Abdul Rahaman Shaik

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NELLORE.

APNE0A0011942022Present: Sri. ABDUL RAHMAN SHAIK, III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

This the 20th day of February, 2026.

CC No.152 of 2019 (Old C.C.No.127 of 2016)

BETWEEN

Yerragunta Subba Reddy, s/o.Yerrangunta Vekata Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged 63 years, residing at D.No.23/1480,

...Complainant

Lecturer’s colony, Tunga Rajagopal Reddy Street, Nellore City. AND U.V.Satyanarayana, s/o. U.Lakshmi Narasimha Chary, Hindu, aged 40 years, working as S.G.Teacher, S.V.Elementary School, Balaji Nagar, Nellore and residing at

...Accused

D.No.6/111, Shivaji Nagar, Near Ramalayam, Pappula Street, Nellore.

This case having come before me for final hearing on 19.02.2026 in the presence of Shri. M.Venkateswarlu Learned Counsel for Complainant and of Shri.Ananta Satyanarayana, Learned Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivers the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.138 & 142 of

Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 18.09.2012 from him for his family necessities and in consideration thereof, executed a promissory notes in favuor of him on the even date, and agreeing to repay the same with 2 interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands by him, the accused did not choose to repay the amount. Later on the accused issued a cheque bearing

No.469796, dated 22.07.2015 for Rs.1,60,000/- drawn on State Bank of India,

Barracks Branch,Nellore. Accordingly, the complainant presented the said cheque for realization in Corporation Bank, Town Branch Nellore and the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” in the account of the accused and the complainant bank issued a cheque return memo

dated 01.09.2015. The complainant got issued the registered notice on

05.09.2015 through his counsel to the accused. The said notice was served to the accused on 08.09.2015 but, he failed to give any reply nor comply the demand. Hence the complaint.

3.After verifying the case records and material papers filed by the complainant this case is taken on file under Sec.138 & 142 of Negotiable

Instruments Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of complaint and its annexures were furnished to him.

5.The accused was examined Under Section 251 of Cr.P.C with reference to the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments

Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as

PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P4 and also examined PW2 on behalf of complainant and no documents were marked.

3

7.On closure of complainant evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.PC. The accused pleaded not guilty denying the incriminating evidence spoken against him. The accused reported no defense evidence on his behalf, hence the defense evidence is closed.

8.The Complainant is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to

Ex.P4. Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.469796 dated 22.07.2015 for

Rs.1,60,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Barracks Achari street,Nellore,

Ex.P2 is the cheque return memo dated 01.09.2015 for the cheque bearing

No.469796 issued by Corporation Bank, Tekkemitta Extension Branch, Magunta

Layout, Nellore, Ex.P3 is the legal notice dated 05.09.2015 along with postal receipt, Ex.P4 is the postal acknowledgment card of the accused. On behalf of complainant one V.Prasanth Reddy examined as PW.2. On the other hand the accused has not adduced any evidence and no documents were marked on his behalf.

9.Heard the counsels for both sides.

10.Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether there is legally enforceable debt between complainant and accused for issuance of Ex.P1 cheque bearing No. 469796

dated 22.07.2015 by the accused?

2. Whether the complainant is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 & 142 of NI Act?

POINT:

11.The complainant/PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the 4 averments made in the complaint and it is supported by Exs.P1 to Ex.P4. During his cross examination, he testified that he lent Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused and the accused executed two promissory notes in his favour later the accused discharged one promissory note. He has not filed the said discharged promissory note before the court. He also not filed the promissory note dated 18.09.2012

before this court relating to the present case. He do not know who filled Ex.P1

cheque. He denied that there is a material alteration in the Ex.P1 cheque and that numeric ‘1’ is inserted before Rs.60,000/- in Ex.P1 cheque. He issued Ex.P3 notice to the residential and work address of accused. He denied that the school was closed as on the date of Ex.P3 legal notice. He further denied that the signature in Ex.P4 postal acknowledgment card does not belongs to the accused. He is not an income tax assesse. He do not know that the transactions above Rs.20,000/- to be made by a cheque or not.

12.P.W.2 is the one of the attestor of alleged promissory note dated 18.09.2012. During his cross examination he stated that he do not know whether the promissory note dated 18.09.2012 signed by him was filed before the court or not. He denied that on 18.09.2012, the accused never borrowed any amount from the complainant.

13. The complainant filed this complaint U/Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. So, the initial burden is on the complainant to prove that there is a legally enforceable debt, Ex.P1 cheque was issued towards the satisfaction of 5 the said debt and that the said cheque was dishonored due to “funds insufficient”.

14.Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act deals with the offence stated to be committed on account of dishonor of cheque for insufficiency of funds etc., in the account.

15. The essential ingredients of section 138 of the Act are as under:-

i) The cheque must have been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

ii) The cheque must have been returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or exceeds arrangements, etc., iii) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque must have been served a notice of demand in writing within 30 days of the receipt of information of return of the cheque as unpaid.

iv) The drawer must have failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, and

v) Complaint has to be made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of proviso to section 138 of the

Act.

16. The learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments submitting that the original promissory note was not filed by the complainant. Further, the accused was not served with Ex.P3 legal notice as the said legal notice was addressed to the School address. The said school was abandoned along back.

6

Further, the complainant gave contradictory statements stating that the Ex.P1 cheque was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient at para No.3 and account is closed at para No.4. Further, the Number ‘1’ before Rs.60,000/-. There is a material alteration in Ex.P1 that Number ‘1’ is inserted before Rs.60,000/-.

The complainant failed to produce original promissory note towards discharge of which Ex.P1 was issued. As such, there is no legally enforceable debt and the complainant failed to prove his case. The accused was born on 01.07.1958 and retired from service in the month of July, 2018 but in the description of the accused age was shown as 40 years. Thus, itself shows, that the complainant has no prior acquaintance with the accused and prays to acquit the accused.

17.The burden initially lies on the complainant, who has got the bounden duty to prove that the Ex.P1 cheque issued by the accused. Once the execution of the Ex.P1 cheque is proved, the rule of presumption laid in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instructions Act helps him to shift the burden to the other side. The burden of proof, therefore, rests on the complainant. As soon as the execution of the Ex.P1 cheque is proved by the complainant, once again Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposes a duty on the Court to raise a presumption in his favour that the said Ex.P1 cheque was is towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the accused. If the onus is shifted on the accused, it is for him to adduce direct evidence to prove that the Ex.P1 cheque is not issued towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt. It is open to the accused also to rely on the 7 circumstantial evidence. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is clear that the execution of Ex.P1 cheque and delivery of the same to the complainant is not denied by the accused. As can be seen from the cross-examination of P.W.1, it can be understood that the accused is not disputing the issuance of the Ex.P1 cheque.

18.Further, “When a cheque is dishonored, it is not the dishonour alone that triggers criminal liability, but the failure to comply with the statutory demand notice that does. Under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act the payee or holder in due course must send a written notice to the drawer within thirty days from the date they receive intimation from the bank regarding the dishonour. The notice must clearly demand payment of the cheque amount within fifteen days of its receipt by the drawer.” The offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act arises “when a cheque is drawn on an account and returned unpaid for reasons such as insufficient funds or exceeding the arrangement with the bank and when the payee (or holder in due course) gives a written notice to the drawer within 30 days of receiving knowledge of the return.” The Ex.P3 legal notice clearly discloses that the accused issued a cheque for Rs.1,60,000/- and the same was returned unpaid for the reason of Funds Insufficient. Further, the complainant issued Ex.P3 legal notice demanding to pay the cheque amount Rs.1,60,000/- to the accused. To disprove the case of the complainant, the accused should prove that the accused has not issued any cheque to the complainant and if so, under what circumstances he has issued the cheque to the complainant. Mere making 8 suggestion that the accused never borrowed any amount from complainant is not sufficient to rebut the presumption U/sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is presumed to be true, he has not explained as to how the Ex.P1 cheque went into the possession of the complainant. The contentions of the accused are inconsistent. Merely making inconsistent pleas is not sufficient to rebut the presumption U/sec.139 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

19.The Hon’ble Supreme court in 2019 (1) ALD (Crl) 296 and submitted that their lord ships in the said judgment observed that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, once the cheque has been signed and issued in favour of the holder, there is a statutory presumption that it is issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability” and further observed that the presumption is rebuttal one, if the issuer of the cheque is able to discharge the burden that it was issued for some other purpose like security for a loan.

20. Sec.139. Presumption in favour of holder.—It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

21.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 held that “failure of the drawer of the cheque to put up a probable defence for rebutting the presumption that arises under Section 139 would justify conviction even when the drawer may have alleged that the cheque 9 in question had been lost and was being misused by the complainant”.

22.Therefore, the complainant established the legally enforceable debt with plausible evidence. As observed above, the accused himself admitted issuance of Ex.P1 cheque and the existence of legally enforceable debt. As can be seen from the cross-examination of the accused that the accused never borrowed any amounts from the complainant and he never issued Ex.P1 cheque and that the complainant filed this complaint by using the said Ex.P1 cheque.

The above suggestion given to the complainant in the cross-examination would suggest that it is the defense of the accused that the accused never issued cheque. If the accused has not issued Ex.P1 cheque, he may disprove the same by adducing sufficient oral and documentary evidence. But he did not choose to do so.

23.It is pertinent to note here that under Section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the

Negotiable Instrument (including a cheque) had been made or drawn for consideration. Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court has to presume, unless the contrary was proved, that the holder of the cheque, received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of a debt or liability. The said presumption is rebuttable. Here, in the present case, the accused failed to rebut the said presumption. The evidence on record proves that there exists a legal enforceable debt under Ex.P1. It is the burden of the accused to prove that the cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability.

10

The Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 3897 in the case of

Hitten P.Dalal Vs Bratindranath Benerjee held that “Thus, in complaints under

Section 138, the Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability. This presumption is rebuttable. However, the burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability is on the accused”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.N.Beena Vs Muniyappan reported in

AIR 2001 SC 2895 it is held that “The accused must rebut the presumption

U.Sec.118, 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Mere denial is insufficient.”

24.Further it is the contention of the accused is that he do not receive

Ex.P3 legal notice. I do not see any force in the contention of the learned counsel

for the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C.Alavi Haji Vs. Paalapetti

Muhammed and another (Indian Kanoon Doc.No.272690) their lordships observed that “it is also to be born in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the Court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (By receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to the rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the

Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot 11 obviosuly contend that there was no proper service of notice as requied under

Section 138 of the Act, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under

Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation.

As observed in Bhaskaran's case (Supra), if the giving of notice in the context of

Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice, a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of section 138 of the

Act.”

25.The other contention of the accused is that the Ex.P1 cheque is materially altered and numeric ‘1’ is inserted before Rs.60,000/-. On perusal of Ex.P1 cheque it clearly shows that the accused was issued for Rs.1,60,000/- and the same was written in words as One Lakh Sixteen Thousand rupees only. On

Perusal of Ex.P1 cheque no insertion are appearing in Ex.P1 cheque.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 it is held that “if a signed black cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused t prove that the cheque was not in discharge ofa debt or liability by adducing evidence. A meaning full reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20,87, and 139 makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the 12 payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of section 138 would be attracted.”

26.Therefore, in view of the above decision, it can be held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable instruments Act. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to presume that Ex.P1 cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt.

27.The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable instruments Act. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to presume that Ex.P1 cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the complainant has discharged his burden by producing oral and documentary evidence as required under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. Here, in the present case, the accused failed to discharge his burden of rebutting presumptions in favour of complainant under

Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. To discharge the burden, the accused need not be entered into witness box. He can rebut the presumption by way of thorough and accurate cross-examination of the witnesses.

28.As already observed the accused admitted the issuance of cheque.

13

When once the accused admits the issuance of cheque, the presumptions available under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act come into operation. Under Section 118 of the Act, every cheque is presumed to be drawn for consideration and under Section 139 of the Act, every cheque is presumed to be issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. The accused failed to rebut the said presumptions.

29.From the above discussion, I opined that the complainant proved his case against the accused for the offence U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

30. In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence U/sec.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act and accused is convicted U/sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

(Typed by the Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of February, 2026).

Sd/-Sri.Abdul Rahman Shaik

III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

31.On appearance of the accused, the accused is explained about the punishment provided U/sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and also questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him.

32.Accused submitted that he is a Priest in a Temple and he is a

Retired Employee and he is the sole bread winner of the family and prays to take lenient view.

14

33.Considering nature of offence proved against the accused and as the accused deliberately issued Ex.P1 cheque without having sufficient funds in his account, if the accused is released under Probation of Offenders Act, it is nothing but traverse of justice and the very object of the legislative mandate of making bouncing of cheque as punishable will be at stake. Therefore, I am of the view that it is not fit case to invoke beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders

Act in favour of the accused.

34.Further our Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in S.Suresh

Kumar Vs. Jagadeeshan 2002(1) ALD(Crl.) 417 held that “it should be the look out of the trail court Magistrate that the sentence for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be of such a nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation. No drawer of the cheque can be allowed to take dishonor of the cheque issued by him light heartedly. The very object of the enactment of the provisions like Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 would stand defeated if the sentence is flee bite in nature. It is a different matter, if the accused is paid the amount at least during the pendency of the case”.

35.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in in a decision reported in 2012 1 SCC 260 in between R. Vijayan Vs. Baby and Anr observed thus "As the provisions of

Chapter XVII of the Act strongly lean towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation, the courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy 15 fine up to twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount as compensation. Direction to pay compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of dishonor of the cheque should be practical and realistic, which would mean not only the payment of the cheque amount but interest thereon at a reasonable rate. Uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts, not only increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable instrument, but also the credibility of courts of justice."

36.In view of the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to take a lenient view. Considering all these circumstances, I feel the following sentence will meet the ends of justice.

37. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and he is convicted under

Section 255(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and he is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs twenty thousand only) and out of the fine amount an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ten thousand only) to be paid towards compensation to the complainant, in view of the loss suffered by him due to the act of the accused U/Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The remaining fine of 16

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be confiscated to the state. In

default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of six months. The complainant, is at liberty to recover the compensation Under section 431 of Cr.P.C. as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Kumaran Vs State of Kerala and Anr reported in AIR 2017 SC 2433.

The accused is informed about his right of Appeal before Hon'ble Sessions Court and also informed about his right to get free legal Aid through Hon'ble Chairman,

District Legal Service Authority, Nellore, if he has no means. Office is directed to serve the copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith at free of cost. Office is further directed to prepare the conviction warrant accordingly.

(Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of February, 2026).

Sd/-Sri.Abdul Rahman Shaik

III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant: For Defense :

PW1: Y.Subba ReddyNIL

PW2 : V.Prasanth Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Complainant:

Ex.P1: is the cheque bearing No.469796 dated 22.07.2015 for Rs.1,60,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Barracks Achari street,Nellore,

Ex.P2 is the cheque return memo dated 01.09.2015 for the cheque bearing

No.469796 issued by Corporation Bank, Tekkemitta Extension Branch, Magunta

Layout, Nellore, 17

Ex.P3 is the legal notice dated 05.09.2015 along with postal receipt.

Ex.P4 is the postal acknowledgment card of the accused.

For Defense: Nil.

Sd/-Sri.Abdul Rahman Shaik

III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

//True Copy//

III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nellore

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NELLORE.

APNE0A0011942022Present: Sri. ABDUL RAHMAN SHAIK, III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

This the 20th day of February, 2026.

CC No.1054 of 2022

BETWEEN

Neelapareddy Madan, S/o.Neelapareddy Malakondareddy, Private Employee, Saluchintala, Nellore Town, SPSR

...Complainant

Nellore District. Cell No.9985644110. AND Gurrala Mohan, s/o.Gurrala Venkataiah, Employee, Sr.work shop instructor, Govt. Polytechnic College, Gudur town, SPSR Nellore District. Cell No.9618198060.

...Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on 19.02.2026 in the presence of Shri. Vemana Gopi Learned Counsel for Complainant and of Shri.G.V.Ramesh Kumar, Learned Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivers the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.138 & 142 of

Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- on 05.01.2020 from him for his personal necessities and in consideration thereof, executed with his own hand writing a promissory notes in favor of him on the even date, and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of repeated 2 demands by him, the accused did not choose to repay the amount. Later on the accused issued a cheque bearing No.315709, dated 04.01.2022 for

Rs.2,15,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant presented the said cheque for realization in State Bank of India, Barracks Branch Nellore and the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER” in the account of the accused and the complainant bank issued a cheque return memo dated 14.01.2022. The complainant got issued the registered notice on 18.01.2022 through his counsel to the accused. The said notice was served to the accused on 20.01.2022 but, he failed to give any reply nor comply the demand. Hence the complaint.

3.After verifying the case records and material papers filed by the complainant this case is taken on file under Sec.138 & 142 of Negotiable

Instruments Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of complaint and its annexures were furnished to him.

5.The accused was examined Under Section 251 of Cr.P.C with reference to the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments

Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as

PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P5.

7.On closure of complainant evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.PC. The accused pleaded not guilty denying the incriminating 3 evidence spoken against him. The accused himself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

8.The Complainant N.Madan is examined as PW1 and got marked

Exs.P1 to Ex.P5. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of promissory note dated 05.01.2020 for Rs.1,42,000/-, Ex.P2 is the cheque bearing No.315709 dated 04.01.2022 drawn on State Bank of India, Nellore Branch, Ex.P3 is the cheque return memo

dated 14.01.2022 issued by Bank of India, Nellore for the cheque bearing

No.315709 drawn on State Bank of India, Nellore branch, Ex.P4 is the legal notice dated 18.01.2022 along with postal receipt, Ex.P5 is the postal acknowledgment. On the other hand the accused was examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

9.Heard the counsels for both sides.

10.Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether there is legally enforceable debt between complainant and accused for issuance of Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.315709

dated 04.01.2022 by the accused?

2. Whether the complainant is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 & 142 of NI Act?

11. POINT:

12.The complainant/PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and it is supported by Exs.P1 to Ex.P5. During his cross examination, he testified that he asked the accused to repay the debt in the month of November 2021 then, the accused issued the cheque to him on 4 01.01.2022 with date 04.01.2022 the accused came to his house and issued cheque to him after 18.45 hours. Except, himself and his parents no other person was present at the time of issuance of Ex.P1 cheque. He denied that the cheque was lost and thus the accused issued stop payment instructions to the bank. The contents of Ex.P1 cheque was filed by accused himself. He admitted that there is difference in the ink in the contents of Ex.P1 cheque. He do not know for which purpose he borrowed the amounts from him. The accused is working as assistance in Government Polytechnic college, Nellore and presently working at

Gudur. He got acquainted with the accused through his father. He gave

Rs.1,42,000/- to the accused in his house on 05.01.2020. Himself, his father and the accused and one Shaik Babu were present at the time of Ex.P1 promissory note transaction. He denied that he do not have financial capacity to lend the amount of Rs.1,42,000/- to the accused. Further, he denied the suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the accused.

On the other hand the accused himself got examined as DW1. During his chief evidence he stated that he do not know the complainant Neelapareddy

Madan. He know the father of the complainant by name Malakonda Reddy. In the year 2016, he borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the father of the complainant and he has been paying interest to him in the month of November or

December he repaid the debt and returned one cheque to him. The accused asked for the another empty cheque and then he stated that the said cheque was misplaced. The contents of the cheque was not filed by him and the signature on 5 the cheque do not belongs to him. He instructed the bank authorities to stop payment of cheques given by him later he received legal notice. During his cross- examination he stated that he is having financial transactions with the father of the complainant since 1998. He know the family members of the father of the complainant. Witness added that he only know the mother of the complainant but not the complainant. He has not issued any legal notice to the father of the complainant to return empty cheques given by him. He received the legal notice from the complainant. He has not issued any reply notice to the legal notice issued by the complainant. One Kandula Narendra filed C.C.No.103/2018 before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Nellore and the same was entered into conviction. The signature on the Ex.P1/Promissory Note belongs to him and he himself scribed the same. As on the presentation of the cheque in the

Bank there is no sufficient balance in his account. Further he denied the suggestions putforth by the Learned Counsel for Complainant.

12. The complainant filed this complaint U/Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. So, the initial burden is on the complainant to prove that there is a legally enforceable debt, Ex.P2 cheque was issued towards the satisfaction of the said debt and that the said cheque was dishonored due to “funds insufficient”.

13.Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act deals with the offence stated to be committed on account of dishonor of cheque for insufficiency of funds etc., in the account.

6

14.The essential ingredients of section 138 of the Act are as under:-

i) The cheque must have been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

ii) The cheque must have been returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or exceeds arrangements, etc., iii) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque must have been served a notice of demand in writing within 30 days of the receipt of information of return of the cheque as unpaid.

iv) The drawer must have failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, and

v) Complaint has to be made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of proviso to section 138 of the

Act.

15.The burden initially lies on the complainant, who has got the bounden duty to prove that the Ex.P2 cheque issued by the accused. Once the execution of the Ex.P2 cheque is proved, the rule of presumption laid in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instructions Act helps him to shift the burden to the other side. The burden of proof, therefore, rests on the complainant. As soon as the execution of the Ex.P2 cheque is proved by the complainant, once again Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposes a duty on the Court to raise a presumption in his favour that the said Ex.P2 cheque was is towards discharge of 7 legally enforceable debt. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the accused. If the onus is shifted on the accused, it is for him to adduce direct evidence to prove that the Ex.P2 cheque is not issued towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt. It is open to the accused also to rely on the circumstantial evidence. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is clear that the execution of Ex.P2 cheque and delivery of the same to the complainant is not denied by the accused. As can be seen from the cross-examination of P.W.1, it can be understood that the accused is not disputing the issuance of the Ex.P2 cheque.

16.Further, “When a cheque is dishonored, it is not the dishonour alone that triggers criminal liability, but the failure to comply with the statutory demand notice that does. Under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act the payee or holder in due course must send a written notice to the drawer within thirty days from the date they receive intimation from the bank regarding the dishonour. The notice must clearly demand payment of the cheque amount within fifteen days of its receipt by the drawer.” The offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act arises “when a cheque is drawn on an account and returned unpaid for reasons such as insufficient funds or exceeding the arrangement with the bank and when the payee (or holder in due course) gives a written notice to the drawer within 30 days of receiving knowledge of the return.” The Ex.P3 legal notice clearly discloses that the accused issued a cheque for Rs.2,15,000/- and the same was returned unpaid for the reason of Payment stopped by Drawer. Further, the 8 complainant issued Ex.P3 legal notice demanding to pay the cheque amount

Rs.2,15,000/- to the accused. To disprove the case of the complainant, the accused should prove that the accused has not issued any cheque to the complainant and if so, under what circumstances he has issued the cheque to the complainant. Mere making suggestion that the accused never borrowed any amount from complainant is not sufficient to rebut the presumption U/sec.139 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is presumed to be true, he has not explained as to how the Ex.P2 cheque went into the possession of the complainant. The contentions of the accused are inconsistent. Merely making inconsistent pleas is not sufficient to rebut the presumption U/sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

17.The Hon’ble Supreme court in 2019 (1) ALD (Crl) 296 and submitted that their lord ships in the said judgment observed that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, once the cheque has been signed and issued in favour of the holder, there is a statutory presumption that it is issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability” and further observed that the presumption is rebuttal one, if the issuer of the cheque is able to discharge the burden that it was issued for some other purpose like security for a loan.

18. Sec.139. Presumption in favour of holder.—It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

9

19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 held that “failure of the drawer of the cheque to put up a probable defence for rebutting the presumption that arises under Section 139 would justify conviction even when the drawer may have alleged that the cheque in question had been lost and was being misused by the complainant”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Modi Cements Limited Vs. Sri

Kuchin Kumar Nandi reported in AIR 1998 SC 1057 it is held that the account closed, payment stopped will constituted deemed dishonoured subject to the provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in MMTC Limited Vs. Medchal Chemicals and Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Reported in AIR 2002 SC 182 it is held that complaint

U/s.138 of Negotioble Instrument Act can be made out only when a cheque is dishonoured due to insufficient fund or if the amount of the cheque exceeds the amount in the account, but also when the drawer of the cheque instructs their bank to “Stop Payment” on the cheque. However, if the accused can show that there were sufficient funds in their account to clear the amount of the cheque at the time of presentation and that the stop-payment notice was issued for valid reasons, then the offense U/s.138 would not be made out.

20.On perusal of the cross-examination of accused who got examined as Dw-1, the accused himself admitted that he has no sufficient balance in his account as on the date of presentation of the cheque in the bank. He admitted that the signature on Ex.P1/promissory note belongs to him. Hence relying on the 10 above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the offence

U/s.138 of N.I.Act is made out.

21.Therefore, the complainant established the legally enforceable debt with plausible evidence. As observed above, the accused himself admitted issuance of Ex.P2 cheque and the existence of legally enforceable debt. As can be seen from the cross-examination of the accused that the accused never borrowed any amounts from the complainant and he never issued Ex.P2 cheque and that the complainant filed this complaint by using the said Ex.P2 cheque.

The above suggestion given to the complainant in the cross-examination would suggest that it is the defense of the accused that the accused never issued cheque. If the accused has not issued Ex.P2 cheque, he may disprove the same by adducing sufficient oral and documentary evidence. But he did not choose to do so.

22.It is pertinent to note here that under Section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the

Negotiable Instrument (including a cheque) had been made or drawn for consideration. Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court has to presume, unless the contrary was proved, that the holder of the cheque, received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of a debt or liability. The said presumption is rebuttable. Here, in the present case, the accused failed to rebut the said presumption. The evidence on record proves that there exists a legal enforceable debt under Ex.P1. It is the burden of the accused to prove that 11 the cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 3897 in the case of Hitten P.Dalal Vs

Bratindranath Benerjee held that “Thus, in complaints under Section 138, the

Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability. This presumption is rebuttable. However, the burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability is on the accused”.

23.Therefore, in view of the above decision, it can be held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of

Negotiable instruments Act. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to presume that Ex.P2 cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt.

24.The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable instruments Act. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to presume that Ex.P2 cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the complainant has discharged his burden by producing oral and documentary evidence as required under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. Here, in the present case, the accused failed to discharge his burden of rebutting presumptions in favour of complainant under

Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. To discharge the burden, the accused need not be entered into witness box. He can rebut the presumption by way of thorough and accurate cross-examination of the witnesses. In the present case, there is no articulate cross-examination made by the accused to rebut the 12 presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

25.As already observed the accused admitted the issuance of cheque.

When once the accused admits the issuance of cheque, the presumptions available under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act come into operation. Under Section 118 of the Act, every cheque is presumed to be drawn for consideration and under Section 139 of the Act, every cheque is presumed to be issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. The accused failed to rebut the said presumptions.

26.From the above discussion, I opined that the complainant proved his case against the accused for the offence U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

27. In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence U/sec.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act and accused is convicted U/sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

(Typed by the Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of February, 2026).

Sd/- Abdul Rahman Shaik

III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

28.On appearance of the accused, the accused is explained about the punishment provided U/sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and also questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him.

29.Accused submitted that he is a Government Employee having Old 13 aged parents and having two daughters and he has to perform their marriages.

The accused further submitted that he was suffering with diabeties, Hypertension and prays to take lenient view.

30.Considering nature of offence proved against the accused and as the accused deliberately issued Ex.P1 cheque without having sufficient funds in his account, if the accused is released under Probation of Offenders Act, it is nothing but traverse of justice and the very object of the legislative mandate of making bouncing of cheque as punishable will be at stake. Therefore, I am of the view that it is not fit case to invoke beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders

Act in favour of the accused.

31.Further our Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in S.Suresh

Kumar Vs. Jagadeeshan 2002(1) ALD(Crl.) 417 held that “it should be the look out of the trail court Magistrate that the sentence for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be of such a nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation. No drawer of the cheque can be allowed to take dishonor of the cheque issued by him light heartedly. The very object of the enactment of the provisions like Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 would stand defeated if the sentence is flee bite in nature. It is a different matter, if the accused is paid the amount at least during the pendency of the case”.

32.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in in a decision reported in 2012 1 SCC 260 in between R. Vijayan Vs. Baby and Anr observed thus "As the provisions of 14

Chapter XVII of the Act strongly lean towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation, the courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount as compensation. Direction to pay compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of dishonor of the cheque should be practical and realistic, which would mean not only the payment of the cheque amount but interest thereon at a reasonable rate. Uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts, not only increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable instrument, but also the credibility of courts of justice."

33.In view of the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to take a lenient view. Considering all these circumstances, I feel the following sentence will meet the ends of justice.

34. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and he is convicted under

Section 255(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and he is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.4,30,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Thousands only) and out of the fine amount an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees four lakhs Twenty thousand only) to 15 be paid towards compensation to the complainant, in view of the loss suffered by him due to the act of the accused U/Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The remaining fine of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be confiscated to the state. In

default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of six months. The complainant, is at liberty to recover the compensation Under section 431 of Cr.P.C. as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Kumaran Vs State of Kerala and Anr reported in AIR 2017 SC 2433.

The accused is informed about his right of Appeal before Hon'ble Sessions Court and also informed about his right to get free legal Aid through Hon'ble Chairman,

District Legal Service Authority, Nellore, if he has no means. Office is directed to serve the copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith at free of cost. Office is further directed to prepare the conviction warrant accordingly.

(Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of February, 2026).

Sd/- Abdul Rahman Shaik

III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant: For Defense :

PW1: N.MadanDw-1/G.Mohan

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Complainant:

Ex.P1 : is the certified copy of promissory note dated 05.01.2020 for

Rs.1,42,000/-

Ex.P2 : is the cheque bearing No.315709 dated 04.01.2022 drawn on State Bank 16 of India, Nellore Branch

Ex.P3 :is the cheque return memo dated 14.01.2022 issued by Bank of India,

Nellore for the cheque bearing No.315709 drawn on State Bank of India,

Nellore branch

Ex.P4 : is the legal notice dated 18.01.2022 along with postal receipt

Ex.P5 : is the postal acknowledgment.

For Defense: Nil.

Sd/- Abdul Rahman Shaik

III Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore // True copy //

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

1

In the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division): Nellore

APNE0A0023432020 Present: - Sri Abdul Rahman Shaik, III Addl. Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Nellore

Tuesday, the 10th Day of February, 2026

O.S No.657 of 2020

Between Pandipati Siva Kumar Reddy, s/o.Late Pandipadti Venkata Ramana Reddy, Hindu, aged 56 years, residing at Mulumudi Village & Post, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR

...Plaintiff

Nellore District.

Vs.

Konduru Vedavathi, w/o.Late Konduru Udayasankar Reddy, Hindu, aged 45 years, presently residing at D.No.27-1-1689, C/o.D.Gopal Naidu, (House Owner), back side of Swamidas English Medium School, Balaji Nagar, Nellore District.

... Defendant

This suit is coming on 29.01.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Shri.P.Umamaheswar,AdvocateforthePlaintiffandof Shri.R.Satyanarayana Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,16,724/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Four only) being the principal and interest due on promissory note dated 05.11.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the principal amount of Rs.3,08,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eight Thousand only).

2. Pleadings of the plaintiff: The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,08,000/- on 05.11.2018 from the plaintiff and in consideration thereof, the defendant 2 executed a promissory note with her own hand writing for the said sum of

Rs.3,08,000/- on the said date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum on demand or to the order of the plaintiff. The said promissory note was duly attested by Sk.Khadar Basha and K.Seenaiah as well. The plaintiff further submit that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the amount due under the promissory note. The defendant is in possession of agricultural land in Katha No.586 Sy.No.701, Ac.3-38 cents, Sy.No.700 Ac.

0.36 cents, and Sy.No.1282, Ac.2-65 cents as on 13.10.2020 in Kothavangallu

Village of Kodavaluru Mandal. The defendant is capable of discharging the suit debt at a stretch to plaintiff. But, she is deliberately evading to repay the same. Hence the suit.

3. Pleadings of the defendant:

The defendant filed her written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that the suit promissory note is forged one. This defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, she was never indebted to pay any amount to the plaintiff and she never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. This defendant did not scribe the suit promissory note and did not sign any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, much less the suit promissory note and the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated promissory note. The defendant never got any necessity to borrow 3 any amount from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of his capacity to lend such an amount on the date of the promissory note. The defendant further submits that the plaintiff is the brother of one Janardhan Reddy who is husband of the younger sister of the defendant. The said Janardhan Reddy died on 27.02.2010 leaving his wife and son. Thereafter, arose some disputes between the plaintiff and the family members of Janardhan Reddy. Therefore, there were no positive relations to the plaintiff with the family of the defendant by the date of the suit promissory note and the question of borrowing any amount by the defendant, after 2010 from the plaintiff would not arise. The sister of the defendant, wife of Janardhan Reddy has also put up her family at

Nellore, very near to the house of this defendant, after the death of her husband and the plaintiff and this defendant are very much close to one another. Because of the property disputes, the sister of the defendant Aparna and her son filed a partition suit O.S.No.1164 of 2019 on the file of the court against the plaintiff, his mother and other family members of the plaintiff and it may be the reason, the plaintiff has fabricated the suit promissory note.

She further submitted that the plaintiff is not resident of Mulumudi

Village and he shifted his family from Mulumudi to Vavveru Village,

Buchimandal in the year 2012 and the defendant is resident of Nellore City.

So, the question of defendant borrowing the suit amount from the plaintiff at

Mulumudi village is nothing but a concoction. The alleged attestors of the promissory note are not known to the defendant.

4

She further submitted that she is an agriculturist and the interest claimed in the suit is injurious and is not maintainable. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the Suit Promissory note dated 05.11.2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

3. To what relief?

5.During trial, on behalf of Plaintiff Pw-1 and Pw-2 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 on behalf of Pw-1. Ex.A1 is the Original Suit Promissory Note

dated 05.11.2018 for Rs.3,08,000/- executed by defendant in favor of the

plaintiff and no documents were marked on behalf of Pw-2. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendant Dw-1 was examined and the Ex.A2 is the deposition in O.S.No.787/2019 on the file of I Addl.Junior Civil Judge Court,

Nellore was marked during evidence through her.

6.During cross examination, he stated that after death of his brother

Janardhan reddy, the wife of the said Janardhan Reddy by name Aparna who is none other than sister of the defendant filed a suit for partition in

O.S.No.1264/2019 against the mother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and he was

contesting the suit. The defendant did a saree business by going to the house of purchasers and also do cultivation as she has agricultural lands. He lent an 5 amount of Rs.3,08,000/- as he is having that extent of amount only. He admitted that there was a correction in the amount in Ex.A1 promissory note.

At it was mentioned as Rs.2,00,000/- and it is corrected as Rs.3,08,000/- he further stated that the same was corrected by the defendant and was rightly stated in words. The promissory note was executed on 05.11.2018, in the presence of defendant, Seenaiah and one Khadar Basha. The defendant herself scribed the promissory note.

7. The plaintiff got examined one Shaik Khadar Basha on his behalf as

PW.2 who is the first attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note by filing his chief examination affidavit. During his cross examination he stated that the plaintiff is residing in Mulumudi village of Nellore Rural Mandal. He know the defendant since 10 years and he got acquainted with the defendant through her sister by name Aparna who is his villager. At first instance, the defendant asked for Rs.3,00,000/- and later asked to give whatever the amount available with the plaintiff. Then, the plaintiff gave Rs.8,000/- which was remained with him. He know the husband of defendant by name Udaya Shankar Reddy. The husband of Aparna is no more. He don’t know the extent of land owned by the defendant. The defendant borrowed amounts for purpose of cultivation.

8.On the other hand, the defendant herself got examined as D.W.1 by filing her chief examination affidavit. During her cross examination she admitted that one Kond Reddy Ramasubba reddy got filed a suit in 6

O.S.No.787/2019 before the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nellore against

her for recovery of amount due under the promissory note dated18.10.2017.

She gave evidence, in the said suit as D.W.1. The said suit was decreed. In the said suit she took plea of forgery. She further admitted that while giving evidence in O.S.No.787/2019 before the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Nellore, she stated that she discharged the debt of Pandipati Siva Kumar

Reddy (Plaintiff herein) and even after the discharge of the debt he got filed the suit against her in O.S.No.657/2020. She further admitted that her sister

Aparna got filed O.S.No.1164/2019 before this court against the plaintiff and his brothers for partition and the same is settled out of the court. She do not know whether she stated in her written statement that she discharged the debt of the plaintiff or not. Further, she denied the suggestions putforth by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

09.Heard both the learned counsels for the Plaintiff and the defendant.

10Perused the record.

11. Point for issues No.1 and 2:

It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,08,000/- under Ex.A1 agreeing to repay the same either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. In spite of repeated oral demands, she failed to repay the same. Hence, the suit.

7

12.The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Ch.Birbal Singh Vs. Harphool

Khan reported in AIR 1976 ALL 23 it is held that “the “execution” of a document means signing a document written out, read over and understood and does not consist of merely signing a blank paper. If execution admitted or proved the presumption U/S 118 of NI Act arises. If execution is denied it is for the person basing on the claim to prove it”.

13.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1518 it is held that “under Section 118 of negotiable instrument Act the presumptions to be raised, until contrary is proved, are (i) as to consideration (ii) as to date of instrument (iii) as to time of acceptance

(iv) time of transfer (v) as to order of endorsement (vi) as to appropriate stamp

(vii) as to holder is holder in due course.

14.Hence the execution of a document is different from signing a document. The execution of document means signing a document written out read over and understood and doesn’t consist of merely signing a blank paper. The presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act cannot be extended unless execution of instrument is either admitted or proved. Once, the execution is denied, it is for the person, who makes the claim on the instrument, to prove it. The plaintiff by examining himself as PW1 and got examining one Shaik Khadar basha as P.W.2 to proved the execution of the promissory note. The defendant one way admitting the signatures and on the 8 other way she stated that the plaintiff forged her signature. But the defendant except her self serving statement, neither examined any witness nor produced any documents on her behalf to prove her contention.

15.The contention of the defendant is that there is a correction in the amount. The writings Rs.3,00,000/- is corrected as Rs.3,08,000/-. The defendant has not raised her contention of material alteration, but during cross examination of plaintiff/PW1 she posed a question that the amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- was corrected as Rs.3,08,000/-. For that the plaintiff admitted the same and stated that the defendant herself scribed Ex.A1 promissory note and she herself made the corrections. And, further stated that in words the amount was correctly mentioned as Rs.3,08,000/-. On perusal of Ex.A1 promissory note the amount in words was stated as Three Lakhs Eight

Thousand only. It is well settled law when there is ambiguity in numbers and words, the words generally prevail over the figures (numbers) and the written words would be assumed to be represent the true intent of the parties. As such the contention of the defendant that there is discrepancy in words and figures could not be considered.

16.The learned counsel for the plaintiff during cross examination of PW2, confronted the deposition of DW1in O.S.No.787/2019 on the file of learned I

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore and cross examined the defendant herein stating that while giving the evidence in O.S.No.787/2019 she stated that she 9 discharged the debt of the plaintiff herein i.e., Pandipati Siva Kumar Reddy and even after discharge of the debt he got filed a suit against her in

O.S.No.657/2020. The learned counsel contended that the defendant took the

plea of discharge of the debt in O.S.No.657/2020, while giving evidence in

O.S.No.787/2019 before the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nellore. It is

also well settled law that the deposition of witness in one case cannot be relied or in another case.

17.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vempati

Venkateswar Rao Vs Challa Vijaya and another reported in AIR 2016 (NOC) 250 HYD it is held that “Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the propose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:Provided-that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest;That the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine;

That the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.

10

In the present revisions, none of the conditions, which have been enumerated under Section 33 of the Act, are either pleaded or proved. In other words, the conditions, which entitle invocation of Section 33 of the Act to bring on record the evidence given in other proceedings, are not present. This

Court in Talasila Suresh and Katru John Kennedy held that existence of the circumstances mentioned under Section 33 of the Act is mandatory.

18.On perusal of the present record on hand, the parties are not same and further the conditions laid down Under section 33 of Evidence Act are not satisfied. Hence, the Ex.A2 i.e. the deposition of DW1 in O.S.No.787/2019 cannot be relied upon.

19.Since the defendant taken the plea of forgery, it is the primary onus of the plaintiff to establish the execution of Ex.A1. To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW-1, so also examined the attestor of

Ex.A1 as PW-2. The PW-2 who is the attesor of Ex.A1 also supported the version of PW-1. Though the Pws.1 and 2 subjected to cross examination nothing is elicited by the defendant counsel to discredit their testimony. Once the PW-1 is able to prove the execution, he can have the shelter of section 118(a) of N.I. Act, and it is for the Court to presume that Ex.A1 is supported by consideration. Thereafter, the onus to prove that the suit promissory note is forged one, will shift to the shoulders of the defendant. The defendant except her self serving statements by examining herself as DW1 as not produced any 11 evidence to show that the signature on Ex.A1 do not belongs to her and it is forged one.

20.The defendant alleged that the signature on Ex.A1 promissory note is forged one but she failed to send the disputed signature for comparison with the admitted signatures by the handwriting expert. The defendant also failed to establish that she never borrowed the amounts from the plaintiff and never executed Ex.A1 promissory note. As such, the defendant failed to establish that the signature found in Ex.A1 suit promissory note is a forged one. Hence as per the presumption under section 118 of N.I. Act it can be drawn a presumption that the signature on Ex.A1 promissory note is true and genuine.

In view of the above discussion, the PW-1 is able to prove the execution of Ex.A1 and it is supported by consideration.

21.So for as interest is concerned, the plaintiff has claimed it at the rate of 18% per annum. Since the suit debt is an unsecured one, the claim of interest at the rate of 12% p.a is most reasonable and it is not either usurious or exorbi- tant and therefore, the same can be allowed without there being any hesita- tion. Hence, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

22. Issue No.3 To what relief:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for 4,16,724/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Four only) with subsequent 12 interest @12% per annum, from the date of suit, till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,08,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs Eight Thousand only).

(Typed by the Stenographer directly on the computer to the dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 10 th day of February, 2026).

Sd/-Abdul Rahman Shaik

III Addl. Civil Judge ( Junior Division)

Nellore.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Plaintiff : Defendant :

PW.1: Pandipati Siva Kumar ReddyDW.1 : Konduru Vedavathi

PW.2: Shaik Khader Basha

Documents Marked for

For the Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 is the Original promissory note dated 05.11.2018 for Rs.3,08,000/- executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff.

Ex.A2 is the deposition in O.S.No.787/2019 on the file of I Addl.Junior Civil

Judge Court, Nellore.

For the Defendant :

None

Sd/-Abdul Rahman Shaik

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Nellore

//True Copy//

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Nellore

1

In the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division): Nellore

APNE0A0015242020 Present: - Sri Abdul Rahman Shaik, III Addl. Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Nellore

Wednesday, the 11th Day of February, 2026

O.S No.354 of 2020

Between Daddolu Alias Dadolu Pavan Teja, S/o. Ramanaiah, aged about 33 years, R/o.D.No.25/3/555, 10th Street Lakeview Colony, Podalakur Road, SPSR Nellore District

...Plaintiff

Cell No.9394980007

Vs.

Chittamuru Venkata Sesha Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy Aged about 60 years,R/o.Badevolu Venkannapalem Village Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District

... Defendant

This suit is coming on 27.01.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Shri.P.Umamaheswar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Shri.V.Upendra Rao Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,75,466/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Six only) being the principal and interest due on promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only).

2. Pleadings of the plaintiff: The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff and in consideration thereof, the defendant executed a promissory note with his own hand writing for the said sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on the said date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest 2 @ 24% per annum on demand or to the order of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is herewith filed the said promissory note dt.16.07.2017 for kind consideration.

(i)The plaintiff further submit that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to payt he amount due under the above referred promissory note dt.16.07.2017. That on 04.07.2020 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant calling him to pay the amount due under the above referred promissory note dt.16.07.2017 and inspite of the said notice the defendant did not chose to pay the amount due under the above referred promissory note dated 16.07.2017. Office copy of the legal notice dt.04.07.2020 along with postal receipt are herewith filed for kind consideration and the defendant is not an agriculturist and he is nto entitled to the benefits of Act 4/1938, Act 2/1990 and Act 7/1987 and their extended Act. Hence the suit.

3. Pleadings of the defendant: The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that it is false to state that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) on 16.07.2017 from the plaintiff and in consideration thereof, the defendant executed a promissory note with his own hand writing for the said sum of

Rs.8,00,000/- on the aid date infavour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% P.A., on demand or to the order of the plaintiff and the plaintiff further submits that inspite of repeated demands made by the 3 plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the amount due under the above referred promissory note dated 16.07.2017. It is also false to state that the defendant is not an agriculturist and he is not entitled to the benefits of Act 4/1938, Act 2/1990 and Act 7/1987 and their extended Act, and the plaintiff claimed the rate of interest as per contract rate. It is true to say that the plaintiff issued notice through his advocate on 04.07.2020 calling upon him to discharge the above debt.

(i)The defendant further submits in his written statement that his son by name Venkata Satheesh Kumar and the plaintiff are friends. They are doing business purchasing the pictures and distributed the same to the theaters. In that connection plaintiff demanded the defendant son to give security for the amounts invested by the plaintiff. As per the request of defendants son, the defendant executed the promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant are not supported by consideration. At the time of execution of the said promissory note nobody was not present. As seen from the alleged promissory note two persons were attested the same.

The attestation were obtained before filing of the suit and the said attesters are the friends of the plaintiff. As there is disputes in between plaintiff and defendants son regarding their business dealings the plaintiff filed this suit for getting wrongful gain. Therefore the defendant is not liable to pay any amount alleged to have been borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff. The defendant further submits that after receiving legal notice he approached the 4 plaintiff in his house, he stated that there was some misunderstandings between him and son of the defendant that is why he gave the notice under old promissory note with him. The plaintiff further says he is not pursue the matter.

(ii)The defendant further submits in his written statement that as stated above for the business purpose of his son only he executed the promissory note in favour of plaintiff. But no amount was paid to the defendant under the above suit promissory note. It is further submitted that the respondent is an agriculturist and his predominant income is there from the plaintiff and he is not entitled to claim interest @ 24% P.A. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the Promissory note dated 16.07.2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

3. To what relief?

5.During trial, on behalf of Plaintiff Pw-1 and Pw-2 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 on behalf of Pw-1. Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory

Note dated 16.07.2017 for Rs.8,00,000/- executed by defendant in favor of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dated 04.07.2020 along with postal receipt, Ex.A3 is Postal Acknowledgment and Ex.A4 is un-served postal cover 5 and no documents were marked on behalf of Pw-2. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendant Dw-1 and Dw-2 were examined and no documents were marked during evidence through them.

6.During cross examination, the PW1 testified that he know the contents of written statement filed by the defendant. He is an income tax assese. He has not shown the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in income tax returns. He addressed Ex.A2 legal notice to both the addresses of defendant i.e.

Saraswati Nagar, Nellore and Venkannapalem Village, Near Manubolu. The father and wife of the plaintiff are the Government employees. Himself, his father and his wife together saved Rs.8,00,000/- for purchasing the lands. At the request of the defendant he lend the amount to him. He denied that Ex.A1 promissory note is a fabricated note. One C.Mohan Reddy got filed his chief examination affidavit as P.W.2 stating that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.8,00,000/- on 16.07.2017 and executed a promissory note in his own hand writing for the said amount. Himself, and Nadavati Kondandaram attested the said promissory note. The defendant failed to cross examine the PW2 for the best reasons known to him.

7.On the other hand the defendant himself got examined as DW1 by filing his chief examination affidavit. During, this cross examination he testified that

He do not know the name of the film distributor and also the names of the films purchased by his son and the plaintiff. He has not stated in his chief 6 examination that his son and the plaintiff used to purchase the films. He has not instructed to his counsel about the purchase of films by his son and the plaintiff. He admitted, the signature on Ex.A1 promissory note belongs to him but he has not scribed the contents of the promissory note. In his written statement and also his affidavit as he executed Ex.A1 promissory note towards security of the business of his son with the plaintiff for the payments made by the plaintiff on behalf of his son.

8.The son of the defendant by name Venkata Satish Kumar got examined as DW2 on behalf of the defendant by filing his chief examination affidavit.

During his cross examination he stated that he has not mentioned the names of the movies purchased by him and the plaintiff. He admitted that he has not mentioned his business account particulars for purchasing movies. He has not stated about the investment made either by him or by the plaintiff for running the business. He has not mentioned about the nature of the business and when as to why the disputes arose between them. Himself, and the plaintiff do not have any disputes. Further, he denied the suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the defendant.

9.Heard both the learned counsels for the Plaintiff and the defendant.

10.Perused the record.

11. Point for issues No.1 and 2:

It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- under Ex.A1 agreeing to repay the same either to the plaintiff or 7 his order on demand. In spite of repeated oral demands, he failed to repay the same. Hence, the suit.

12.The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Ch.Birbal Singh Vs. Harphool

Khan reported in AIR 1976 ALL 23 it is held that “the “execution” of a document means signing a document written out, read over and understood and does not consist of merely signing a blank paper. If execution admitted or proved the presumption U/S 118 of NI Act arises. If execution is denied it is for the person basing on the claim to prove it”.

13.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1518 it is held that “under Section 118 of negotiable instrument Act the presumptions to be raised, until contrary is proved, are (i) as to consideration (ii) as to date of instrument (iii) as to time of acceptance

(iv) time of transfer (v) as to order of endorsement (vi) as to appropriate stamp

(vii) as to holder is holder in due course.

14.Hence the execution of a document is different from signing a document. The execution of document means signing a document written out read over and understood and doesn’t consist of merely signing a blank paper. The presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act cannot be extended unless execution of instrument is either admitted or proved. Once, the execution is denied, it is for the person, who makes the claim on the 8 instrument, to prove it. The plaintiff by examining himself as PW1 and also by examining C.Mohan Reddy as PW2 proved the execution of the promissory note. The defendant one way admitting the signatures and on the other way he stated that the plaintiff took the empty signed promissory notes. But the defendant except his self serving statement, neither examined any witness nor produced any documents on his behalf to prove his contention.

15.The defendant during cross examination admitted his signature and stated that he has not filed the contents of the Ex.A1 promissory note. There is no force in the contention of the defendant. Sec.20 of Negotiable

Instrument Act reads Inchoate stamped instruments.—Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.

9

16.On reading of Sec.20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the holder i.e.

the complainant may fill inchoate instrument and the person who signed on the instrument is liable upon such instrument. The defendant did not adduce any evidence to show that the signature on the Ex.P1 promissory note do not belongs to him.

17.The Hon’ble High Court of Patna in Hari Kant Jha vs Nathu

Choudhury reported in AIR 1941 Pat 504, it is held that “Section 20,

Negotiable Instruments Act gives general authority to a person to whom a stamped and signed paper is delivered to convert it into negotiable instrument payable to any specified person and accordingly it is open to a person receiving a blank inchoate instrument to complete it in favour of any person besides himself”.

18.The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pandurang Vs Babulal reported in (2009) 12 BOM CK 0005 it is held that “whenever an incomplete negotiable instrument is handedover, the drawer prima facie gives authority to the holder thereof to complete the negotiable Instrument”.

19.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Cement Agencies Vs V.

Vijaya Babu and another reported in 1997(4) Crimes 273 held that “when a drawer of a cheque delivers a signed cheque he obviously gives an authority to the holder to put a date of his choice. Therefore, there would be no question 10 of the instrument becoming time-barred. Since it would become time-barred only from the date of issue which in view of provision 118 would be the date on the cheque, which, under section 20, the holder had the authority to fill.

20.As the plaintiff proved the execution of the Ex.A1 promissory note, the presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act comes into operation and then the burden of proving that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration is on the defendant. The defendant except his self serving statements has not produced any evidence in support of his version. The defendant contended that he issued the promissory note towards the security for the business of his son with the plaintiff. Though, the son of the defendant was examined as DW2, he has not stated the nature of the business, investment made by him and the business account details of the said Firm. As rightly, submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff the defendant failed to establish that he has issued the promissory note towards security for the business of his son. Even, if it is presumed that the defendant issued the promissory note towards security, it is well settled that a promissory note issued towards security is legally binding. Hence, the defendant failed to prove his contention.

21. Issue No.3 :- To what relief:

So for as interest is concerned, the plaintiff has claimed it at the rate of 24% per annum. Since the suit debt is an unsecured one, the claim of interest 11 at the rate of 12% p.a is most reasonable and it is not either usurious or exorbitant and therefore, the same can be allowed without there being any hesitation. Hence, it is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

22. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.13,75,466/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Six only) with subsequent interest @12% per annum, from the date of suit, till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only).

(Typed by the Stenographer directly on the computer to the dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 11 th day of February, 2026).

Sd/-Abdul Rahman Shaik

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nellore.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Plaintiffs : Defendants :

PW.1: Daddolu @ Dadolu Pavan TejaDW.1 : Ch.Venkata Sesha Reddy

PW.2:C.Mohan ReddyDW.2 : Ch.Venkata Sathish Kumar

Documents Marked for

For the Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : is the original promissory note dated 16.07.2017 for Rs.8,00,000/- executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : is the Office Copy of legal notice dated 04.07.2020 along with postal receipt.

Ex.A3 : is the Postal Acknowledgment.

12

Ex.A4 : is the un-served postal cover.

For the Defendant :

None

Sd/-Abdul Rahman Shaik

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Nellore

1

In the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division): Nellore

APNE0A0030452023 Present: - Sri Abdul Rahman Shaik, III Addl. Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Nellore

Wednesday, the 11th Day of February, 2026

O.S No.867 of 2023

Between:-

1.Gundeboyina Sudhakara Rao, s/o.Late Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu, aged 69 years, Retired Govt. Employee, R/o.D.No.1/201,N.C.Balaiah Nagar,Opp. Municipal High School, Nawabpet, Nellore City.

2.Gundeboyina Haritha,w/o.Pigilam Sidharth, Hindu, aged 37 years, Doctor by Profession, R/o.Flat No.101, Satya Sundar Residency, Near Krishna Mandiram,Sitammadara, Vishakapatnam

3.Gundeboyina Sujitha, w/o.P.Manohar, D/o.G.Sudhakara rao, Hindu, aged 32 years,DoctorbyProfession,

...Plaintiffs

D.No.1/201,N.C.BalaiahNagar, Opp.Municipal High School, Nawabpet, Nellore City.

Vs.

1 Beeda Jyothi, w/o.Beeda Subrahmanyam,

Hindu, aged 50 years, Homemaker,

2. Beeda Subrahmanyam,S/o.Venkata

Swamy,Hindu, aged 55 years, Working as

School Assistant, Z.P.High School,

2

R/o.D.No.7-1-286, Near Priyadarshani

School, Lokku Street, Aaalagu Mallari

Krishnaswamy Temple, Mannarpolur

Sullurepet Mandal, Tirupathi District.

3 Beeda Sailaja, w/o.Beeda Dasaiah,

Hindu, aged 46 years, Homemaker

4. Beeda Dasaiah,S/o.Venkata Swamy,

Hindu, aged 46 years, Mason Defendants

No.1 to 4 are R/o.D.No.7-1-286, Near

Priyadarshani School, Lokku Street,

Aaalagu Mallari Krishnaswamy Temple,

Mannarpolur Sullurepet Mandal, Tirupathi

District.

5. Gummadi Kavitha,w/o.Srinivasulu,

Hindu,aged 37 years, Homemaker,

R/o.D.No.25-2-709,Lakeview Colony, 15th street, Podalakuru Road, Nellore City.

6 Gummadi Srinivasulu, s/o.Masthanaiah,

Hindu, aged 40 years, Self employed,

R/o.D.No.25-2-709, Lakeview Colony, 15th street, Podalakuru Road, Nellore City.

7. Guneboyina Sirisha,w/o.Late Murali

Krishna, Hindu, aged 30 years, R/o.D.No.7- 1-286, Near Priyadarshani School, Lokku

3

Street, Aaalagu Mallari Krishnaswamy

Temple, Mannarpolur Sullurepet Mandal,

Tirupathi District.

8. Gundeboyina Geetharani, w/o.Late

P.Rambabu,Hindu, aged 44 years, R/o.10-

..... Defendants

40-17, A1, Janathapet North, Kavali Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

*****

This case coming on today for consideration before me in the presence of Sri P.Nageswara Rao Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendants-1 to 8 remained ex-parte, upon hearing and upon perusal of the record,this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a Suit filed by the plaintiffs against the D1 to D8 for Grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, successors, or any others claiming through or under them, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property of the plaintiffs; and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are that :-

(a)One Gundeboyina Venkata Subbaiah and his wife Kannemma who were no more had 4 issues viz., Ramaiah, Bathala Suseelamma,

Subrahmanyam and Sudhakar Rao. Among them Ramaiah and his wife

Audilakshmamma, Bathala Suseelamma W/o. Kondaiah and

Subrahmanyam are no more last issues Sudhakar Rao (P1) alone is alive.

The Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the daughters of Sudhakara Rao. Gundeboyina

Venkata Subbaiah during his life time had executed his last Will and testament dt:17-11-1982 and got it registered as Doc.No.170 of BK III of

4

SRO, Nellore, bequeathing his properties creating a life interest relating to his house property and creating absolute rights relating to the landed property in favour of his wife Kannemma. The registration extract of the same is filed herewith. Gudeboyina Venkata Subbaiah died on 21.08.1983, and his death certificate is filed herewith. The original registered Will is not with the plaintiffs, but it is with 1 to 4 defendants. His wife Kannemma who became the absolute owner of the landed property died intestate on 03.03.1984 survived by her children. After her death the sons and daughter of her orally got partitioned the landed property shown in the suit schedule, and got mutated in the revenue records.

(b)It is further averred that the first son Ramaiah died on 02.01.2003 and his wife Audilakshmamma died on 12.08.2017, leaving behind their children, who are not parties to this suit. The second issue of

Gundeboyina Venkata Subbaiah registered Will which is her last Will and testament on 11.11.2020 and died on 28.04.2021 vide Doc.No.95/2020 of

BK III of SRO Stonehousepet, Nellore, and the same is filed herewith. Under the said will Bathala Suseelamma bequeather her share in the landed property in Ac.0.10 cents each to the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and Ac.0.05 cents each to the Geetharani the daughter of Subrahmanyam, the third issue of

Gundeboyina Venkata Subbaiah. After her death the plaintiffs and the said

Geetharani became the absolute owners of the share of late Bathala

Suseelamma and revenue records also were accordingly mutated.

(c)It is further averred in the plaint that the oral partition which was effected was reflected in the registered Will of Gundeboyina Ramaiah s/o.

Gundeboyina Venkata Subbaiah and that of the registered Will of Bathala

Suseelamma. The subject land described as item “B” of the suit schedule became the absolute land of the plaintiffs.

5

(d)It is further averred in the plaint that Defendants 1, 3 and 5 are the daughters of the third issue of Gundeboyina Venkata Subbaiah and defendant 2, 4 and 6 are their respective husbands. Because of the recent hike of the prices in the locality of the suit property the defendants tried to encroach the B Schedule Property and it was averted by the 1st plaintiff on his behalf and on behalf of 2 and 3 plaintiffs.

(e)It is further averred in the plaint that Bathala Suseelamma that was bequeathed to 2 and 3 plaintiffs and Geetharani was not partitioned and as she is not cooperating she was added as pro-forma defendant. The 1st plaintiff transported soil into his site intending to make a construction. A couple of days ago the defendants made attempts to trespass into the suit property but they were restrained by the 1st plaintiff with great difficulty. The plaintiffs submit that the 1st plaintiff is a retired person and a Senior Citizen, the 2nd plaintiff is residing far away from the plaint schedule property and the 3rd plaintiff is a Doctor by profession and they are unable to keep continuous vigil over the plaint schedule property from the illegal attack of the defendants who are powerful both physically and by political influence.

Hence the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit praying for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, assignees, successors, or any other claiming through or under them. Hence the suit.

3. After receipts of summons defendants No.1 to 8 called absent, no representation. Hence, the defendants 1 and 8 are remained exparte.

4. During the course of trial, 1st plaintiff is examined himself as P.W.1, and got marked Exs.A1 to A26 on behalf of the plaintiffs. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants.

6

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the material available on record.

6. Now the Point for consideration is that : Whether the

Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for ?” 7.During the Trial, the Plaintiffs himself examined as the PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A26. Since the Defendants No.1 to 8 set ex-parte, no witness is examined and no documents got marked.

8. P O I N T :

To substantiate the contention of the Plaintiffs, the 1st Plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A28. Ex.A1 is Registration extract of the Will executed by Gundeboyina Venkata Subbaiah vide

Doc.No.170/1982 dated 18.11.1982. Ex.A2 is the Death Certificate of

Gundeboyina Venkata Subbaiah showing the date of death as 21.08.1983,

Dated 02.07.2014, Ex.A3 is the Death Certificate of Gundeboyina

Kannemma showing the date of death as 03.03.1984, dated 02.07.2014,

Ex.A4 is Registration extract of the Will executed by Gundeboyina Ramaiah

Dated 07.02.2022, Ex.A5 is Death Certificate of Gundeboyina Ramaiah

showing the date of death as 02.01.2023, Ex.A6 is Registration Extract of the Will executed by Bathala Suseelamma, vide Doc.No.95/2020 of BK III,

Dated 11.11.2020, Ex.A7 is Death Certificate of Bathala Suseelamma

showing the date of death as 28.04.2021, dated 07.05.2021, Ex.A8 is 1-B showing the 1st plaintiff as the pattadar relating to Ac.0.25cts, Dated 24.08.2023, Ex.A9 is 1-B showing the 2nd plaintiff as the pattadar relating to

Ac.0.10 cts., Dated 07.09.2023, Ex.A10 is 1-B showing the 3rd plaintiff as the pattadar relating to Ac.0.10 cts., Dated 07.09.2023, Ex.A11 is Adangal copy for the fasli 1433, Dated: 24.08.2023, Ex.A12 The Pattadar passbook in the

7

name of 1st plaintiff, Ex.A13 is the Pattadar Passbook in the name of 2nd plaintiff, Ex.A14 is the Pattadar Passbook in the name of 3rd plaintiff, Ex.A15 is the Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala Suseelamma for the fasli 1424, Dated:14.09.2015, Ex.A16 is Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala Suseelamma for the fasli 1422 & 1423,

Dated:24.02.2014, Ex.A17 is Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment

by Bathala Suseelamma for the faslis 1418, 1419, 1420 and 1421

Dated:15.05.2012, Ex.A18 is Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment

by Bathala Suseelamma for the faslis 1419, 1418 and 1417

Dated:29.03.2010, Ex.A19 is Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment

by Bathala Suseelamma for the fasli 1416, Dated:07.01.2008, Ex.A20 is

Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala Suseelamma for the fasli 1415, Dated:29.05.2006, Ex.A21 is Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala Suseelamma for the fasli 1414, Dated:25.08.2005,

Ex.A22 is Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala

Suseelamma for the fasli 1413, Dated:20.03.2004, Ex.A23 is Land Revenue

Receipt bearing No.7570574 showing the payment of cist from 1404 to 1412 faslies, Dated 10.02.2023, Ex.A24 is Land Revenue receipt showing the payment by 1st plaintiff for faslies 1426, 1427, 1428 and 1429 Dated 17.01.2021, Ex.A25 is Land Revenue receipt showing the payment by 1st plaintiff for faslies 1425, Dated 10.07.2016, Ex.A26 is Land Revenue receipt showing the payment by 1st plaintiff for faslies 1404 to 1424, Dated 14.09.2015.The Exs.A1 to A26 prima-facie goes to show the title and possession of the Plaintiffs over the Plaint Schedule Property. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A28 are sufficient to assume the legal possession of the Plaintiffs over the Plaint Schedule property. To deny the case of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants No.1 to 8 did not came forward.

8

Therefore adverse inference is drawn and no option left to the Court except to assume that the case of the Plaintiffs are true and correct.

In view of the above discussion, this Point is answered in favour of the Plaintiffs No.1 to 3.

9d. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs by granting permanent injunction by restraining the defendants and their agents, assignees, successors, or any others claiming through or under them, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule mentioned property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 11th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-Abdul Rahman Shaik

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1 : G.Sudhakara Rao, 1st plaintiff

For Defendants: None

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 Registration extract of the Will executed by Gundeboyina Venkata Subbaiah vide Doc.No.170/1982 dated 18.11.1982. Ex.A2The Death Certificate of Gundeboyina Venkata Subbaiah showing the date of death as 21.08.1983, Dated 02.07.2014. Ex.A3The Death Certificate of Gundeboyina Kannemma showing the date of death as 03.03.1984, dated 02.07.2014 Ex.A4Registration extract of the Will executed by Gundeboyina Ramaiah Dated 07.02.2022. Ex.A5Death Certificate of Gundeboyina Ramaiah showing the date of

9

death as 02.01.2023. Ex.A6Registration Extract of the Will executed by Bathala Suseelamma, vide Doc.No.95/2020 of BK III, Dated 11.11.2020. Ex.A7Death Certificate of Bathala Suseelamma showing the date of death as 28.04.2021, dated 07.05.2021. Ex.A81-B showing the 1st plaintiff as the pattadar relating to Ac.0.25cts, Dated 24.08.2023 Ex.A91-B showing the 2nd plaintiff as the pattadar relating to Ac.0.10 cts., Dated 07.09.2023. Ex.A101-B showing the 3rd plaintiff as the pattadar relating to Ac.0.10 cts., Dated 07.09.2023. Ex.A11Adangal copy for the fasli 1433, Dated: 24.08.2023. Ex.A12The Pattadar passbook in the name of 1st plaintiff. Ex.A13The Pattadar Passbook in the name of 2nd plaintiff. Ex.A14The Pattadar Passbook in the name of 3rd plaintiff. Ex.A15Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala Suseelamma for the fasli 1424, Dated:14.09.2015. Ex.A16Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala Suseelamma for the fasli 1422 & 1423, Dated:24.02.2014. Ex.A17Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala Suseelamma for the faslis 1418, 1419, 1420 and 1421

Dated:15.05.2012.

Ex.A18Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala Suseelamma for the faslis 1419, 1418 and 1417

Dated:29.03.2010.

Ex.A19Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala Suseelamma for the fasli 1416, Dated:07.01.2008. Ex.A20Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala Suseelamma for the fasli 1415, Dated:29.05.2006. Ex.A21Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala Suseelamma for the fasli 1414, Dated:25.08.2005. Ex.A22Land Revenue Receipt showing the payment by Bathala Suseelamma for the fasli 1413, Dated:20.03.2004. Ex.A23Land Revenue Receipt bearing No.7570574 showing the payment of cist from 1404 to 1412 faslies, Dated 10.02.2023. Ex.A24Land Revenue receipt showing the payment by 1st plaintiff for

10

faslies 1426, 1427, 1428 and 1429 Dated 17.01.2021. Ex.A25Land Revenue receipt showing the payment by 1st plaintiff for faslies 1425, Dated 10.07.2016. Ex.A26Land Revenue receipt showing the payment by 1st plaintiff for faslies 1404 to 1424, Dated 14.09.2015.

For Defendants: NIL

Sd/-Abdul Rahman Shaik

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore //True Copy//

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore