants remained ex- parte, the evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged.

09.Having been considered the material on record, the evidence pro- duced is sufficient to uphold the claim of the plaintiff - Bank. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the plaintiff-bank could establish the case by way of oral and documentary evidence and is entitled to recover the outstand- ing loan amount with interest mentioned therein from the defendants as prayed for. Point is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff-bank and against the defendants.

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

Rs.12,42,411/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred

only) together with interest @ 7.4 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the outstanding loan amount of

Rs.12,42,411/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred

only) to the plaintiff – Bank.

Typed directly to my dictation by the Stenographer of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Y.Premalatha

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant

P.W.1 :Satyabrata Mohanti Exparte

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1: Original Loan Application, dated 02.01.2021.

Ex.A2: Original Sanction letter, dated 08.01.2021.

Ex.A3: Original hypothecation agreement of vehicle loan, dt.08.01.2021.

Ex.A4: Original general term loan agreement, dt.08.01.2021.

Ex.A5: Original letter of guarantee, dt.08.01.2021.

Ex.A6: Original registered lawyer’s notice, dt.29.04.2024.

Ex.A7: Attested certificate of registration – form 23, dated. 12.02.2021.

Ex.A8: Original statement of account from 08.01.2021 to 09.09.2024 bearing No. 010630100078849, dt.09.09.2024.

Ex.A9: Original certificate of notional interest in NPA Account.

Ex.A10: Original certificate under Section 2A(a) (b) and (c) of banker's book of evidence Act, 1891.

Ex. A11: Attested copy of authorization letter, dt.03.09.2024.

For Defendant:- Exparte

Sd/- Y.Premalatha

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

VISAKHAPATNAM.

//Fair// //FAIR//

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

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Smt. Y.Premalatha,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Friday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026

OS.No.835/2025

Between :

Mallepu Divakar, S/o Veerraju, aged 53 years, R/at D.No.39-19-99/1, Flat No.9, Seetharama Residency, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam.

...Plaintiff

And :

Jami Appalanaidu, S/o Venkata Satyanarayana, aged about 32 years, R/at Danisettipalem, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

...Defendant

This suit has come before me on 12.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Akkireddy Satya Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant having remained exparte and the matter 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 by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.10,20,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) with subsequent interest @ 24% pa., from the date of suit till realization and for costs of the suit.

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

a)The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 10.08.2022 for the purpose of family expenses and discharge of sundry debts, and on the even date the defendant have executed a demand promissory note in favour of the at //Fair// //FAIR// plaintiff's residence agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% per month either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, the defendant failed to pay any amount either towards principal or interest in spite of repeated demands.

b) Inspite of persistent requests and demands made by the plaintiff for repayment of the above said debt, the defendant issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 13.09.2023 cheque bearing No.719556, drawn on the Indusind bank, Kothavalada branch, Vizianagaram District, towards part payment of the above said debt together with interest.

c) As per the instructions of the defendant, the plaintiff presented the said cheque in his bank ie., The Visakhapatnam Co-operative Bank

Limited, Pendurthi Branch, Visakhapatnam on 13.09.2023 for payment and the said cheque was returned without payment with an endorsement “Refer to

Drawer” on 14.09.2023 and the plaintiff intimated the said fact to the defendant.

The defendant requested the plaintiff to present the said cheque on 22.09.2023 to honour the said cheque. As per the defendant instructions the plaintiff again presented the said cheque in his bank ie., The Visakhapatnam Cooperative

Bank Limited, Pendurthi Branch, Visakhapatnam on 22.09.2023, but to the plaintiff’s utter shock and dismay, the said cheque was again returned unpaid with an endorsement “Refer to Drawer”. The plaintiff again informed about the dishonour of cheque to the defendant on the same day, but the defendant kept quite.

d) Thereupon, the plaintiff got issued a registered lawyer’s notice through his counsel on 29.09.2023 demanding the defendant to pay the amount due under the above said dishonoured cheque, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and the said notice was returned unserved on 10-10-2023 with an endorsement "Refused". The defendant knowing fully well //Fair// //FAIR// issued the cheque without maintaining proper account and it clearly shows that the defendant has no intention to clear the said legally enforceable debt amount of the plaintiff and subsequently the plaintiff filed the criminal compliant against the defendant for recovery of the cheque amount, on the file of VII

Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam vide S.T.C.No.334/2024 and the same is pending before the Court.

e) The defendant is neither paid interest nor principal amount to the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff approached the defendant and demanded him to clear the above said debt amount, but the defendant used to postponing the same on some pretext or other. Hence, the suit.

3.In response to the summons issued by the Court to the defendant, though the defendant got represented the matter through counsel, but he failed file written statement within statutory period of 90 days, hence he was set exparte on 05.12.2025.

4.The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point that arise for determination is :

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

P O I N T :

7.Even though defendant was set exparte, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case to avail judgment in his favour. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief, wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings, as such examination-in-chief of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of plaint.

//Fair// //FAIR//

8. To prove the ocular evidence that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) on 10.08.2022, the plaintiff exhibited Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is original suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dt.10.08.2022. On perusal of Ex.A1 shows that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) on 10.08.2022, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. The evidence of P.W.1 to that effect has been unrebutted as the defendant was remained exparte.

9.On considering the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has successfully proved his case that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) from plaintiff on 10.08.2022 and executed Ex.A1/promissory note. As such the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against defendant, directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.10,20,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Y.Premalatha

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

//Fair// //FAIR//

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant P.W.1 : Mallepu Divakar (Plaintiff). Exparte

No. of Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Original suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dt.10.08.2022.

For Defendant: Exparte

Sd/- Y.Premalatha

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam