IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO .

AND THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI l.A.No.1 of 2018 and I.A.No.1 of 2019 ln/and APPEAL SUIT NO: 964 OF 2017 AppealUnderSectiong6ofCPCagainsttheJudgmentandDecreedated

19-04-2017 in O.S.No.56 of 2013 on the file of court of the Special sessions Judge for SCs/STs(POA) Act Cases (Additional District Judge), Nalgonda'

Betwee n:

Vemulaoallv Seetaravamma, w/o.Late V,Eshwara Prasad,Aged 50 years',occ whole'timi: director'of M/s.Budha Deva Power Limited, Ramannapet vtttage unO frlunOrl, f.'ljfgonOa Oiiiric "Et i, b nir Oe Js , e -rn

Sneha Apartments. Ivlasjid'

Ranga ReddY District, HYderabad ".APPELLANT/DEFENDANT AND i,Rius,,+?'::'?9J"?3i,:'

3i;vsl[3133H3,5K:Tj,:i:!11",3["si'[f

55 "'RESP.NDENT/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Between:VenkataAmara5K::fi?i:!11",3*u""ffi RiTS:t.+?,?l;9r'""..3'.'i'

r occ Business' H/o "'PETITI.NERIRESP.NDENT/PLAINTIFF -Il,fiit.f -'iil:":t;A:[i*ffi"j".1fr iE:?i,x.,,,:i,[ilili::ifi R::E#.6Hll,.L'',iilil;'4*r.ro*rr*r/AppELLANT/DEFENDANT PetitionunderorderVlRulelTandUnderSectionl5l&153ofCPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit, the High court may be pleased to consequentially amend the decree as a preliminary decree in the mortgage suit in accordance with the provisions of c.P.c.as follows: "(1) That the suit of the Plaintiff is hereby granted preliminary decree basing on simple mortgage deed, the period for redemption is three months " i,e., in addition to the existing reliefs of the Decree in o.S. NO.56 ol 2013 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Order Vl Rule 17 and Under Section 151 & 153 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner/plaintiff to amend the Defendant cause Tiile in the Plaint of O.S.No.56 of 2013,by way of amendment i.e., by adding tt//s.Budha Deva Power Ltd. Rep. by its Whole Time Director, Smt.Vemulapally Seetarayamma, W/o. Late Eshwara prasad , aged about 50 years, and by deleting Vemulapally Seetarayamm a, Wlo. V.Eshwasra prasad, Aged 50 years, occ; whore Time Director of M/s. Budha Deva power Ltd. and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon,ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

Counset for the Appeilant:

SRt VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI Counsel for the Respondent:

SMT. JYOTHI ESWAR cOGINENI The Court made the following:

ORDER \

PNR,J & GRR,J AS No t64 of)017 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO &

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI LA.No. 1 of2 O18 and I .A.No.1of2019 In / and APPEAL SUIT NO.964 0F 20t7 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice p.Naueen Rao)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2.

Appellant herein is the defendant in O.S.No.56 of 2013 on the lile of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/ STs (poA) Cases-cum-Additional District, at Nalgonda. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintilf instituted O.S.No.56 of 2013 praying to grant decree for recovery of money of t 1,21,52,00O/-, which includes principal amount and interest, basing on simple mortgage deed by creating charge on immovable properties and future interest'

I Defendant is the wife of late V.Eshwara Prasad, who rvas the Managing Director ol M/ s Budha Deva Power Limited'

RamannaPet ,. vR / & r;i(B,J .lS \, urrJ irl :r'/ 7 -)

Prasad' as is that late V Eshwara

5. The case of the plaintiff obtained Limited'

*l Deva Power Managing Director "' = "'Un^ to an amount of totalling dates on various various loans Deed on Mortgage the Notarized and executed t 62,00,000/- of Acs 3 35 to an extent No'132/200 Document

17.O4'209gon of Acs 3 27 cents'

to an extent No'184/200 cents, Document cents'

of Acs'3'275 to an extent No'135/200 Document cents'

of Acs'2'375 to an extent No'136/20O I Document of Acs'2'65 cents'

to an extent No'138/200 Document

100 to an extent of Ac 1 95 cents' Document No'138/

Document cents' Document of Ac'1'925 to an' extent No.139/2000 total extent of cents'

of Ac'0'925 to an extent No.143/2O0 cents in favour of the plaintiff'

Acs.19.725 deed' late V Eshwara that in the mortgage 6. Plaintiff alleged { - as loan amount Prasad admitted of borrowing 62 'OO '000 /

to the plaintiff in spite o[ demand plaintiff' According from the of ioan amount along rvith interest' late made for repayment prasad did not repay the amount. After death of late V.Eshwara the defendant number plaintiff approached V.Eshwara Prasad'

of times requesting to either return the said amount along with interest or to register the properties covered by the mortgage deed. Since defendant has not honoured the commitments and PNR,J & CRR.J AS Na.964 o[20t7 did not repay the amount, plaintiff was compelled to institute O.S.No.56 of 2013

7. In the written statement, defendant totally denied the contention of the plaintiff about the borrowing of amount and executing the Notarized Mortgage Deed.

8.

The trial Court framed the following issues for trial: ( 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant who is the wife of late V.Eshwara Prasad ?

(2) Whether the defendant's late husband V.Eshwara Prasad has executed the notarized mortgage deed dated 77 .04.2009 in favour of the plaintiff u'hich is also signed by the defendant as a witness in which the defindani's late husband V Eshwara Prasad has adm-ipttte"di" tafsf he obtained various loan amounts from tfr. o" various dates totalling to an amount .J < 6z,oo,ooo l- with 24% interest per annum from

17 .04.2009 ?

(31 Whether the defendant also has signed on the along with her iate husband undertakrngs V.Eshwara Prasad ? (4) To what relief ?

g. On behalf of the plaintiff' P'W' 1 was examined and Exs'A1 DWs'l to 3 marked' On behalf of the defendant'

to A4 were and Exs'B1 to B2O were marked'

were examined

10. The trial Court held that plaintiff is entitied to recover the who is wife of late V'Eshwara from the del'endant'

amount \

i, /'i: 'l Prasad, holding that defendant admitted that her late husband worked as Managing Director ol M/s.Budha Deva Power Limited and, therefore, she is liable to pay the suit amount with simple interest. Having held so, the trial Court ordered preliminary decree on simple mortgage deed.

11.

In other words, though the suit was instituted for recovery of money alleged to have been borrowed by late V.Eshwara Prasad, the trial Court granted relief of preliminary decree on simple mortgage deed by mentioning the period of redemption as three months and further held that in case defendant failed to pay thi suit amount, the plaintiff was at liberty to follow due process of law. 12. In this appeal, the preliminary contention of the defendant is that the amount was borrowed by M/s.Budha Deva Power Limited and the mortgage deed was also executed by M/s.Budha Deva power Limited.

Therefore, merely because the husband of the defendant was Managing Director, he cannot be held liable in his personal capacity and the trial Court grossly erred in converting the suit and granting reiief of recovery of money or in the alternative execution of simple mortgage deed, f.-__

PNR.J & CRR,J AS No.964 of20l7 /

on properties standing in the name ol M/s.Budha Deva power Limitecl.

13. Having reaiized that the amount was borrowed by M/ s.Budha Deva Power Limited and the properties on which simple mortgage deed was created stood in the name of M/s.Budha Deva Porver Limited, two interlocutory applications are filed in this appeal. I.A.No.1 of 2018 is filed to grant decree as a preliminary decree in the mortgage suit in accordance with the provisions of C.P.C., and I.A.No.1 of 2019 is filed to permit the petitioner/ plaintiff to amend the cause title in the plaint of O.S.No.56 of 2013 by adding M/s'Budha Deva Power Limited'

by its whole time Director Vemulapally represented as defendant' SeetaraYamma learned counsel for submissions'

14. After making elaborate both I'As'

the plaintiff sought leave of the Court to withdraw

1 of 2Ol9 are

2018 and I'A'No'

IA'No'1 of AccordinglY, dismissed as withdrawn'

of c see merit in the contention

15. noticcd above, r'n As The main plank of claim by the defendant learned counsel for was that late V Eshwara of money recovery plaintiff regarding Mortgage Deed Notarized money, executed Prasad borrowed \

)S ,\0.964 oJ 2017 pledging several properties, but did not repay the money nor transferred the properties shown in the mortgage deed' The plank entire pleadings in the plaint are only on this However, on going through the mortgage deed, we noticed that the mortgage deed was executed by M/s.Budha Deva Power Limited, represented by the Managing Director and the properties pledged therein also belong to M/ s.Budha Deva Power Limited. Further, the mortgage deed narrates borrowing of money by M/s.Budha Deva power Limited. Thus, it appears, money was not borrowed by late V.Eshwara prasad in his individual capacity nor plaintiff can seek to recover money by relying on mortgage deed executed by M/s.Budha Deva power Limited even without impleading M/s.Budha Deva power Limited as defendant We also noticed another lacuna in the pleadings.

Mortgage deed refers to name of the Managing Director as Sri Eshwara Vara prasad Vemulapalli, whereas in the suit the name of husband of defendant \{'as shown as V.Eshwara prasad. It is not stated whether both names belong to same person. Hou,ever, we are not dwelling deep inro this aspect.

16.

Be that as it may, r.r.hen defendant denie s borrou'ing of money by her husband in his individual capacity, ivhich plea of t,.\R,.t & GRIt -l .15 ,\o 964 ai )t)17 the defendant is supported by the terms of alleged mortgage deed stated to have been executed by M/s.Budha Deva Power Limited, in the absence of the said company as defendant, no \ r I relief could have been granted by the trial Court. The very i pleadings and prayer in the suit being grossly defective, the suit is liable to be dismissed. No liability can be fastened on defendant in her individual capacity when amount was not borrowed by her husband in his personal capacity The defendantisentitledtosucceedintheappealonthisground alone.

for the piaintiff

17. At this stage, learned counsel appearing that plaintiff be granted liberty to avail appropriate submits Limited' We are M/s Budha Deva Power legai remedy against M/s'Budha with the claim of the plaintiff vis-a-vis not dealing to by us is with reference Limited' What is noticed Deva Power in the plaint vis-A-

in the plaint and relief sought the pieadings to us' the suit is not piaint' According in the vis the defendant Suit the Appeal Therefore'

the defendant'

against maintainable entitled it clear that if plaintiff is otherwise We make is aiiowed Limited in Deva Power Budha to proceed against M / s in the not come judgment does this with the 1aw'

accordance PNR,J & GRR,J AS No.9('4 oJ )017 way of plaintiff availing such remedy. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.

I SDAK,SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// D To, SECTION OFFICER

1'

The special sessions Judge for scs/STs(poA)

Act cases (Additional Judge), Nalgonda. District

2.

One CC to Sri Venkata Kanuri', Advocate

3. toPucl one cc to smt. ,ro,n, ,E*stnwnatr o Ga os g ineni'

copies Advocate toPucl

1. I*o cD SPare bopv

36r'n" "-

COURT HIGH \

1010312022 DATED:

STAI€

1 q

2t[

11 luN U o *

OESPAl ORDER LA.No.1 of 2018 and l.A.No.1 of 2019 ln/and APPEAL SUIT NO: 964 OF 2017 ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI l.A.No.1 of 2018 and l.A.No.1 of 2019 ln/and APPEAL SUIT NO: 964 OF 2017 Betwee n:

Vemulapally Seetarayamma, w/o.Late V.Eshwara Prasad, Aged 50 years, occ : whole time director of M/s.Budha Deva Power Limited, Ramannapet village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, Presently residing at Flat No.50B, Creative Sneha Apartments, Masiid Banda, Kodanpur (Near Botanical Gardens)

Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad ..APPELLANT/DEFENDANT AND Ch. Venkata Amara Prasad, S/o.Late Ch.Venkata Ramaiah, Aged 50 years, occ : Business, Rl/o. H.No.4-137, Suraram Colony, llA Jeedimetla, Hyderabad-

55 ...RESPONDENT/PLAI NTIFF Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree of Cou(

of the Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs(POA) Act Cases (Additional District Judge), Nal$onda dated 19-04-2017 in O.S.No.56 of 2013.

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, Advocate for the Respondent.

This Court while allowing the Appeal Suit, doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Hon'ble Court made it clear that of Plaintiff is othenrvise entitled to proceed against the M/s. Budha Deva Power Limited ln accordance with the law, this Judgment does not come in the way of plaintiff availing such remedy.

I

2. This court further doth and decree that there be no order as to costs in this Appeal.

t/ SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special sessions Judge for SCs/STs(POA) Act Cases (Additional District Judge), Nalgonda. 2. Two CD Copies 3. One Spare Copy gbr *

HIGH COURT DATED:

1010312022 , 1i,l it AIt-

(

o^ (\ (

(, 1 J I il )? 2 .-l t*

' ,, il1-r :

DECREE # t 2olaand t.A.No.1 f

2o1s APPEAL SU|T NO: 964 OF

2017 i ALLOW,NG THE APPEAL -

Sneha Apartments. Ivlasjid'

Ranga ReddY District, HYderabad ".APPELLANT/DEFENDANT AND i,Rius,,+?'::'?9J"?3i,:'

3i;vsl[3133H3,5K:Tj,:i:!11",3["si'[f

55 "'RESP.NDENT/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Between:VenkataAmara5K::fi?i:!11",3*u""ffi RiTS:t.+?,?l;9r'""..3'.'i'

r occ Business' H/o "'PETITI.NERIRESP.NDENT/PLAINTIFF -Il,fiit.f -'iil:":t;A:[i*ffi"j".1fr iE:?i,x.,,,:i,[ilili::ifi R::E#.6Hll,.L'',iilil;'4*r.ro*rr*r/AppELLANT/DEFENDANT PetitionunderorderVlRulelTandUnderSectionl5l&153ofCPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit, the High court may be pleased to consequentially amend the decree as a preliminary decree in the mortgage suit in accordance with the provisions of c.P.c.as follows: "(1) That the suit of the Plaintiff is hereby granted preliminary decree basing on simple mortgage deed, the period for redemption is three months " i,e., in addition to the existing reliefs of the Decree in o.S. NO.56 ol 2013 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Order Vl Rule 17 and Under Section 151 & 153 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner/plaintiff to amend the Defendant cause Tiile in the Plaint of O.S.No.56 of 2013,by way of amendment i.e., by adding tt//s.Budha Deva Power Ltd. Rep. by its Whole Time Director, Smt.Vemulapally Seetarayamma, W/o. Late Eshwara prasad , aged about 50 years, and by deleting Vemulapally Seetarayamm a, Wlo. V.Eshwasra prasad, Aged 50 years, occ; whore Time Director of M/s. Budha Deva power Ltd. and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon,ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

Counset for the Appeilant:

SRt VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI Counsel for the Respondent:

SMT. JYOTHI ESWAR cOGINENI The Court made the following: