A.Karna Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

SRIKAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI A.KARNA KUMAR, B.A.,L.L.M

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

 Tuesday, THE 26 th DAY OF March, 2013

O.S.No. 276/2010 

Between:

1. Chigurupalli Sobharani wife of Srinivasa Rao, 25 years, Hindu, household duties, re/at Dusipeta village, Dusi RS Post, Amadalavalasa mandal,

Srikakulam district. 

... Plaintiff. 

A n d :

Pujari Mohana Rao son of late Jagannadham 57 years, Hindu, Lecturer in Economics, re/at Prasanthinagar colony, near 

Geetanjali Public School, H/of Killipalem,

Srikakulam mandal and district. 

..Defendant

This suit is coming on 19.3.2013 for final hearing before me in the 

presence of Sri S.Dhanunjaya Rao, advocate for the plaintiff, and of Smt 

P.Usha Devi, Advocate the defendant and having stood over till today for 

consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery money of 

Rs.3,75,000/­ with costs and subsequent interest from the defendant. 

2. The brief averments of the plaint are; 2

a) The defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 21.10.2007 and had executed a promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the same. Hence, the suit. 

3. On the other hand, the defendant filed his written statement . 

The brief averments of the written statement are that, 

a) the defendant neither borrowed money nor executed promissory note , nor demanded this defendant to repay the pronote debt. The suit promissory note is null and void and not enforceable under law and it is not supported by consideration.

b) There are family disputes between the plaintiff and defendant . 

The defendant is the brother in law of the plaintiff. The wife of the defendant had filed a suit in OS 40/2010 on the file of Hon'ble District 

Court, Srikakulam for partition and separate possession against the husband of the plaintiff and the same is pending. 

c) Subsequently, the husband of the plaintiff has created the promissory notes and he himself filed a suit in OS 69/2010 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa for recovery of money based on a promissory note got executed by the defendant and the same is pending. The husband of the plaintiff got filed this suit through his wife. 

The husband of the plaintiff was working as Village Revenue Officer, 

Krishnapuram village and he is a chronic litigant and he is having civil and criminal case pending against him. He is also an agent of LIC and 3 threatened the card holders to issue policy and a paper publication was also made in Enadu daily news paper. On 26.4.2011. 

d) The defendant has no necessity to borrow money and he has been getting Rs.42,000/­ per month towards salary. The plaintiff has not given the names of the attestors and scribe. The attestors and scribe in both the promissory notes are one and the same and they are followers of the husband of the plaintiff. The father's name of the defendant is 

Jagannadha Rao Naidu, but it was noted in the promissory note as 

Jagannadham. There is a variation in the surname of the plaintiff noted in small and long cause title of the plaint. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff, with costs. 

4) Basing on the above rival pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial. 

 ISSUES 01, Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

02. Whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration?

03. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

04. To what relief? 

05) In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 are examined and Ex.A1 was marked .

On behalf of the defendant , DW1 was examined and no document is marked. 

06) Heard the arguments of both sides. Apart from submitting the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted written arguments.

4

07) ISSUES 1 and 2 : 

 The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking recovery of money of under pronote debt said to have been executed by the defendant. The defendant has contended that, the plaintiff is his relative and there are disputes between the husband of plaintiff and his wife and taking advantage of the same, the husband of the plaintiff had created two promissory notes and filed this suit and another suit by himself on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa. He has also contended that, the suit promissory note is a created one and it is not supported by consideration. 

a) In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, execution of promissory note , the plaintiff has relied on the evidence of PW1 , PW2 ,Ex.A1 and certain admissions made by the defendant in the cross examination. 

b) Admittedly, the defendant is the brother in law of the husband of the plaintiff and the defendant has married the sister of the husband of the plaintiff. There is no dispute regarding the relationship . It is also an admitted fact that the wife of the defendant had filed a suit in OS 40/2010 on the file of the Hon'ble District Judge, Srikakulam for partition and separate possession against the husband of the plaintiff and the same is pending. The husband of plaintiff also filed a suit in OS 69/2010 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa for recovery of money basing on the promissory note against the defendant herein and the same was decreed. There is also no dispute regarding the family disputes between the husband of the plaintiff and wife of the defendant and so also filing of the suits as stated above. 

5

c) Since the defendant has contended that, Ex.A1 was created by the husband of the plaintiff and it is not supported by consideration. It is the primary burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the promissory note and passing of consideration. 

d) In order to prove the same, the plaintiff has relied on the evidence of PW1, PW2 and the plaintiff got marked the promissory note as Ex.A1 dt.21.10.2007.

e) As seen from the promissory note/Ex.A1 filed by the plaintiff and contents therein , the defendant had borrowed money of 

Rs.2,50,000/­ from the plaintiff for the purpose of house repairs and to clear of sundry debts and he has agreed to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum and there is an unconditional undertaking to repay the same on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order. The contents of Ex.A1 satisfies the ingredients of Section 4 of the Negotiable 

Instrument Act, which reads as follows : 

Promissory note : 

A “promissory note “ is an instrument in writing ( not being a bank note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument. 

So, it is clear that the Ex.A1 is an instrument defined under 

Section 4 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant had executed Ex.A1 in her favour. In order to prove the same, the plaintiff had relied on her own evidence as PW1 and also 

PW2­who is one of the attstors of promissory note/Ex.A1 i.e., 2nd attestor. 

6

08) The PW1/Chigurupalli Sobharani , has categorically deposed that the defendant having borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/­ and had executed a promissory note in her favour . She was cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendant regarding her capacity to lend money to the defendant. PW1 has categorically deposed that, her father gave money of Rs.3,00,000/­ to her and out of which she paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/­ to the defendant . Apart from that, she is having agricultural lands gifted to her by her father to an extent of 

Ac.1.50 cents and she used to get Rs.20,000/­ per year as income from agricultural lands. Like manner, she lend money. So, the contention of the defendant that PW1 has no capacity to lend money is not acceptable. 

a) The plaintiff has admitted that, the defendant has been working as lecturer and getting more than Rs.40,000/­ per month towards salary. 

She was also questioned regarding presence of witnesses and scribe at the time of execution, place of execution, time of execution. PW1 has categorically deposed that the transaction was taken place at her house and in the presence of two attestors and scribe the defendant had executed promissory note. 

b) As seen from the cross examination of PW1, nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW1 clearly establish that, the defendant had borrowed money and executed promissory note under Ex.A1

09) Apart from the evidence of PW1, the plaintiff has also relied on the evidence of PW2/Pydi Govinda Rajulu, who is an independent 7 witness and no way interested to both the families of plaintiff and defendant and he is not related to either party. 

a) PW2 has categorically deposed that, the defendant had executed promissory note /Ex.A1 in his presence and borrowed 

Rs.2,50,000/­ . PW2 was also questioned regarding execution of promissory note , place and time of promissory note, presence of persons at the time of execution of promissory note and also regarding filing of cases by the husband of the plaintiff and partition suit filed by the wife of defendant. 

b) The evidence of PW2 is supporting the case of the plaintiff and establish that the defendant had executed a promissory note and borrowed money from the plaintiff. 

c) The learned counsel for the defendant had put a suggestion to the PW1 that, the husband of plaintiff had obtained signatures of defendant when he was hospitalized due to heart attack, which is not at all the case of the defendant in his written statement or in the evidence of DW1 that the husband of the plaintiff had obtained signatures of the defendant while the defendant was in the hospital and taking treatment. 

So, the said contention is not acceptable. 

10) The defendant himself examined as DW1 and he has admitted that, the signature on the promissory note in Ex.A1 is belongs to him. The evidence of PW1 , PW2 and admissions made by DW1 regarding his signature in Ex.A1 establish that the defendant had executed promissory note in her favour and the plaintiff has discharged her primary burden regarding execution of promissory note . Once the 8 execution of promissory note is proved, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, comes into play.

a) Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act reads as follows 

Until contrary is proved, the following presumption shall be made 

a) of consideration : that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. 

b) The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable 

Instrument Act is in favour of the plaintiff. The onus is on the defendant to rebut the said presumption and establish the non existence of consideration.

c) In a decision reported in 2008(4) Supreme Page No.79 in 

between Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao Vs. Thadikonda Ramulu 

Firm, Our Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows ; “ The Court is obliged to presume, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration, it is well settled that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non­existence of consideration. If the defendant discharges the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who would be obliged to prove it. 

9

2) In another decision reported in 2006(1) ALT page 243 in 

between Manapragada Krishna Murthy vs. Savani Transport Pvt. 

Ltd., Mumbai, wherein it was held that ;

Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption the defendant has to bring on record such acts and circumstances, upon consideration of which the Court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non­existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not exist. 

11) The defendant in order to rebut the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and to prove the non existence of consideration, he has relied on the evidence of DW1 who is defendant himself . He has deposed regarding filing of suit by his wife for partition and separate possession on the file of Hon'ble District Court, Srikakulam and filing of money suit by the husband of plaintiff on the file of learned 

Junior Civil Judge,Amadalavalasa .

a) During his cross examination, DW1 has admitted that, the suit filed by husband of plaintiff in OS 69/2010 was decreed and he has taken the same plea in the said case whatever the plea taken by him in this suit. He has admitted that Ex.A1 pertains to the year 2007. 

Whereas his wife filed the suit in the year 2010 and husband of plaintiff filed the suit based on the promissory note said to have been executed in the year 2007. As on the date of execution of promissory note/Ex.A1 by the defendant, there was no disputes between the family of plaintiff and wife of defendant and no suit was filed by the wife of defendant for 10 partition and separate possession. So, the contention of the defendant that since the wife of the defendant filed the suit for partition, the husband of plaintiff created the suit promissory note and another promissory note, is not acceptable. 

b) As per the suggestions made to the PW1 , the husband of the plaintiff had obtained signatures of the defendant when he was hospitalized. But, coming to the admissions made by the DW1, DW1 has stated that, the plaintiff never took his signatures in the hospital . 

But, again he deposed that, his signatures have been taken in the hospital while he was undergoing treatment for heart attack, without his knowledge. But, it is not at all the case of the defendant that, husband of the plaintiff or the plaintiff took his signatures in the hospital . So, said contention is not acceptable. The evidence of DW1 is not acceptable and not believable and his evidence does not rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act regarding passing of consideration. The defendant has failed to discharge his burden and rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument 

Act. Therefore, his contentions are not acceptable. 

c) In view of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 , presumption under 

Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the two decisions referred above of our Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008(4) 

Supreme Page No.79 in between Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao 

Vs. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm, and 2006(1) ALT page 243 in between 

Manapragada Krishna Murthy vs. Savani Transport Pvt. Ltd., 

Mumbai, of Hon'ble Court of Andhra Pradesh , I hold that, the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration and 11 executed by the defendant and it is binding on the defendant . 

Accordingly, both the issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 

12) ISSUE NO.3 : 

In view of my findings on issues 1 and 2 , the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.3,75,000/­ with costs and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation on the principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/­from the defendant. The defendant is liable to pay the same. 

a) The defendant has contended that, the surname of the plaintiff and father's name of the defendant are wrongly noted in the plaint and the father's name of the defendant in the promissory note is also not correct. 

b) The plaintiff has filed neat copy of plaint, wherein she has mentioned her surname correctly both in short and long cause title. So, the contention of the defendant that surname of the plaintiff is not correct is not acceptable. The defendant's father's name was mentioned as Jagannadham in the promissory note/Ex.A1 also it was mentioned as Pujari late Jagannadham. If at all the father's name of the defendant is not correct, the defendant would have objected the same at the time of execution of promissory note itself. But he did not do so. 

But now, the defendant cannot say that his father's name is not correct. 

c) There is no dispute regarding the identification of the defendant . The late Jaganndham does not make any difference with Jagannadha 

Naidu as contended by the defendant. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff 12 is entitled for suit claim. Accordingly, I answer this issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 

13) ISSUE NO.4 : 

In view of my findings on issues 1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. 

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.3,75,000/­(rupees Three lakhs seventy five thousand only) and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/­(Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) 

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected 

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of March, 2013.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Plaintiffs: For Defendant: 

PW1: Chigurupalli Sobharani DW1: Pujari Mohana Rao

PW2 : Pydi Govinda Rajulu 

DOCUMENTS MARKED 

For Plaintiffs : for Defendant : 

Ex.A1 : Promissory note dt.21.10.2007 NIL 13

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM. 

14 15

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Registered simple mortgage deed dt. 23.12.2009 

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt. 26.9.2011

Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment card. 

 For Defendant:

NIL 

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM.

16

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

SRIKAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI A.KARNA KUMAR, B.A.,L.L.M

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

 Wednesday , THE 24 th DAY OF April, 2013

O.S.No. 174/2012 

Between:

State Bank of India , Naupada represented by its Branch Manager, Naupada

... Plaintiff. 

A n d :

1. Labala Jagannadham son of late Chaitanya, 47 years, Hindu, cultivation, re/of Cheruvugattupeta village, Malagam post, mandal, Srikakulam district.

2. Labal Damayanthi wife of Labala Jagannadham, 40 years, Household duties, rest do

..Defendants

This suit is coming on 10.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the 

presence of Sri Kotha Tirumala Rao, advocate for the plaintiff, and Sri 

B.Sudarsana Rao Advocate filed vakalat for the defendants , later the 

defendants remained exparte, and having stood over till today for 

consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for passing a preliminary decree for an amount of Rs.3,33,194/­ with costs and subsequent interest from the defendant. 

2. The brief averments of the plaint are; 2

 The plaintiff is State Bank of India incorporated under State Bank of India Act,1955 and having branches all over India and one such branch at Naupada. 

a) The defendant No.1 is an agriculturist and he wants to avail loan under Kissan Gold Card scheme by mortgaging his property has applied to the plaintiff bank for sanction of loan . The plaintiff bank on considering the application submitted by Defendant NO.1, had sanctioned a loan limit of Rs.2,00,000/­ to develop agricultural land vide account NO.11678160950. The first defendant has executed hypothecation agreement and other relevant documents in favour of the plaintiff bank The defendant NO.1 has availed loan and agreed to repay the same with interest in installments. 

b) The defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor/co­obligant . The defendants have executed all the relevant documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. The first defendant has paid some installments and thereafter committed default. Hence, the plaintiff bank demanded the defendants to repay the loan amount orally and also demand through legal notice dt. 23.9.2011, but there is no response from the defendants. 

other hand, the defendants 1 and 2 made their 

3) On the appearance through their advocate , but they did not choose to file written statement and remained exparte. 

4) In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. 

5) Heard the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff. 

6) Now, the point for consideration is.......

3

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the preliminary mortgage decree for the suit claim as prayed for?

7) The plaintiff bank has relied on the evidence of PW1 who is the present branch manager , who has categorically deposed about the loan transaction and default committed by the first defendant. He further deposed about the demands made by the plaintiff bank orally and through legal notice . The plaintiff has got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 in order to substantiate its claim. 

a) The defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte and they did not chose to contest the matter. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and the documents relied by the plaintiff. The unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A10, establish the claim made by the plaintiff bank. Hence, the plaintiff bank is entitled for preliminary mortgage decree for a sum of Rs.3,33,194/­ with costs and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization on the principal sum of Rs. 3,25,103/­. Time for redemption is Six months. 

8) In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and preliminary mortgage decree is passed for an amount of 

Rs.3,33,194/­ (rupees three lakh thirty three thousand one hundred and ninety four only) and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation on the principal sum of Rs. 3,25,103/­ .(rupees three lakh twenty five thousand one hundred and three only) 

Time for redemption is Six months. 

4

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected 

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of April, 2013.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: 

PW1: Mallipudi Srinivasa Rao None 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Loan application dt 2.5.2007

ExA2 : Pattadar pas book of first defendant. 

Ex.A3 : Title deed of first defendant 

ExA4 : Registered mortgage deed dt.18.07.2006

Ex.A5 Hypothecation agreement dt. 02.05.2007

Ex.A6 : Deed of guarantee dt. 02.05.2007

ExA7 : Arrangement letter. 

ExA8 : Statement of account.

Ex.A9 : Office copy of legal notice dt.23.9.2011

Ex.A10: Postal receipts three in number 

FOR DEFENDANTS : 

NIL 

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

SRIKAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI A.KARNA KUMAR, B.A.,L.L.M

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

 Thursday , THE 25 th DAY OF April, 2013

O.S.No. 424/2012 

Between:

State Bank of India , Naupada represented by its Branch Manager, Naupada

... Plaintiff. 

A n d :

1. Ramapatruni Rajulu son of Narappa, 60 years, Hindu, cultivation re/of Marripadu village, Santhabommali mandal, Srikakulam district.

2.Ramapatruni Tulasamma wife of Rajuu, 53 years,

Occ; Cultivation, rest do.

3.P.Rami Reddy son of Rajuu, 25 years, 

Occ; Cultivation, rest do.

4. J.Rajyalaxmi d/of Rajulu 30 years,

Occ; Cultivation, rest do.

..Defendants

This suit is coming on 10.4.2013 for final hearing before me in the 

presence of Sri K.Tirumala Rao , advocate for the plaintiff, and Sri 

K.Subhasha Advocate filed vakalat for the defendants later, the defendants 

remained exparte, and having stood over till today for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for passing a preliminary decree for an amount of Rs.1,98,039/­ with costs and subsequent interest from the defendant. 

2. The brief averments of the plaint are; 2

 The plaintiff is State Bank of India incorporated under State Bank of India Act,1955 and having branches all over India and one such branch at Naupada. 

a) The defendants are residents of Marripadu village of 

Santhabommali mandal. The defendant No.1 is an agriculturist and he wanted to avail loan under Kissan Gold Card scheme had applied to the plaintiff bank for sanction of loan by mortgaging his property. On 

Considering the application made by the defendant NO.1, the plaintiff bank had sanctioned loan limit of Rs.1,40,000/­ vide account No. ATL 11678160916 to develop agricultural lands. The defendant No.1 has also executed hypothecation agreement. The first defendant has availed the loan on 4.7.2006 by executing registered mortgage deed. 

He has agreed to repay the same with interest in installments. The second defendant stood as guarantor /co­obligant. Defendants 2 to 4 have executed agreement of guarantee. After paying few installments, the defendant NO.1 committed default. Then the plaintiff bank got issued a notice on 16.9.2011 , but there is no response from the defendants. Hence, the suit. 

3) On the other hand, the defendants remained exparte. 

4) In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A20 were marked. 

5) Heard the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff. 

6) Now, the point for consideration is.......

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the preliminary mortgage decree for the suit claim as prayed for?

3

7) The plaintiff has relied on the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to 

Ex.A10. PW1 who is the present branch manager of plaintiff bank has categorically deposed about the loan transaction, execution of documents, mortgage of plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff bank by the defendant NO.1. The plaintiff bank has got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10.

a) The unchallenged evidence of PW1 and ExA1 to Ex.A10 establish the suit claim of the plaintiff bank. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary mortgage decree for a sum of Rs.1,98,039/­ with costs and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization on the principal sum of Rs. 1,92,791­. The defendants are liable to pay the same. Time for redemption is Six months. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants. 

8) In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and preliminary mortgage decree is passed for an amount of Rs. 

1,98,039/­ (rupees one lakh ninety eight thousand and thirty nine only) and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization on the principal sum of Rs. 1,92,791/­(rupees one lakh ninety two thousand seven hundred and ninety one only) Time for redemption is Six months. 

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected 

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 25th day of April, 2013.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM. 

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: 

PW1: Mallipudi Srinivasa Rao None 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Loan application dt. 4.7.2006

Ex.A2 : Title deed of first defendant.

Ex.A3 : Pattadar pass book of 1st defendant.

Ex.A4 : Registered mortgage deed dt.29.6.2006

Ex.A5 : Hypothecation letter dt.4.7.2006

Ex.A6 : Deed of guarantee dt.4.7.2006.

Ex.A7 Arrangement letter. 

Ex.A8 : Statement of account.

Ex.A9 : Office copy of legal notice dt.16.9.2011

Ex.A10: Postal receipts two in number

FOR DEFENDANTS : 

NIL 

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

SRIKAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI A.KARNA KUMAR, B.A.,L.L.M

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

Monday, the 8 th day of April, 2013. 

O.S.No. 710/2012

Between:

Agathamudi Ramulu son of Boddu, Hindu, 67 years, re/of Kuntibadra village, Kotturu mandal, Srikakulam district. 

... Plaintiff. 

A n d :

Deenabandu Panda son of late Padmacharana

Panda, 57 years, Maharthapuram village,

Kotturu mandal, presently working as 

Headmaster, MPP School, Palavalasa village, Burja mandalam, Srikakulam district 

..Defendant

This suit is coming on 22.2.2013 for final hearing before me in the 

presence of Sri G.Chandramohan, advocate for the plaintiff, and Sri A.V.M. 

Rao, Advocate for the defendant filed vakalat, later the defendant remained 

exparte, and having stood over till today for consideration, this court 

delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money of 

Rs.1,92,312/­ with costs and subsequent interest from the defendant.

2

2. The brief averments of the plaint are;

a) The defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/­ on 1.11.2009 from the plaintiff for his household expenses and education of his children and had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. 

Subsequently, inspite of demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the same. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt. 

4.9.2012 . The defendant having received the same, but he neither issued any reply nor paid the amount. Hence, the suit .

3. On the other hand, the defendant even though made his appearance, but he did not choose to file written statement and remained exparte.

4) In order to prove the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked.

5) Heard the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff. 

6) Now, the point for consideration is.. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

In order to prove the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has relied on the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. . PW1 is the plaintiff herein and he has categorically deposed about the transaction and execution of pronote by the defendant and about legal notice. The promissory note has been marked as Ex.A1, whereas the legal notice was marked as Ex.A2. The postal acknowledgment served on the defendant has been marked as Ex.A3.

3

On the other hand, the defendant made his appearance , but he did not chose to file written statement and remained exparte. 

a) If the claim of the plaintiff is not correct, the defendant would have filed his written statement and would have contested the matter. 

The unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with contents of Ex.A1 to 

Ex.A3 establish the suit claim of the plaintiff. The defendant having received the notice, he neither issued any reply nor paid any amount and no other go, the plaintiff has filed this suit. Unless the court grants decree for recovery of money, the defendant cannot repay the amount to the plaintiff. Under the above circumstances, the evidence of PW1 coupled with contents of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim of Rs.1,92,312/­, with costs and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,25,000/­ . The defendant is liable to pay the same. 

7) In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.1,92,312/­(rupees one lakh ninety two thousand three hundred and twelve only) and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,25,000/­(Rupees One lakh twenty five thousand only )

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected 

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of April , 2013.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM. 

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1 : Agathamudi Ramulu None 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:For Defendant:

Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note dt. 1.11.2009 NIL 

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dt.4.9.2012

Ex.A3 : Postal acknowledgment card. 

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM.

1

 IN THE COURT OF ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

SRIKAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI A.KARNA KUMAR, B.A.,LL.M.,

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM

Wednesday, the 24th day of April, 2013. 

MOP 99/2012 

Between:

1. Choudary Venkateswara Manohar Chaterjee, son of Choudary Lakshmi Narasimha Rao Patnaik, 40 years , Hindu, employee, re/of Telugu Brahmina street, 5th ward, D.No.31/2 , Tekkali 

 Srikakulam district.

2. Choudhary Jyothi Nandini wife of Venkateswara

Manohar Chatterjee and daughter of Balivada

Ramasam, 35 years, Hindu, Household duties, re/at D.No.4­191, Jubilee Road,

Pathapatnam mandal, Srikakulam district. 

..Petitioners. 

And :

NIL 

..Respondent 

This petition is coming on 1.4.2013 for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri S.V.A.Bhaskara Rao, advocate for the Petitioners, and Respondent NIL and having stood over till today for consideration and this court made the following:

O R D E R;

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners under

Section 13(b) of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955 to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the 2 petitioners 1 and 2 held on 11.10.2008 on mutual consent.

a) The brief averments of the petition are that,

The first petitioner is the husband and the 2nd petitioner is the wife and their marriage was performed on 11.10.2008 as per Hindu caste custom. They lived happily for some time and thereafter since 2 years they are residing separately due to disputes and misunderstandings. Both the petitioners have decided to take divorce on mutual consent as there is no possibility of reunion . The first petitioner has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the second petitioner towards full and final settlement. There is no collusion in filing this petition. Hence, this petition.

2) This Court granted Six months time for reconciliation , even after expiry of Six months time, both the petitioners who made their appearance before this court have reported that there is no possibility of reunion. Hence, reconciliation was failed.

3)In order to prove the case of the petitioners,

PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.P1 was marked.

4) Heard arguments of counsel for the petitioners .

5) Now, the point for consideration is, Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce on mutual consent ?

a) PW1 is the first petitioner and PW2 is the second petitioner. They have categorically deposed about their marriage and separation and also their decision to take divorce on mutual consent. They have got marked their wedding card as Ex.P1.

b) Admittedly, the first petitioner is the husband and second petitioner is the wife and their marriage was held on 11.10.2008 as per Hindu caste custom and they are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act. Both the petitioners lived happily for some time . Thereafter, due to disputes and misunderstandings they are residing separately since 3 more than 2 years prior to filing of this petition . They have decided to take divorce on mutual consent, as there is no possibility of reunion.

c) In view of the evidence of PW1, PW2 and Ex.P1, it is a fit case to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent. Under the above circumstances, the petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

6) In the result, the petition is allowed without costs granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of petitioners 1 and 2 held on 11.10.2008 on mutual consent.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced 

by me in open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2013. 

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED .

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW1 : Ch.Venkateswara Manohara Chatterjee NIL 

PW2 : Choudhary Jyothi Nandini 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR Petitioner: For Respondent: 

Ex.P1: Wedding card NIL 

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM

4 5