*THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO + APPEAL SUIT NO.305 OF 2020 % 18—07—2025 # Smt. Kandala Pulamma … Appellant vs.

$ Chennu Vijaya Venkata Lakshmana Kumar … Respondent !Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.J.Ashvini Kumar ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr.Vedula Srinivas learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Seeta Ramaiah Tenneti

>Head Note :

? Cases referred:

AIR 1965 SC 1591 2014 (1) SCC 105 2015 (16) SCC 787 AIR OnLine 2013 AP 133 AIR 2016 Hyderabad 24 Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107888899/

______________________________

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

APPEAL SUIT NO.305 OF 2020 Between:

Smt. Kandala Pulamma … Appellant And Chennu Vijaya Venkata Lakshmana Kumar … Respondent JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.07.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _______________________________

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.305 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, Suryapet in O.S.No.2 of 2014, dated 07.02.2020.

2. Appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant.

3. The plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of amount of Rs.18,67,000/- and for preliminary decree directing the defendant to pay the suit amount by granting reasonable time for redemption of mortgage plaint schedule property, in the event of failure to redeem the mortgage property in accordance with preliminary decree, to pass a final decree for sale of mortgaged immovable plaint schedule property in terms of Order 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for realization of decreetal amount with subsequent interest at the rate of

24% per annum.

4. The contention of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from him on 27.12.2012 for development of her business, executed a promissory note at Vijayawada in his favour and on the same day agreed to repay the borrowed amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The plaintiff has insisted for security, the defendant has provided the suit property i.e., two storied building constructed in an extent of 313 sq.yds bearing Door No.1-7-116/2/1 in Survey No.9, Ward No.9 of Suryapet Municipality within the boundaries by depositing the title deed dated 20.01.1996. The defendant has executed memorandum of deposit of title deed on 31.12.2012 in favour of the plaintiff. In spite of demands made by the plaintiff, defendant has failed to repay the amount.

5. Defendant filed her written statement contending that she neither borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor created equitable mortgage of the scheduled property. Son of the defendant by name K.Ramakrishna Reddy is doing transport business at K.P.H.B. at Hyderabad and he got acquaintance with one Narendar Chowdary. The son of the defendant requested Narendar Chowdary to advance loan for his business needs, as Narendar Chowdary had no money with him he introduced one Ravikanth to her son. Son of the defendant through Narendar Chowdary obtained loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from Ravikanth, in turn he handed over two singed blank cheques and original registered sale deed No.88/1996 relating to the suit property. On 07.01.2013 the son of the defendant made part payment of Rs.4,12,500/- along with interest to Ravikanth and also paid remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest on

29.01.2013 to Ravikanth through Narendar Chowdary. In spite of discharging the amount by her son, Ravikanth and Narendar Chowdary did not return the singed blank cheques and original registered sale dee