APHC010548732006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3397]

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA

KRISHNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT NO: 193/2006

Between:

National Insurance Co. Ltd., ...APPELLANT

AND

M/s Monalisa Emplorium and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. VENKATESWARLU PALADUGU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P N MURTHY

2. CH SIVA REDDY

The Court made the following:

Reserved on 02.03.2026

Pronounced on 10.03.2026

Uploaded on 10.03.2026

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT No.193 of 2006

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short

‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/defendant No.1 challenging the Decree

and Judgment, dated 23.11.2005, in O.S.No.482 of 1996 passed by the

learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur [for short

‘the trial Court’].

2. The appellant herein is the defendant No.1, the respondent No.1 herein

is the plaintiff and the respondent No.2 herein is the defendant No.2 in

O.S.No.482 of 1996.

3. Originally, the respondent No.1/plaintiff herein filed the suit in

O.S.No.482 of 1996 against the defendants seeking for recovery of a sum of

Rs.1,72,650/- towards damages from the defendants with future interest and

costs.

4. Both parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before

the trial Court.

5. The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint averments in O.S.No.482 of

1996, in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiff had been carrying on business in cloth under the name and

style of ‘Monolisa Emporium’ and applied for financial assistance to the

Swasakthi, Guntur as a un-employee graduate. The plaintiff pleaded that the

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

Swasakthi authorities recommended the defendant No.2 for sanction of loan

to the plaintiff and subsequently, the defendant No.2 provided cash credit

facility to the plaintiff with a meager capital and the plaintiff commenced his

business. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant No.2 insisted the

plaintiff that the stocks lying in the premises of the plaintiff should be insured

against fire etc., and accordingly the stocks lying in the shop of the plaintiff

were insured with the defendant No.1 for Rs.2,25,000/- under cover note

No.68739, dated 27.11.1990, which is valid up to 26.11.1991 and paid a

premium of Rs.609/-.

The plaintiff further pleaded that on 26.10.1991, some miscreants

forcibly lifted the stock worth of Rs.1,25,000/- from the shop of the plaintiff,

while the plaintiff was away and immediately, the said fact was informed to the

defendant No.1 in his letter dated 27.10.1991 and the plaintiff also gave a

complaint to the Pattabhipuram Police station. The plaintiff pleaded that the

defendant No.2 failed to send a claim to the defendant No.1 immediately and

the defendant No.1, who received the information of theft from the plaintiff on

28.10.1991, suppressed the fact. The plaintiff pleaded that he filed

C.D.No.152/1993, on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Guntur and both

the defendants contested the said complaint and the defendant No.1 filed his

version in C.D.No.152/1993, on the file of the District Consumer Forum,

Guntur, and repudiated the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded

that the District Consumer Forum, Guntur, while dismissing the complaint of

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

the plaintiff, opined that there are complicated questions of fact are involved

and the plaintiff has to agitate his rights in Civil Court. Hence, the suit.

6. The case of the defendant No.1 as narrated in the written statement is

as follows:

The plaintiff obtained Shop Keepers Insurance Policy from the

defendant No.1 through the defendant No.2 on 27.11.1990, under a Cover

Note No.68739 for a period of one year from 27.11.1990 to 26.11.1991. The

defendant No.1 pleaded that the plaintiff approached the defendant No.2

through Swasakthi Authorities, Guntur, and the defendant No.2 sanctioned a

loan of Rs.50,000/-, to the plaintiff for running cloth shop on his executing

necessary documents as collateral security. The defendant No.1further

pleaded that the plaintiff failed to pay any amount on the credit bills to the

dealers in spite of their demands. While so, the defendant No.2 intimated to

the defendant No.1in its letter dated 26.08.1992, about the theft occurred in

the cloth shop of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 pleaded that the theft

occurred on 26.10.1991, and as per the term No.5 of the shopkeepers

insurance policy:- 1) The insured shall upon the occurrence of any event

giving rise or likely to give rise to a claim under the Policy- A) In the event of

theft lodge forthwith complaint with the police and taken all practicable steps

to apprehend the guilty person or persons and to recover the property lost, but

the plaintiff did not inform the defendant No.1 about the theft or did not filed a

claim form within 14 days or even after six months from the date of alleged

theft.

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

The defendant No.1 further pleaded that the plaintiff never intimated to

the defendant No.1 either on 27.10.1991 or on 25.10.1991 or on any other

date about the alleged theft and that never requested the defendant No.1 to

settle his claim. The defendant No.1 came to know about the claim of the

plaintiff only through the letter of the defendant No.2 on 26.08.1992. The

defendant No.1 further pleaded that the plaintiff filed a private complaint

before the VI AMM Court, Guntur, and the Court directed the Police to

investigate the case and the Police after investigation filed a final report

stating that it is a false complaint and the Court closed the case on the basis

of the final report. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that the plaintiff also

filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum, Guntur in C.D.NO.152 of 1993,

and the same was dismissed. The defendant No.1 pleaded that the defendant

No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.376 of 1993, against the plaintiff for recovery of a

sum of Rs.81,550/- due from the plaintiff and as the defendant No.2 failed to

succeed in the aforesaid suit, it colluded with the plaintiff and supporting the

plaintiff by stating that the defendant No.1 is liable to pay damages to the

plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

7. The case of the defendant No.2 as narrated in the written statement is

as follows:

The application of the plaintiff was sponsored by Swasakthi, Guntur with

Rs.15,000/- with margin money and ACC (hypothecation) limit of Rs.60,000/-

was sanctioned and the plaintiff availed the same. The defendant No.2

pleaded that the wife of the plaintiff and two others were the guarantors to the

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

plaintiff and the plaintiff was irregular in maintaining the loan account and the

stocks in the premises of the plaintiff were insured by the defendant No.1. The

defendant No.2 further pleaded that it is the duty of the insured to put claim

with the insurance company by producing reliable evidence for settlement of

the claim and the plaintiff had intimated about the incident to the insurance

company on 27.10.1991 and therefore the question of intimation by the

defendant No.2 to the insurance company does not arise and it is for the

insurance company to decide the matter whether to settle the claim or to

repudiate the claim basing on the material furnished by the insured.

The defendant No.2 further pleaded that it has filed a suit in O.S.No.376

of 1993,on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Guntur against the

plaintiff for recovery of amount due under loan account of plaintiff and the

plaintiff discharged the loan amount on 12.08.1995. The defendant No.2

further pleaded that the wife of the plaintiff is having an account with the

defendant No.2 and she was granted with cash credit loan and she filed

O.P.No.14 of 1997, on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Guntur,

against the defendant No.2 for deficiency of service at the instance of the

plaintiff to harass the defendant No.2. Therefore, the defendant No.1 prayed

to dismiss the suit with costs.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following

issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages? and

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

2) To what relief?

9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff,

P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8 were marked. On

behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B-1 to

Ex.B-7 were marked.

10. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides,

the trial Court vide its judgment, dated 23.11.2005, decreed the suit with costs

against the defendant No.1 and dismissed the suit without costs against the

defendant No.2, against which the present appeal is preferred by the

appellant/defendant No.1 in the suit questioning the Decree and Judgment

passed by the trial Court.

11. Heard Sri P.Ganesh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of

Sri Venkateswarulu Paladugu, learned Counsel for the

appellant/defendant No.1, Sri P.N.Murthy, leaned counsel for the respondent

No.1 and Sri Ch.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial Court

failed to observe that the defendant No.1/appellant herein has rightly

repudiated the claim of the plaintiff, since the claim of the plaintiff/Insured was

not a genuine one. He would further contend that the policy issued by the

appellant does not cover the risk of the stocks. Learned counsel for the

appellant would further contend that the trial Court failed to observe that after

a lapse of nine (09) months of occurrence only, the theft/burglary came to its

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

notice through a letter dated 26.08.1992, sent by the defendant No.2/the State

Bank of Hyderabad, Guntur . He would further contend that the trial Court

failed to observe that even assuming for a moment but not admitting that

Anjaneyulu and Subramanyam have taken away the stock from the plaintiff’s

shop, the plaintiff has to take legal action against the said two persons

Anjaneyulu and Subramanyam only, but not against the appellant herein as

per the terms and conditions of the Shop Keepers Policy. He would further

contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a

proper manner and came to a wrong conclusion and decreed the suit against

the appellant herein and that the decree and judgment passed by the trial

Court against the appellant herein may be set aside by allowing the appeal

filed by the defendant No.1/appellant.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff would

contend that on appreciation of entire evidence on record, the learned trial

Judge rightly decreed the suit against the defendant No.1 and there is no

need to interfere with the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court

against the defendant No.1 and that the appeal may be dismissed.

14. Now, in deciding the present appeal, the points that arise for

determination are as follows:

1) Whether the stocks lying in the shop of the plaintiff were insured

with the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff? If so, whether the alleged

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

offence complained by the plaintiff comes under the scope of

coverage of the insurance policy?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages as sought for?

15. Point No.1:

Whether the stocks lying in the shop of the plaintiff were insured

with the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff? If so, whether the alleged

offence complained by the plaintiff comes under the scope of

coverage of the insurance policy?

The undisputed facts of both the parties are that the plaintiff had been

carrying out a business under the name and style of ‘Monalisa Emporium’, at

Main Road, at Guntur, and he applied for financial assistance to the

Swasakthi, Guntur, under an un-employee graduate and they have

recommended the defendant No.2 for sanction of loan to the plaintiff and the

State Bank of Hyderabad, Guntur Branch, have sanctioned the loan to the

plaintiff. When the defendant No.2-Bank insisted the plaintiff that the stock

lying in the premises of the plaintiff shop should be insured against the fire

etc., accordingly the stocks lying in the shop were insured with the defendant

No.1 by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- dated 27.11.1991, which is

valid up to 26.11.1991. The above facts are undisputed by both the parties in

the suit.

16. In order to prove the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on his self-

testimony as P.W.1 and also examined his wife as P.W.2, it is in the evidence

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

of the plaintiff that on 26.10.1991, at 12.30 noon, at broad day light, two

persons have forcibly taken away the stock worth of Rs.1,25000/- from the

shop in the presence of his wife, who is looking after the business in the shop

during his temporary absence. P.W.1 further stated that on the very next day

he got issued legal notices to both the defendants and also lodged a

complaint before the Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station.

17. P.W.2 in none other than the wife of the plaintiff, even according to the

case of the plaintiff, as on the date of the alleged incident, she is looking after

the entire business of the plaintiff-shop and at that time the worker was also

present. As per the evidence of P.W.2, on 26.10.1991, her husband went to

Gurajala, to attend the cremation of his grandmother and she was looking

after the business on that day, at about 12.30 noon, some miscreants came to

their shop and stated that her husband has to discharge some debt and to that

effect they have taken away the entire stock. She further deposed that if she

resisted them, she has to bear the own consequences and also they have

used some abusive language against her and that she could not resist them

and they threatened and took away her stock. In cross-examination, she

stated that the said two (02) persons who came to their shop are

Subramanyam and M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and they have informed their names to

her.

18. The evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 go to show that the entire incident

had happened at broad day light, at 12.30 noon on 26.10.1991, in the shop

premises of the plaintiff, which is situated at Brundavan Garden, a prime

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

locality at main road at Guntur. There is no whisper in the evidence of P.W.2

that whether she made minimum resistance to prevent the alleged offence, or

she raised any cries to call the neighboring shop people of that locality. As per

the own evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2, their shop is situated at a prime

locality at Guntur Town, at the main road at Brundavan Garden. It is the case

of the plaintiff that on the very next day of incident, he lodged a complaint in

the Pattabhipuram Police Station, and the Police did not taken any action and

later he lodged a complaint before the Magistrate Court, Guntur, and the same

was forwarded to the Pattabhipuram Police Station and the Police registered a

case. No evidence is produced by the plaintiff to show that on the next date of

alleged incident, he lodged a complaint in the Pattabhipuram Police Station,

even as per Ex.A-4 First Information Report, the complaint was received by

the Pattabhipuram Police on 21.08.1992. Therefore, no prima facie evidence

is produced by the plaintiff to show that on the very next date of incident he

lodged a complaint in the Pattabhipuram Police Station. At least, he has not

summoned the Station House Officer of Pattabhipuram Police Station, to send

for the General Diary of the Pattabhipuram Police Station, to show that he has

lodged a complaint on the very next date of the incident.

19. The recitals in Ex.B-4 go to show that M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and

Subramanyam are the business merchants of Chirala, came to their shop and

informed to the P.W.2 at about 12.30 noon, at broad day light that her

husband has to discharge some debt amount to them and asked her to pay

the same, when she expressed her inability, they have forcibly taken away the

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

stock worth of Rs.1,25,000/- and handed over a Chit jointly to P.W.2 by

showing that the stock removed by them is only to a tune of Rs.34,813/- and

the plaintiff has to give a paltry sum Rs.5,000/- to their firm. Even as per the

recitals of Ex.B-4, which is the complaint lodged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff

has to discharge some amount to the said cloth merchants by names

M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and Subramanyam.

20. The recitals in Ex.B-4/complaint lodged by the plaintiff together with the

evidence of P.W.2 go to show that the plaintiff has to discharge some debt

amount to M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and Subramanyam-cloth merchants, since, the

plaintiff failed to discharge the said debt, they have taken away the unsold

cloth in the shop of the plaintiff worth of Rs.34,813/-. The plaintiff contended

that they have taken away the stock of Rs.1,25,000/- in the shop of the plaintiff

on the date of alleged incident. To prove the same, no evidence is produced

by the plaintiff, to show that the said M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and Subramanyam

have taken away the stock worth of Rs.1,25,000/-. Except his oral statement,

no inventory is filed by the plaintiff or the list of loss of the cloth with prices is

also not filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court. Even as per the admitted

case of the plaintiff, one of the worker was also present in the shop at that

time.

21. According to P.W.2, only two persons by names M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and

Subramanyam came to the shop of the plaintiff and have taken away the

unsold cloth in the shop of the plaintiff, which is situated at Main road, at

Brundavan Garden at Guntur, which is a busy locality and that too the alleged

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

incident had happened at a broad day light at 12.30 noon. If really the said two

persons viz., M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and Subramanyam lifted the unsold the stock

in the shop of the plaintiff highhandedly without the consent of P.W.2 and the

worker, certainly they will make a minimum resistance, then the neighboring

shop people will not keep quite and they will certainly prevent the said two

persons viz., M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and Subramanyam. Moreover, to prove the

alleged theft, except the wife of the plaintiff, no others were examined by the

plaintiff. The plaintiff also failed to examine the worker who is present at the

time of alleged incident and also failed to examine the neighboring shop

people to prove the alleged incident said to have been happened on the date

of alleged incident. As per the recitals of the complaint lodged by the plaintiff

under Ex.B-4, one Siva Narayana, who is the worker, was also present in the

shop and the Siva Narayana was also not examined as a witness by the

plaintiff before the trial Court.

22. It was pleaded by the defendant No.1 in the written statement itself that

no theft was occurred in the shop of the plaintiff. In the written statement, the

defendant No.1 pleaded that the plaintiff purchased cloth on credit basis from

One M/s Balaji Traders, Proprietor Anjaneyulu and M/s Raj Kamal Traders,

Proprietor Subramanyam of Chirala and in spite of several demands made by

them to clear of the credit bills, the plaintiff with a fraudulent intention evaded

the payment of debt to the said two wholesale dealers of Chirala. The

defendant No.1 further pleaded that the said M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and

Subramanyam vexed with the attitude of the plaintiff came to the Guntur, to

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

the shop of the plaintiff on 26.10.1991, and demanded the plaintiff and his

wife, who were present in the shop to pay the outstanding debts. The

defendant No.1 further pleaded that when the plaintiff pleaded his inability to

discharge, on the other hand asked them to take away their unsold stock,

having said so, the plaintiff went away leaving the shop to his wife and

therefore, the said two persons taken away the unsold stock with the consent

of the plaintiff and his wife. In the case at hand, the plaintiff failed to prove the

alleged theft said to have been happened in the shop by examining the worker

Siva Narayana, who is present in the shop on that day and also failed to

examine the neighboring shop people.

23. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that after referring the

complaint by the Magistrate, the Police registered a case and took up the

investigation and referred the said case was false and closed the same, the

same is not specifically denied by the plaintiff. Admittedly, no protest petition is

filed by the plaintiff for taking further action. The aforesaid series of events as

stated supra, clearly go to show, P.W.2 being the wife of the plaintiff is nothing

but a consenting party for lifting the clothes by M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and

Subramanyam, because she has not made minimum resistance and she did

not raised cries for objecting the acts of the said M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and

Subramanyam. If she had really made any cries, certainly the neighboring

shop people will not keep quite and they will come to prevent the alleged

offence that too it was happened at a broad day light at 12.30 noon i.e. at the

business hours. It seems that at the time of taking away the unsold by the said

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

two persons, no protest is made by either P.W.2 or the worker in the shop. It is

not the case of the plaintiff that the said two persons viz., M.S.R.Anjaneyulu

and Subramanyam came to the shop with weapons.

24. As stated supra, even as per the own case of the plaintiff, the entire

alleged incident was happened at a broad day light at 12.30 noon, at

Brundavan Gardens, at Guntur, which is a prime locality, number of persons

would have gathered there at that time and witness the same, in such

circumstances, the Police report ought to have been given immediately in the

earliest point of time. The wife of the plaintiff did not gave any report

immediately in the Pattabhipuram Police Station, which is situated within a

distance of 2 to 3 Kms from the shop of the plaintiff. As noticed supra, no

minimum resistance or no protest is made by P.W.2 or by her worker in the

shop at the time of lifting the unsold stock by M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and

Subramanyam. Therefore, it is evident that the wife of the plaintiff and the

worker in the shop by name Siva Narayana, who were present at the shop of

the plaintiff did not made any protest or resistance or did not raised any cries

to call the neighboring shop people to prevent the offence. Therefore, the

same does not come within the definition of ‘Theft/Burglary’ as stated by the

plaintiff. Admittedly, no evidence is produced by the plaintiff to show that both

the said two persons lifted the unsold stock forcibly. According to the plaintiff,

a stock of Rs.1,25,000/- was lifted by the said M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and

Subramanyam, as noticed supra, the stock inventory or the list of stock lost

with price list is also not filed by the plaintiff.

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

25. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the

plaintiff violated the terms and condition No.5 of the insurance police in

original of Ex.B-1, which is as follows:-

1. The insured shall upon the occurrence of any event giving rise or likely

to give rise to a claim under the Policy.

a) In the event of theft lodge forthwith complaint with the police and

taken all practicable steps to apprehend the guilty person or

persons and to recover the property loss.

b) Give immediate notice thereof to the company and shall within 14

days thereafter furnish to the company at his own expense

detailed particulars of the amount of the loss or damage together

with such explanations and evidence to substantiate the claim as

the company may reasonably require.

In the case at hand, it is the case of the plaintiff that on the very next

date of the alleged incident i.e. on 27.10.1991, he lodged a complaint to the

Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station. As notice supra, no

evidence is produced by the plaintiff to show that he lodged a complaint on

27.10.1991. Even as per Ex.A-4 relied by the plaintiff, the Police received a

complaint on 21.08.1992.

26. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that notice was not issued

by the plaintiff within 14 days from the alleged offence to the defendant

No.1/insurer. There is evidence on record under Ex.A-3 certificate of posting

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

to show that the plaintiff intimated the same to both the defendants on the very

next day. Ex.A-3 reveals that the postal stamp is also affixed by the Postal

Department on Ex.A-3. Therefore, the plaintiff has intimated the alleged

incident to the insurer on the very next date of the alleged incident.

27. The case of the plaintiff is that the Police did not take any action after he

lodging the complaint and that he presented a complaint before the Magistrate

Court, Guntur in the year 1992, and the learned Magistrate, Guntur, referred

the said complaint to the Police. It was contended by the learned counsel for

the defendant No.1 that after completion of investigation, the Police referred

the case as false in the year 1992 and the same is not denied by the plaintiff.

It is not the case of the plaintiff that he filed a protest petition before the

learned Magistrate to take further action. For the reasons best known to the

plaintiff, he kept quiet and did not initiated any action till so far to take further

steps on the final report filed by the Police. Therefore, it is evident that the

plaintiff has not taken all steps to apprehend the guilty person/persons and to

recover the property loss and he remained silent and that the plaintiff failed to

comply the Condition No.5 (1) (a) of the terms and conditions of

Ex.B-1insurance policy.

28. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the persons who had

taken away the stock by names M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and Subramanyam are

known person to the insured and the wife of the plaintiff and the worker, who

present in the shop did not made any resistance or cries to prevent the

alleged offence and the complaint lodged by the plaintiff is referred as false at

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

about more than twenty five (25) years ago by the Police, the plaintiff

remained silent and did not taken any steps till today. The aforesaid series of

events and the acts of the said two persons who came to the shop at broad

day light at 12.30 noon, when the shop was kept open that too it is at a prime

locality at Guntur, do not form a part of an act of Burglary or theft.

Furthermore, the said act does not come within the scope of coverage of the

insurance policy. As noticed supra, by the time of taking away the unsold

stock by the said two persons viz., M.S.R.Anjaneyulu and Subramanyam,

P.W.2 and the worker in the shop have not made any minimum protest or

resistance to prevent the alleged offence. The insurer/appellant rightly

repudiated the claim of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not entitled to any claim

from the appellant/insurance company.

Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

29. Point No.2:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages as sought for?

In view of my findings in Point No.1, the plaintiff is not entitled to any

damages from the defendant No.1 as ordered by the trial Court in its judgment

dated 23.11.2005. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper

manner and came to a wrong conclusion and decreed the suit against the

defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,72,650/- with interest and costs against the

defendant No.1. Therefore, the said decree and judgment dated 23.11.2005 in

VGKR, J.

AS_193_2006

O.S.No.482 of 1996, passed by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge

(Fast Track Court), Guntur, against the defendant No.1 is liable to the set

aside.

30. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Consequently the suit in O.S.No.482

of 1996, on the file of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track

Court), Guntur, is dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear

their own costs in the appeal.

__________________________

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

Date: 10.03.2026

SRT