k Kx. w' IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARA TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI APPEAL SUIT NO: 253 OF 2009 Between: Kakurturu Sivarami Reddy, S/o. Late Chandrasekhar Reddy, Hindu, aged about 42 years, R/o. Plot No. P.1, 4th Floor, Krishna Sai Enclave, Saraswathinagar, Dargamita, SPSR Nellore District. ...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT AND M/s. Sri Mounika Enterprises, Rep. by Sole Prop. C.Sasikumari, W/o.Madhusudhana Reddy, Aged about 37 years, R/o. Krishna Sai Enclave, Saraswathinagar, Dargamita, Nellore Town & Mandal. ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, Nellore District. In Original Suit No.31 of 2006 dated 27/01/2009. The Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.C.Krishnan, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri S Sai Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent. The Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Dismissed. 2. That the Appellant do pay costs throughout to the respondent. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS A.S.No.253 of 2009 Institutional Costs(Appeal Suit) Stamp for Vakalatnama Institutional Costs(Original Suit) Stamp for Vakalatnama Stamp on Plaint Stamp on Process Advocate’s Fee(Senior) Advocate fee (Junior) Type Charges Rs.5 Rs.2 Rs.8,426 Rs.190 Rs.14,200 Rs.4,000 Rs.20 Total Rs.26.838 Total throughout costs + Rs.26,843/- Cots of Rs.26,843/- to be paid to the Respondent by the Appellant Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, SPSR Nellore District.(with records if any) 2. Three CD Copies VNA HIGH COURT DATED;06/05/2025 DECREE AS.No.253 of 2009 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT s k; IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI • I” TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI APPEAL SUIT NO: 253 OF 2009 Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 27-1-2009 passed in O.S.No. 31 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, Nellore District. Between: Kakurturu Sivarami Reddy, S/o. Late Chandrasekhar Reddy, Hindu, aged about 42 years, R/o. Plot No. P.1, 4th Floor, Krishna Sai Enclave, Saraswathinagar, Dargamita, SPSR Nellore District. ...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT AND M/s. Sri Mounika Enterprises, Rep. by Sole Prop. C.Sasikumari, W/o.Madhusudhana Reddy, Aged about 37 years, R/o. Krishna Sai Enclave, Saraswathinagar, Dargamita, Nellore Town & Mandal. ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SINGURU SAI KRISHNA The Court made the following Judgment: N BVLNC.J A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 h . ..i.. APHC010211102009 ..J.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI APPEAL SUIT No: 253/2009 Between: Kakurturu Sivarami Reddy ...APPELLANT AND M/s Sri Mounika Enterprises Counsel for the Appellant: ...RESPONDENT 1.TCKRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1.S SAI KRISHNA The Court made the following: fi BVLNC.J A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI APPEAL SUIT No.253 OF 2009 J U DG M ENT: This Appeal Suit preferred U/s.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’), by the defendant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2009 delivered in O.S.No.31 of 2006 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, Nellore District. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arraigned before the learned Trial Court. The suit was filed for restoration or return of the machinery described in the plaint schedule to the plaintiff or alternatively to pay Rs.6,00,000/- being the costs of the machinery, since the defendant sold the same to third parties. 3. The learned trial Court decreed the suit, under the impugned judgment and decree, directing the defendant to restore or return the machinery and shed described in the plaint schedule within three months, if failed to do so, to pay Rs.6,00,000/- being costs of the machinery, and also to pay suit costs. 4. 5. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a proprietary concern. The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule site from one Sri BVLNC.J A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 L.Rajendra Singh, under registered sale deed dated 28.09.2002 for Rs. 1,75,000/- and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff ran ice factory in the name and style of Sri Mounika Enterprises in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff constructed asbestos sheets shed and purchased machinery worth of Rs.16,00,000/- from one Preet Engineers, Secunderabad. The plaintiff took a loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- on 23.06.2003 from Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Nellore. The Industries Department issued Permanent Registration Certificate to the plaintiff. The plaintiff intended to shift the factory to Nellore town. The plaintiff offered to sell the plaint schedule site, excluding asbestos sheets shed with machinery, with an intention to shift the same to Nellore. The defendant agreed to purchase the vacant site for Rs.3,75,000/-. The plaintiff executed a registered sale deed on 02.06.2004 in favour of the defendant and delivered vacant possession of the site, excluding asbestos sheets shed and the machinery, on stipulation that the plaintiff would remove the machinery along with asbestos sheets shed within a year from the date of registration. In the month of May 2005, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant removed ice cube canes numbering 245 located in the asbestos sheets shed. The plaintiffs proprietrix and her husband went A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 BVLNC.J to the plaint schedule property and questioned the defendant about removing ice cube canes. Thereafter, a mediation was held by Sri Kakuturu Rami Reddy and Sri Kandi Narayanamma, to settle the dispute. The defendant agreed to restore the ice cube canes by December 2005, and also not to remove the remaining machinery located in the plain schedule property. Later, in the first week of December 2005, the plaintiffs proprietrix and her husband demanded the defendant to restore the ice cube canes, the defendant requested for extension of time till end of December 2005 or second week of January 2006. On 11.01.2006, the plaintiffs proprietrix and her husband came to know through Sri Gollamudi Sridhar Reddy and Sri Krishna Reddy, who are running ice factory opposite to the plaintiffs factory, that the defendant dismantling the ice factory and removing the machinery. The plaintiffs proprietrix and her husband went to the plaint schedule property and questioned the defendant. The plaintiff presented a report to the police also. But the defendant high handedly removed the entire machinery from the factory and sold it to third parties on 14.01.2006 without the consent of the plaintiff The plaintiff approached police and mediators. The defendant admitted that he removed the machinery. He made promise to restore BVLNC.J A.S.NO.253OF2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 the same in two months. But later, fail.C to restore the same. The worth of the machinery is about Rs.6,00,000/-. The defendant shall restore the machinery to the plaintiff or alternatively pay costs of the the plaintiff. Hence, the suit. machinery to 06. The brief averments of the written statement are that the plaintiff’s proprietrix. site to the defendant for a registered sale deed dated 02.06.2004 the defendant. defendant is a close friend of the husband of the The plaintiff sold the plaint schedule Rs.3,75,000/- and executed and delivered possession of the vacant site to The defendant and the plaintiff intended to set up an ice factory in the plaint schedule property, in the name of plaintiff, from Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation under Women Entrepreneur money at the time of purchasing plaint registered sale deed invested Rs. 18,00,000/- towards Scheme. The defendant invested schedule site, in the name of the plaintiff under dated 28.09.2002. The defendant also i his share, to support the business. The plaintiffs proprietrix and her husband invested Rs.6,00,000/- towards their share. They obtained a loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the Andhra Pradesh State Financial on 23.06.2003. The title deed of the Corporation, Nellore, schedule site plaint State Financial of Rs.3,60,000/- standing was deposited with Andhra Pradesh Corporation. The fixed deposit receipts worth BVLNC.J A.S.N0.253 0F 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 in the name of the defendant, his wife Madhuri and his co-brother Sreenivasulu Reddy issued by Andhra Bank, A.K.Nagar Branch Nellore, deposited with Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Nellore. The plaintiff and the defendant jointly run the ice factory in the plaint schedule site, from December 2002 to November 2004. It was closed in November 2004, due to failure of Aqua culture firms. The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation brought pressure on the defendant to settle the loan amount. There was a settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant was given responsibility of clearing the loan of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Nellore, by selling the machinery available in the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, the defendant cleared the loan amount of Rs.6,90,000/- to Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Nellore. The defendant purchased the ice factory and machinery for Rs.5,00,000/- on 02.06.2004 from the plaintiff. Since then, the defendant has been in possession of the site as well as the factory building and machinery. The plaintiff gave a letter dated 02.12.2004 regarding settlement of the account. The ice factory building with asbestos sheets shed is still in existence. The plaintiffs husband gave report to police with false allegations on 13.01.2006. Police investigated into the report and referred it as false. BVLNC.J A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 07. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial; 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for restoration of the machinery from the defendant or in the alternative for Rs.6,00,000/- being the cost of the machinery? 2. To what relief? recovery of 08. During trial of the suit, four witnesses as PWs 1 to 4 were examined for the plaintiff. Four witnesses as DWs 1 to 4 were examined for the defendant. 11 documents were marked for the plaintiff as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-11. Seven documents were marked for the defendant as Exs.B-1 to B-7. 09. The learned Trial Court on consideration of the above oral and documentary evidence of both parties, answered issue No.1 that the defendant has no right to sell the machinery. Therefore, the defendant IS liable to restore the machinery to the plaintiff or alternatively pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Accordingly, decreed the suit. 10. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the First Appeal to be filed by the defendant. came 11. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan learned counsel appellant/defendant. Sri S.Sai Krishna, learned counsel filed vakalat for for the A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06,05.2025 BVLNC.J the respondent/plaintiff, but failed to submit arguments. Perused the material on record. In the light of rival contentions based on the pleadings, the points 12. that would arise for consideration in this Appeal Suit are as under: 1. Whether the defendant was a partner of the plaintiffs proprietary concern and made investments for rising the sheds, and purchase machinery, to run an ice factory, in the plaint schedule site? 2. Whether the agreement claimed by the defendant regarding settlement of accounts in December, 2004 is true and binding on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for restoration of asbestos sheets shed and machinery of ice factory as claimed for? or alternatively for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards costs of the same? 13. POINTS No.1 TO 3: There is no dispute about the fact that the defendant purchased the vacant site only, shown in the plaint schedule, from the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 02.06.2004 vide Ex.B-7. It does not speak anything about right of the defendant to sell sheds and machinery of the ice factory BVLNC.J A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 P.W-1 is none other than the proprietrix of the plaintiff. In the chief-examination, she restated the plaint averments. Ex.A-3 is the loan sanction letter issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, dated 23.06.2003. Ex.A-4 is the demand notice issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation. The other documents are property tax receipts, electricity receipts, permission issued by the Q.ram.Panchayat, Industries Department, and cash receipts^ issued-by sellers of the machinery of the ice factory. None of these documents contain the name of the defendant or would prove payment of any amount by the defendant, towards his investment for purchasing machinery, paying taxes etc. Ex.A-3 issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, it also does not disclose the name of the defendant. It contains the name of P.W-1, only as proprietrix of the plaintiff’s proprietary concern. Ex.A-4 is a demand notice issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation in the year 2005, it also does not contain the name of the defendant. 14. 15. The defendant during cross-examination of plaintiff, did not elicit anything to probable his contention that he made investments, at the time of establishing ice factory in the plaint schedule property, except suggestions about his case. They were denied by P.W-1. Any suggestion without proof of it, will not help or improve, the case of the p A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 BVLNC.J -*r . « * party, putting the suggestion. P.W-1 admitted that she deposited document of her house, towards security for the loan advanced by the Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Nellore. She also admitted defendant deposited Fixed Deposit Receipts in Andhra Pradesh Andhra that State Financial Corporation, Nellore, towards security for Rs.6,90,000/-. Fixed Deposit Receipts belongs to the defendant, his wife and his brother Sreenivasulu Reddy and that those Fixed Deposit Receipts with Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation towards These co- are deposited security for the loan. She also admitted that sometimes she used to instalments for Andhra Pradesh entrust money to the defendant to pay State Financial Corporation loan. Thereafter receipts were issued in the name of firm. P.W-2 is K.Narayanamma. P.W-2 in the chief-examination affidavit pleaded by the plaintiff regarding mediation occurred in December 2005 about the lifting of ice cube canes by the defendant from the suit site. In the cross-examination, she deposed that no between the plaintiff and the 16. restated the case agreement was executed in her presence defendant and she cannot say whether the defendant paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 02.06.2004 to the plaintiff. the chief-examination restated about the .case of the plaintiff that the defendant lifted ice P.W-3 is G.Sridhar Reddy. P.W-3 in 17. BVLNC.J A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 factory in May 2005 and that he noticed the defendant dismantling i factory on 11.01.2006 and informed the same to P.W-1. Thereafter P.W-1 and her husband came to the factory and questioned defendant about removing the machinery and that the plaintiff presented a report to the police. ice the 18. P.W-4 is G.Krishna Reddy. P.\/V-4 in the chief-examination • affidavit stated that in May, 2005 he noticed defendant removed ice cube canes from asbestos sheets shed. Immediately himself and P.W-3 informed to P.W-1. Thereafter, P.W-1 and her husband came to the factory and questioned the defendant. Later on 11.01.2006 himself and his brother (P.W-3) again noticed the defendant lifting machinery in lorry. It was informed to the plaintiff over phone. P.W-1 and her husband again came to the factory and questioned the defendant and P.W-1 presented a report to the police. 19. The defendant examined himself as D.W-1. In the chief- examination affidavit, he restated the case pleaded in the written statement. He filed seven documents in his evidence marked as Exs.B-1 to B-7. Ex.B-1 is agreement dated 02.12.2004 alleged be executed by P.W-1 in favour of D.W-1. A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt; 06.05.2025 BVLNC.J not confronte'cTto P.W-1 not known why it was not executed by P.W-1, towards P.W-1 and D.W-1 with regard to disputed ice factory located in the plaint schedule property. Therefore. Ex.B-1 will not help the case of the defendant. It is pertinent to note down that it was 20. during cross-examination of P.W-1. It is confronted to P.W-1, when it was settlement between of letter dated 12.12.2006 addressed to Ex.B-2 is a carbon copy 21. the Branch Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, also not confronted to Nellore by plaintiff’s proprietary concern. This was examination contending that it was addressed P.W-1 during her cross- the Andhra Pradesh State Financial a receipt dated behalf of the plaintiff to on Corporation, Nellore, by the defendant. Ex.B-3 is amount of Rs.2,73,869/- was received from 12.01.2006. It shows that an the plaintiff’s proprietary concern. It was contending that this amount was paid by the defendant on behalf of the also not confronted to P.W-1, of this plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant came into possession of the defendant to probable receipt. Ex.B-3 does not disclose the name defendant that he paid the amount to the Andhra the case of the State Financial Corporation under this receipt. Ex.B-4 is a letter the defendant to the Superintendent Engineer, Andhra Electricity Board, regarding non-payment of additional Pradesh addressed by Pradesh State BVLNC.J A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 consumption electricity amount demanded by the Electricity Department. The status of the defendant is not described as one of the partners of the plaintiffs proprietary concern. It is not known in what capacity the defendant addressed this letter to the Electricity Board. Ex.B-5 is a bunch of receipts issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation. Nellore regarding payment of amounts by plaintiff during the period from 2003 to 2006 various dates. None of these receipts were confronted to P.W-1 during cross-examination stating that the on amounts under the receipts were paid by the defendant as partner of P.W-1 for the ice factory. None of the said receipts contain the name of the defendant, to probable his plea that he paid the amounts, on behalf of the plaintiff, as partner of PW1. 22. Admittedly, all the receipts stand in the name of plaintiff only. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the ice factory records registered with the Electricity Department, Gram Panchayat Industries Department and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Nellore etc. as per P.W-1 is the proprietrix of the plaintiff; as per official records. Ex.B-7 is registered sale deed dated 02.06.2004 under which the defendant purchased the suit schedule site from P.W-1. The sale deed prove sale of vacant site only. Nothing about rights over the asbestos sheets sheds or the machinery of the ice factory. A S No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06 05.2025 BVLNC.J »S>- The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant vehemently 23. argued that the learned trial Judge did not consider Exs.B-1, B-2 and B-6 documents and therefore, committed error in appreciating the evidence. Admittedly defendant under Ex.B-7 purchased the suit schedule 24. site. But, his case is that he made investments jointly with P.W-1, and her husband for laying asbestos sheets sheds, purchasing machinery to establish ice factory in the suit schedule site and that the ice factory established, in the name of the plaintiff showing P.W-1 as proprietrix since she is a woman, to avail benefit as Woman Entrepreneur, since some benefits were provided by the Government to encourage women. Unfortunately, Ex.B-1 agreement, though pleaded that it was executed by P.W-1, not confronted to her in the cross-examinatio n of P.W-1. Therefore, it will not help the case of the defendant to claim that 25. it was executed by P.W-1. Exs.B-2 to B-6 documents were also not confronted to P.W-1, contending that those documents came into possession of the defendant, as he paid the amounts to the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Nellore, on behalf of the plaintiff, as partner of PW1. Therefore, they will not prove the case of the defendant to say that he was partner of P.W-1 and her husband, and BVLNC.J A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 jiiade investment for establishing the ice factory, in the suit ^ite, in the year 2002. Only one thing is in favour of the defendant, It is, P.W-1 admitted that the defendant deposited some Fixed Deposit Receipts standing in the name of defendant, his wife and co-brother issued by the Andhra Bank with the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Nellore, as security for the loan advanced to the plaintiff. But this admission alone is not sufficient to carry the Court to say that the defendant also invested money for establishment of the ice factory, as a partner of P.W-1. 26. 27. D.W-1 in the cross-examination admitted that plaintiff is not a partnership firm. It is only a proprietary concern and that P.W-1 is only the proprietor. This categorical admission of the defendant would go against his contention that he was a partner of P.W-1, and made investments for establishment of ice factory. Further, the defendant admitted that P.W-1 purchased vacant site on 28.09.2002 for Rs. 1,75,000/- from one L.Rajendra Singh, and defendant attested the said document and the contents of the said document are true and correct. There is no dispute that the said document was executed in favour of P.W-1 only, stating that she alone paid the amount and purchased the suit site in the year 2002. Fie also admitted that the shed was constructed in 15 ankanams, with asbestos sheets for the purpose A S No.253 OF 2009 Dt; 06.05.2025 eVLNC.J that P.W-1 purchased the and electricity He made categorical admissicn of ice factory Hyderabad and that P.W-1 obtained from Preeti Enterprises machinery connection was issued in the name of P.W-1 from Andhra Pradesh State for construction of ice factory Financial Corporation and she also loan and that District Manager, in favour of the plaintiff in favour of the obtained plan Department also issued permission Panchayat also granted permission Industries and further the Gram D.W-1 would show that these admissions of made by P.W-1, as proprietrix plaintiff. Therefore everything was of the plaintiff, for admissions, disprove his show that he invested establishing the ice factory. Therefore, his own admitted that no record to for establishment of the ice factory case. The defendant Rs.18,00,000/- that plaintiff filed bunch of receipts issued during the year 2002, the plaintiff to establish ice factory, that the cost of the machinery It is pertinent to note down 28. Preeti Enterprises, Hyderabad issued by 2003 for purchasing machinery by of these receipts would show The value Rs.6,00,000/- in the year 2002. was more than evidence to show that he He admitted that he is residing details regarding payments made to Nellore. Surprisingly, defendant admitted that there is after the business of the plaintiff Hyderabad. He cannot say the the Andhra Pradesh no 29. The looked at State Financial Corporation BVLNC.J A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 he filed some receipts issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Nellore, as if he paid the amounts under the said receipts. As already stated above, he did not confront those receipts to P.W-1 claiming that he paid the amounts on behalf of the plaintiff to the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Nellore. He admitted that Ex.B-6 settlement of account was not referred to in the written statement and there is no specific plea that accounts were settled between him and P.W-1. 30. The defendant made a categorical admission that no document is filed before the Court to prove that himself and P.W-1 settled the accounts on 02.06.2004 with regard to Mounika Enterprises Ice Factory i.e., plaintiff. The defendant also admitted that as per Ex.B-7 sale deed. he purchased only vacant site, and in the said sale deed, it was categorically stated that the property is self acquired property of P.W-1 and there is no document to show that the defendant paid Rs.6,90,000/- to the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation in pursuance of the agreement. The receipt marked under Ex.B-5 stands in the name of the plaintiff. D.W-2 is Sri Ch.Sreenivasulu Reddy. He was examined to speak 31. about the alleged mediation dated 02.06.2004, and settlement of account between P.W-1 and D.W-1, and letter dated 02.12.2004. D.W-3 A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 BVLNC.J -K • letter dated 02.12.2004 relating Sri D.Suresh Reddy. He stated P.W-1 and D.W-1 and receipt dated of D.Ws-2 to 4, will not help or improve the is Sri V.Subba Reddy. He stated about a to settlement of accounts. D.W-4 is about the settlement between 02.12.2004. The evidence case of the defendant in the light of the admissions of defendant made in the cross-examination, with regard to the alleged plea of partnership and subsequent settlement on 02.06.2004. of above facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation that he was partner of P.W-1, 32. In the light to hold that the defendant failed to prove and that jointly established the ice factory in the suite site, and that the defendant also invested for establishing ice factory. Further failed to its closure, there was a settlement that subsequently, after P.W-1 and the defendant, and that in pursuance of the said executed agreement dated 02.06.2004 and in prove between settlement, P.W-1 pursuance of the and that he discharged loan Financial Corporation, Nellore, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the machinery. On the other hand his admissions would go said agreement, machinery was given to the defendant amount to the Andhra Pradesh State against his plea. discussed above, the evidence on record would prove that the ice factory located 1n the suit schedule site was established by 33. As already BVLNC.J A.S.NO.253OF2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 P.W-1 as the proprietrix of the plaintiff, gnd she spent more than Rs.6,00,000/- to purchase machinery of ice factory, proved by Ex.A-11 bunch of receipts, issued by M/s.Preet Engineers, Secunderabad, who supplied machinery of the ice factory. Admittedly under Ex.B-7 sale deed, the defendant purchased only suit site, but not the asbestos sheets sheds and machinery therein. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to take away asbestos sheets and machinery. Now the question is whether the defendant sold the machinery? The defendant in the cross-examination made a categorically admission that “it is true I have sold away the entire machinery in the plaint schedule property to third parties”. Hence, the defendant shall pay its value to the plaintiff. 34. 35. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there is no evidence to show worth of machinery was about Rs.6,00,000/- at that time. Ex.A-11 receipts filed by the plaintiff, would show that M/s.Preet Engineers, Secunderabad, supplied the machinery for the ice factory, and the value of machinery is more than Rs.6,00,000/-. Hence, the amount claimed by the plaintiff towards cost of the machinery, is proved. A.S.No.253 OF 2009 Dt: 06.05.2025 BVLNC.J In the light of foregoing discussion, this Court do not find any interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs 36. reason, to throughout. sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Appeal Suit, shall stand closed. As a Sd/-KTATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Nellore District.(with records if Senior CivilJudge, Kovur, SPSR 1. The any) C Krishnan, Advocate [OPUC] Sai Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 2. OneCCto Sri. T 3. One CC to Sri. Singuru 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three CD Copies vna -iVS HIGH COURT DATED:06/05/2025 JUDGMENT AS.No.253 of 2009 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT