CIVIL PLEADING
PLAINT
Brief facts of the case:
Janardhana Naidu, S/o. Krishnaiah residing at D.No. 249, Netaji Road, Tirupati,
borrowed Rs. 25,000 agreeing to pay 24% on 26th Feb 2008 from G. Srinivasa Yadav,
S/o. Ramaiah at D.No. 247, Netaji Road and executed a promissory note. The
promissory note was scribed by K. Venkatasubbaiah a document writer in Tirupati
and attested by a K. Damodhar Reddy and M. Subramanyam Naidu.
Srinivasa Yadav made demands for the repayment of the loan and also caused a
lawyer to notice dated 04.01.2011 to be sent to S. Janardhana Naidu.
Janardhana Naidu who received the notice on 27.01.2011 neither paid the amount
nor did he respond to the notice on 20th February 2011. G.Srinivasa Yadav filed a
suit for the recovery of the debt.
Plaint:
In the city civil court of Tirupati
Suit No …………………/2011
Srinivasa Yadav …….. Plaintiff
S/o. Ramaiah at D.No. 247, Netaji Road
v.
Janardhan Naidu ……. Defendant
S/o. Krishnaiah residing at D.No. 249, Netaji Road, Tirupati
Plaint filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VII Rule-10 and long cause title.
(1) Plaintiff
Srinivasa Yadav, S/o. Ramaiah aged 45 years, Hindu business, residing at D.No. 247, Netaji
Road, Tirupati, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court.
The address for services of notices etc. on the plaintiff is as stated above and come of
……………… advocate, Tirupati.
(2) Defendant
Janardhan Naidu, S/o. Krishnaiah, 40 years, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No. 249, Netaji
Road, Tirupati within the jurisdiction of honourable court.
The plantiff above mentioned states follows:-
(3) Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000 on 26.02.2008 and is a consideration thereof
executed a promissory note the like sum in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to pay interest at
24% per annum.
(4) The plaintiff made several demands on the defendant for the repayment of the debt. The
plaintiff also caused a registered lawyer‟s notice dated 04.01.2011 to be sent to the
defendant did not respond.
(5) The plaintiff submits that the defendant is not an agriculturist and he is not entitled to
the benefits under any of the debt relief of law.
(6) Cause of Action: For this suit arose on 26.02.2008 at Tirupati, within the jurisdiction of
this honourable court.
(7) The plaintiff values this suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction of 39,000/- and
pays a court fee of 1.666 under section 20 of A.P. Court fee and suits valuation Act.
(8) Particulars of Valuation
Principal borrowed 25,000
Interest 24% p.a from 26.02.2008 to 20.02.2011 14,000
Total: 39,000
Court fee paid thereon relief 1,666
Relief claimed:-
(9) It is, therefore, prayed that the honourable court may be pleased to pass judgement and
decree against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
(10) Directing the plaint defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.39,000 on with further
interest at the contract rate till the date of realization.
(11) Awarding the plaintiff the cost of this suit and
(12) Passing such further or other order as the honourable court may deem. Fit and proper
in the circumstance of the case.
XXX XXX
Advocate for the plaintiff Plaintiff
Verification
I the plaintiff, hereby declare that the facts stated above are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief.
List of the document filed:-
Documents: original promissory note executed by the defendant.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
Brief facts of the case:
‘A’ an aged widow about 80 years is the owner of immovable properties in Hyderabad. She
has a son, ‘B’, who was having a wife ‘C’. All are Indian Christians. ‘A’ is purported to here
executed an irrevocable indenture of settlement, by which the income of all the said
properties is supposed to have been given over to ‘B’ and ‘C’. ‘C’ has filed a suit against ‘A’ &
‘B’ for carrying out the provision of the said deed of settlement. She has also alleged in her
plaint that, the income, possession, and management are denied to her. ‘A’ wants to
contend in defence that the said deed was brought about by ‘B’ & ‘C’ under influence and
misrepresentations that neither the possession nor the management was ever handed over
to ‘B’ and ‘C’ and the said deed was never handed over upon, and that, she was still the sole
owner in possession and management of the properties in suit.
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD
SUIT NO. 19 OF 2013
Mrs. C,
Aged 32 years, Christian inhabitant
Residing at S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad …… Plaintiff
Vs
1) A and
2) B ….. Defendants
Written statement of the above mentioned defendant :-
The Defendant No: 1 above named states as follows:
1) Defendant No. 1 admits execution of the irrevocable indenture of settlement in favour of
defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff, but pleads that she was induced to do so by the undue
influence and misrepresentations of defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff as follows.
(a) The defendant was several times threatened with life by the plaintiff and defendant No.2
(b) On 9th April 2015, the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 brought an alleged magician in this
defendant’s house and threatened this defendant that they would have black magic
performed by the magicians and thus kill this defendant. This defendant, being old,
submitted to this diction and executed the indenture of settlement accordingly.
(c) Defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff represented to defendant No. 1 that the deed was one
of the General power of Attorney, empowering the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 to manage
the property of defendant No.1.
(d) Defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff misrepresented to a defendant No.1 that it was legally
necessary for defendant No.1 to executed a power of attorney and appoint ‘B’ and ‘C’ as
managers of defendant No. 1 property.
2) This defendant says that neither the possession nor the management of the property in
suit were handed over to the plaintiff or defendant No.2. The indenture of settlement was
times never acted upon as alleged. This, defendant therefore is still the full owner in
possession and management of the properties in suit.
The Defendant therefore prays and counter claims
That it may be declared that the said deed of settlement be declared null and void as against
her and that the same day by order of this honourable court be cancelled. This suit be
dismissed with cost.
Date:
A
xxxxxx
Defendant No.1
VERIFICATION
I, defendant, to hereby declared that the facts stated above true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief.
xxxx xxxx
Advocate of defendant Defendant No. 1
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION
IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUPATI
I.A. (Civil) No. ____of 2021
In
Original Petition No. ____of 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
X ..…. Petitioners (Plaintiff)
vs.
Z ……Respondent (Defendant)
Cause Title :- Interlocutory Application
An application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908
The applicant above-named states as follows:
1. That, the Plaintiff has filed the instant Interlocutory Application against the defendant of
temporary injunction for restoration of possession of immovable property
2. That, the Plaintiff is the landlord of a residential apartment in Y Residential Society
(Defendant) located in Delhi. Plaintiff leased out the apartment on rent to Z on 01.01.2010.
The lease has been renewed every 11 months for a period of 11 months since 2010. The
lease was last renewed for 11 months on 01.12.2019 and a rent of Rs. 50,000/- was
agreed between the parties. Z maintained the residential property in a good condition and
paid maintenance charges to Defendant over and above the rent payable to Plaintiff.
3. That, Z defaulted in payment of rent to Plaintiff from January 2020. A scheme was
agreed via email and was meant to be an addendum to the rent agreement,
for a temporary period. However, Z did not comply with this scheme and did not make
any payment. Z has not made any payment of rent till date but continues living in the
apartment.
4. That, after about 6 months, Z started ignoring all of Plaintiff’s communications.
Left with no choice, Plaintiff visited Z in December 2020 to give him an ultimatum that he
either pay the arrears of rent or vacate the property.
5. That, Plaintiff found the property was locked and upon inquiry, Plaintiff found out that Z
had left the city about a month ago on vacation. Z was expected to come back in another 15
days. They also informed Plaintiff that Z had sold the property to Defendant.
6. That, Plaintiff approached the Defendant who informed him that the Society had
purchased the property from Z and that Z had given documents showing his title to the
property. The President also informed that Z had been paying rent to the Society and
there was nothing the Society could do about Plaintiff’s situation.
7. That, the chain of event leads to establishment of prima facie case of
dispossession of immovable property that must be restored hence, further investigation is
needed.
8. That, the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a
cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of
dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title
and the consequential relief of injunction.
9. That, Irreparable damages would be caused which may lead to dispossession and ill
treatment of immovable property leading to great losses to plaintiff. Temporary Injunction
would cause no harm to the defendant and if not will only add to the misery of the Plaintiff.
DECLARATION
The applicant above named
hereby solemnly declare that
nothing material has
been concealed or suppressed
and further declare that the
enclosures and typed set
of material papers relied upon
and filed herewith are true
copies of the originals
or fair reproduction of the
originals or true translation
thereof.
th
Verified at Delhi dated at 26
day of February 2021.
DECLARATION
The applicant above named
hereby solemnly declare that
nothing material has
been concealed or suppressed
and further declare that the
enclosures and typed set
of material papers relied upon
and filed herewith are true
copies of the originals
or fair reproduction of the
originals or true translation
thereof.
th
Verified at Delhi dated at 26
day of February 2021.
DECLARATION
The applicant above named
hereby solemnly declare that
nothing material has
been concealed or suppressed
and further declare that the
enclosures and typed set
of material papers relied upon
and filed herewith are true
copies of the originals
or fair reproduction of the
originals or true translation
thereof.
th
Verified at Delhi dated at 26
day of February 2021.
DECLARATION
The applicant above named hereby solemnly declare that nothing material has been
concealed or suppressed and further declare that the enclosures and typed set of material
papers relied upon and filed herewith are true copies of the originals or fair reproduction of
the originals or true translation thereof.
Verified at Tirupati dated at 26th day of March 2021.
Counsel for Applicant
ABC
2007/209
Applicant
X
AFFIDAVIT
I X S/o PQR age 38 working as Real estate agent, resident of Malviya Nagar do hereby
verify that the contents of the paras 1 to 5 are true to my personal knowledge /
derived from official record ) and para 6 to 9 are believed to be true on legal advice and that
I have not suppressed any material facts.
Date: 26/02/2021
Place: Delhi
Signature of the Appellant/ Petitioner or Authorised Officer
ORIGINAL PETITION
FACTS:
Mohan Reddy and Saraswathi both having married to each other, lived happily for about
two years after the marriage, but since one year S. Mohan Reddy, was subjecting his wife to
both physical and mental cruelty.
In the circumstances, Saraswathi submits that it has become undesirable and impossible for
her to live with her husband Mohan Reddy, Saraswathi seeks a decree for judicial
separation.
IN THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE, TIRUPATI
MARRIAGE O.P. No. __/2011
Smt. Saraswathi ………. Petitioner
Vs.
Mohan Reddy ………. Respondent
Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Hindu Marriage Act.
Name of the Petitioner
Smt. Saraswathi, W/o S. Mohan Reddy, Hindu aged about 30 years house wife residing at
17-6-93, Brahmin Street, Tirupati.
The address of the petitioner for the service of notice etc. is as stated above and also care of
her counsel. Smt. V. Geetha, Advocate, Tirupati.
Name of the Respondent: S. Mohan Reddy, S/o. Raja Reddy, Hindu aged about 32 years,
Doctor by Profession, residing at 8-3-97, G.S. Mada Street, Tirupati. The address of the
respondent for the service of notices etc. is as stated.
The petitioner submits that she is legally married wife of the respondent. This marriage was
celebrated in the year 2008 at Tirupati. At the time of marriage the petitioner‟s parent‟s
gave 25 thulas of gold and Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash as dowry to the respondent. The marriage
was consummated immediately.
The petitioner submits that, she is the legally married wife of the respondent. Their submits
that respondent has started his nursing home at Reddy & Reddy colony and gained good
reputation and were happy for 2 years i.e., since 2011 his life started to have ups and
downs.
The petitioner submits that the respondent slowly cultivated the bad habits and became
share to alcohol and used to have ephedrine etc. So have slowly began to lose his sexual
potency and attach become a total impotent. When he has been taken to Appolo Hospital,
Madras, the doctors have concluded that he lost his potency because of excessive narcotic
drugs and alcohol. The respondent became frustrated in his life. He gave up his practice
slowly the petitioner sold her jewels to maintain the family. Her parents also helped to some
extent.
The petitioner submits that because of inferiority complex the respondent started to
suspect the character of the petitioner. He used to abuse her with vulgar and filthy words
that, she had illegal connections with others. He used to abuse her even, if beggar stands in
front of the house, as the beggar is awaiting for her. She tolerate all these mental torture
added to this the respondent used to put cigarettes on her breast, thighs and other private
parts and burn them. He enjoys her screaming. Sometimes he gaged her mouth with cloth
and subject her to physical cruelty.
She apprehends danger to her parents’ house also. She apprehends danger to her life in the
hands of the respondent and it is impossible for her to live with such sadistic husband.
Hence the petition for Judicial separation Filed.
The cause of action for this petition for Judicial Separation arose on 01.02.2003 the date of
marriage and also 10.02.2011 when she frightened of her life ran away to her parents house
continues de divindum with the jurisdiction of this hounourable court.
The value of the petition for the purpose of court fee is of Rs. …….. Net and fixed court fee of
Rs. …../- paid V/Sec of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.
The petitioner submits that no similar petitioner has been filled so far before any court.
Prayer:-
The petitioner therefore prays that the honourable court may be pleased to pass an order
and decree.
(a) Declare that the marriage has been dissolved by judicial separation.
(b) Direct the respondent to pay cost of the petition. And pass such others and further
orders as it deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Advocate for petitioner Petitioner
VERIFICATION
I, the petitioner do here by declare that the facts state above are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and signed this verification on this the 25.02.2011 at
Tirupati.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
1) 01.02.2008 marriage invitation card.
2) Doctor prescription with wound certificate.
