Ms. B. Akhila

1/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.40 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Present :Smt. B.Akhila

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Friday, this the 30 th day of June, 2023.

O.S.No.40/2019 

Between:

Shaik Masthanm, S/o. Karimullah, aged 39 years,

R/o.BC Colony, Buchireddypalem, SPSR Nellore District. ... Plaintiff

And

Shaik Shabhiha, W/o.Khadar Masthanm, Darga Centre, Kasumuru, venkatachalam Mandalam, 

SPSR Nellore District. ...Defendant

This suit came before me on 28.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.

Chandra Sekhar Advocate for Plaintiff, and Sri. Sk.Anwar Basha Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the entire material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.10,81,000/­ from the defendant with subsequent interest due under two suit promissory notes dt. 14.11.2018 and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

On 18.07.2018 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/­ from the plaintiff for her necessities and in consideration thereof,executed a promissory note on same date in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a., and subsequently on the same date i.e., on 18.07.2018 the defendant borrowed another sum of Rs.5,00,000/­ for her necessities from the plaintiff and in consideration thereof the defendant executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand and subsequently inspite several oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant never repaid the above said amount and that the plaintiff also issued a legal notice dt.24.10.2018 and the defendant received the same but postpone the repayment of due 2/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.40 of 2019 amount on oral promise to repay the same in two months but failed to repay the same.

Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

The defendant received summons true court and vakalat was filed on his behalf, but on 03.06.2019 the defendant was set exparte as no instructions reported from the counsel of the defendant later on 07.06.2019 a petition under Order 9 Rule 7 R/w section 151 CPC was filed along with written statement and the same petition therein

I.A.No.426/2019 was allowed by setting aside the exparte order dated 03.06.2019 and defendant contested the matter.

3.The defendant filed written statement along with denying the averments of the plaint as ‘false’ and further contended that she never borrowed any amount as alleged by the plaintiff either on 18.07.2018 or any other date from the plaintiff and that she is not liable to pay any suit amount and no consideration was passed on the alleged suit document and that she did not receive any legal notice and that the acknowledgment filed by the plaintiff resembles the signatures of the defendant in English but she do not English and defendant further contended that she never executed suit promissory notes and signatures of defendant are rank forged and that the plaintiff during the course of chit fund transactions used to obtain signatures from innocent village people on blank instruments and used to give legal amounts to them and cheat them by receiving large amounts during repayment and during the said course of chit the plaintiff approached the defendant and obtained her signatures under impression to release amount from chit fund company but no amount was received by the defendant from the said chit fund company. And that, when the defendant raised objections the plaintiff gave back the papers of the defendant. The defendant did not receive any legal notice dated 24.10.2018 and her signature on the acknowledgment does not belong to her and that scribe and attestors of the alleged documents are the henchman of the plaintiff colluded with each other to get wrongful gain from the defendant and that there is no necessity to the defendant to borrow such huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ and based on the signatures on the previous 3/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.40 of 2019 cheated transaction of the plaintiff the plaintiff got signatures of the defendant and filed the present case against her and prayed to dismiss the same.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

Whether the suit promissory note dt.18/07/2018 is true,

(1) valid and binding on the defendant? 

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as

(2) prayed for?

To what relief? (3)

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, Pw.1 got marked the Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. On behalf of the defendant, Dw.1 Ex.A5 was marked.

6. Heard arguments of both learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendant.

7.  ISSUE No.1:

Admittedly, the plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendant for recovery of money basing on two promissory notes dated 18/07/2018. In the written statement, the defendant specifically contended that the suit promissory notes are fabricated one and that she never borrowed Rs.10,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and never executed Ex.A1 and A2 suit promissory notes. It is a settled proposition of law that in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of promissory notes, when the defendant denied the execution of promissory note, the initial burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes were duly executed by the defendant on the relevant date and then only a presumption under Section 118(a) of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would come into operation. 

8.To discharge the initial burden, the plaintiff by name Sk.Masthan entered into witness box as Pw.1 and his evidence in the chief­examination affidavit is nothing but replica of contents of the plaint. Through Pw.1, Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were got marked i.e., Ex.A1 is the Original promissory note dt.18.07.2018 for Rs.5,00,000/­ executed by the defendant in favour of P.W.1,Ex.A2 is the original promissory note 4/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.40 of 2019 dt.18.07.2018 for Rs.5,00,000/­ executed by the defendant in favour of P.W.1, Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice dt.24.10.2018 along with postal receipt, Ex.A4 is the postal Acknowledgment, Ex.A5 is the hard copy of messages received from the cell phone of Shaik Gayaz by the plaintiff on different dates (6 Pages). During the cross examination of P.W.1 he stated that the defendant borrowed Rs.10,00,000/­ on 18.07.2018 and that the son of the defendant worked under him in 2017 and 2018 and the defendant and her son promised to repay the suit amount in two installments. The amount of Rs.6,00,000/­ was obtained by the plaintiff from his father and that the two promissory notes were executed at his house at Kasumur

Village and defendant and her son came to his house to execute the promissory notes and that a person by name P.Sudhakaraiah acted as scribe for the promissory notes and transaction took place in the presence of defendant, her son, Sk.Aarif and gayaz

Ahmed. During cross­examination of Pw.1, he denied the suggestion that he used to grant loan and obtain signatures of innocent village people on blank papers and that he obtained signatures of defendant on loan papers, and also documents of defendant house property, for establishing shop by the defendant’s son. P.W1. Stated that the defendant borrowed the suit amount for performing marriage of her daughter and that he has no objection to send the signature belonging t0 defendant upon suit promissory notes to FSL for comparison and opinion.

11.To disprove the case of plaintiff, the defendant herself entered into witness box as DW.1 and her evidence in the chief­examination affidavit is nothing but replica of contents of his written statement and ExA5 is marked through the defendant during the course examination. During the course examination of D.W.1 she stated that she came to know about the plaintiff when her son told her that plaintiff assured him to give loan and that plaintiff obtained signature from her and she signed on two papers and denied the suggestion that she borrowed Rs.10,00,000/­ from the plaintiff for family necessities and she stated that her son told her that he sent messages to the plaintiff and she identified the photo of her son on a document which shows that her 5/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.40 of 2019 son sent messages to the cell phone of the plaintiff and the hard copy of messages received from the cell phone of Sk.Gayaz (son of defendant) by the plaintiff on different dates is marked as Ex.A5. The defendant admitted her signature on her chief affidavit but denied the signature on vakalat and suit promissory notes when confronted to her. The son of the defendant by name Sk.Gayaz Ahmed filed his chief affidavit as D.W.2 but his evidence was eschewed for not appearing before the court for several adjournments to face the cross examination.

12. As already stated above, in a suit for recovery of money, when the defendant denied the execution of promissory notes, the initial burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove that Ex.A1 and A2 promissory notes were duly executed by the defendant on the relevant date. The incidence of burden is usually clear from the pleadings and it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove what she contends. On the other hand, the evidential burden may shift from one party to another as the trial progresses according to the balance of evidence given at any particular stage. The burden rests upon the party who would fail if no evidence at all, is adduced by either side. While the legal burden arising on the pleadings is mentioned in Section 101 of the Evidence

Act and the evidential burden, is referred to in Section 102 thereof. Section 103 amplifies Section 101 regarding proof as to a particular fact while Sec.104 deals with the person who has to give evidence.

13.In this case to prove Ex.A1 and A2 promissory notes, plaintiff was examined as

P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to A4 proves that the defendant executed two promissory notes dt.18.07.2018 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ each which are marked as Ex.A1 and

A2 bearing the signatures of defendant and that the defendant also received the legal notice issued by the plaintiff demanding the repayment of the above said amount on 24.10.2018, prior to filing of the suit. Ex.A4 proves that the defendant received the legal notice but did not choose to repay the suit amount and there by the defendant has fallen due to the plaintiff. ExA5 which was admitted by the defendant herself that her son sent messages to the plaintiff showing communication between the plaintiff and her son.

6/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.40 of 2019

14. Coming to the main aspect of raising of presumption under Section 118(a) of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,it is of two kinds viz., presumption of fact and of law. Presumptions of fact are inferences logically drawn from one fact as to the existence of other facts. Presumptions of fact which are rebuttable by evidence to the contrary. Presumptions of law may be either irrebuttable so that no evidence to the contrary may be given or rebuttable. A rebuttable presumption of law is a legal rule to be applied by the court in the absence of conflicting evidence. In this case we are concerned with rebuttable presumptions, one among which is enshrined under

Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The provisions of Sec.118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 direct that the court shall presume "until the contrary is proved". If the fact to be presumed is therefore presumed until contrary is proved or until disproved. In a decision between Kundunlal Vs. Custodian Evacuee Property1 our

Honorable Apex court while dealing with rebuttable presumptions as contained in

Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 observed as follows:

"Once the defendant shows either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or by use of other presumptions of law or fact that the promissory note is not supported by consideration, in the manner stated in the promissory note or in the manner stated in the suit notice or in the pleading, the evidential burden shifts to the plaintiff and the legal burden of the plaintiff is revived, i.e. to prove that the promissory note is supported by consideration and at that stage, the presumption of law covered by S. 118 'disappears' and no longer subsists. …. Once such rebuttal evidence is given by the defendant to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court acting on a preponderance of probabilities and not requiring an absolute proof of negative i.e. absence of all conceivable forms of consideration, the effect of the presumption shifting the initial evidential burden to the defendant 'disappears' 

15. Applying the above principles to the facts of present case on hand, it is now relevant to examine whether the defendant could able to bring on record any probable circumstances to show that she did not execute Ex.A1 and A2 promissory notes, in the manner mentioned in the document or in the manner pleaded in the plaint. As already discussed supra, the defendant failed to bring on record any probable circumstances to show that she did not execute Ex.A1 promissory note and that it was not supported by 1AIR 1961 Supreme Court page 1316 7/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.40 of 2019 consideration, by bringing on record any crucial evidence to rebut the resumption that she did not make her signatures upon Ex.A1 and A2./ After the suit was posted for the arguments the petition under Section 45 of Indian evidence Act was filed on behalf of defendant to fill up the lacuna in her evidence but the same petition was dismissed.

Absolutely, there is nothing in the cross­examination of Pw.1 to hold that Ex.A1 and A2 are not supported by consideration. Coming to the evidence adduced by the defendant, as already referred above, the defendant examined as DW.1 it can be said without any hesitation that the defendant failed to bring on record any probable circumstances to show that Ex.A1 and A2 promissory notes are not executed by her and that they are not supported by consideration. Except a bare denial, the defendant failed to come up with any specific case as to why the plaintiff has created Ex.A1 and A2 promissory notes by fabricating them. However, as discussed supra, the defence taken by the defendant during cross­examination of Pw.1 is not worthy. Therefore, the defendant failed to rebut the presumption drawn under Section 118(a) of NI Act. Since the defendant failed to repay the amounts under Ex.A1 and A2 promissory note, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the plaintiff with future interest and costs. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 

16.ISSUE No.2: In view of my findings on issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with future interest and costs. This issue is answered accordingly.

17.ISSUE No.3: In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is to be decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.10,81,000/­ (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty One Thousand only) with subsequent interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees Ten Lakhs only).

This issue is answered accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer­Grade­III, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of June, 2023.

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

8/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.40 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For Defendant:

P.W.1: Sk.Masthan DW.1:Shaik Shabeena D.W.2: Gayaz Ahmad (eschewed)

Documents marked on behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A1: is the Original promissory note dt.18.07.2018 for Rs.5,00,000/­ executed by the defendant in favour of P.W.1

Ex.A2: is the original promissory note dt.18.07.2018 for Rs.5,00,000/­ executed by the defendant in favour of P.W.1

Ex.A3: is the office copy of legal notice dt.24.10.2018 along with postal receipt.

Ex.A4: is the postal Acknowledgment

Documents marked on behalf of defendant:

Ex.A5: is the hard copy of messages received from the cell phone of Shaik Gayaz by the plaintiff on different dates (6 Pages)

III Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Nellore.

1/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.659 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Present :Smt. B.Akhila

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Friday, this the 30 th day of June, 2023.

O.S.No.659/2019 

Between:

Thangirala Vijaya Kumari, D/o.Jaya Rao,aged 39 years, D.No.26-2-34, opp. Ravindra Bharathi School, Current Office Centre, Vedayapalem, Nellore-524004.... Plaintif

And

Galiboina khajamma, W/o. Raju, aged 41 years, Working as Teacher at Muncipal Corporation Primary School, Near Railway Gate, Old Vedayapalem, Nellore-524004.

...Defendant

This suit came before me on 31.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Srinivasa Rao Advocate for Plaintif, and Sri. D.Balagopal Reddy

Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the entire material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.6,04,300/­ from the defendant with subsequent interest due under suit promissory note dt.05.02.2015 and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

On 05/02/2015 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintif for her personal necessities and in consideration thereof, and executed a promissory note on same date in favour of the plaintif and agreed to repay the same with interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a., and subsequently inspite of repeated demands the defendant paid Rs.5,000/- on 03.01.2018 to the plaintif towards part payment of the suit promissory note amoutn and the same was endorsed by the defendant on back side of the suir promissory note. he defendant did not choose to repay remaining portion of the amount due under the promissory note.Hence the plaintif is constrained 2/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.659 of 2019 to file the suit, and the defendant is not entitled to any benefits under Act 4 of 1938, Act 7 of 1977, and Act 2 of 1990.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint as ‘false’ and further contended that the plaintif is

Government Employee working at Electrticty Office at Nellore apart from the job the plaintif is also doing money lending business with higher rate of interest and the defendant is working as a Teacher at Nellore. The plaintf requested the defendant to introduce borrowers who needs money and on 05.02.2015 due to need of money one Sk.Masthanamma and Guruvamma approached the defendant to arrange loan to thrid parties. The defendant took the said Sk. Masthanamma and Guruvamma to the plaintif and arranged loan of Rs.2,00,00/- to Masthanamma and Rs.1,00,000/- to

Guruvamma and plaitnif agreed to lend the amount and demanded interest at 48% payable every month on principal amount and that on the same date,

Masthanamma and Guruvamma executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintif and the same time the plaintif demanded the defendant ti execute promissory note for purpose of gurantee and the defendant accordingly accepted to execute one promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/- and the plaitnfif obtained the signature on the said date and amount was also mentioned on the said promissory note in the presence of Masthanamma and Guruvamma. Later, the Masthanamma and Guruvamma repaid the entire amount by December 2017 and that the defendant never seen the attestor and scribe of the suit promissory note and that the part payment endorsed on the back side of the suit promissory note is rank forgery and there is no truth in allegations of the plaitnif and submitted that the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed,

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

(1)Whether the suit promissory note dt.05/02/2015

is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

3/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.659 of 2019 (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed ?

(3)To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintif, Pws.1 and 2 were got marked the Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2. On behalf of the defendant, Dw.1 examiend.

6. Heard arguments of both learned counsels for the plaintif and defendants.

7. ISSUE No.1:

Admittedly, the plaintif filed the above suit against the defendant for recovery of money basing on a promissory note dated 05/02/2015. In the written statement, the defendant specifically contended that the suit promissory note is a fabricated one and his signatures were rank forgery and that he never borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintif. It is a settled proposition of law that in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note, when the defendant denied the execution of promissory note, the initial burden lies upon the plaintif to prove that Ex.A1 promissory note was duly executed by the defendant on the relevant date and then only a presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would come into operation.

8.To discharge the initial burden, plaintif by name T.Vijaya Kumari entered into witness box as Pw.1 and her evidence in the chief-examination affidavit is nothing but replica of contents of the plaint. Through Pw.1, Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were got marked. Ex.A1 is the promissory note dt. 05/02/2015 executed by defendant in favour of plaintif, Ex.A2 is the part payment endorsemnt dt.03.01.2018 for Rs.5,000/-. During the cross examination of

P.W.1 she stated that she don’t know Sk.Masthanamma and Guruvamma and the defendant didn’t introduce to her for lending Rs.2,00,000/- and

Rs.1,00,000/- respectively and Four Rupees intrest and denied the suggestion 4/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.659 of 2019 that she obtained signatures of defendant on blank promissory note for security purpose and subsequently entire amounts were repaid by

Masthanamma and Guruvamma to her. P.W>1 stated that she has lent

Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant on 05.02.2015 at the house of Nageswarao at

Chandramouli Nagar, Nellore in presence of Sommana and Sailaja, herself and defendant. Sommana is the scribe of suit promissory note and part payment endorsement and she denies the signature that she forged the signatures of defendants at Part payment endorsement.

9. The 1st attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note filed her chief examination as PW.2. The P.W.2 in her chief examination submitted that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- on 05.02.2015 and on the even date the defendant executed promissory note in favour of the plaintif and paid an amount of

Rs.5,000/- on 03.01.2018 towards part payment. In the cross examination of

P.W.2 she adduced that she is the family friend of plaintif and plaintif called her to her house when the defendant also came to the house of the plaitnif at 7.00 p.m and defendant asked the plaitnif for Rs.3,00,000/- and plaitnif gave the said amount in her persence and denied the suggestion that defendant never executed promissory note in favour of the plaintif.

11.To disprove the case of plaintif, the defendant herself entered into witness box as DW.1 and his evidence in the chief-examination affidavit is nothing but replica of contents of his written statement. In her cross examination D.W1 identified her signatures on written statement and also on

Ex.A1 but denied her signature on Ex.A2. She also admitted that as per the recitals of Ex.A1 she borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintif but adduced that it is for security purpose for the repayment of debt due by

Masthanamma and Guruvamma to the plaintif and admitted that there is no document to show that the plaintif obtained two blank signed promissory 5/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.659 of 2019 notes from her as a security purpose and that she paid Rs.12.500/- per month to that plaintif to discharge amount due under the Ex.A1.

12.As already stated above, in a suit for recovery of money, when the defendant denied the execution of promissory note, the initial burden lies upon the plaintif to prove that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 was duly executed by the defendant on the relevant date. The incidence of burden is usually clear from the pleadings and it is incumbent on the plaintif to prove what she contends.

On the other hand, the evidential burden may shift from one party to another as the trial progresses according to the balance of evidence given at any particular stage. The burden rests upon the party who would fail if no evidence at all, is adduced by either side. While the legal burden arising on the pleadings is mentioned in Section 101 of the Evidence Act and the evidential burden, is referred to in Section 102 thereof. Section 103 amplifies

Section 101 regarding proof as to a particular fact while Sec.104 deals with the person who has to give evidence.

13.In this case to prove Ex.A1 promissory note, the plaintif apart from examining P.W.1 she also examined 1st attestor of Ex.A1 as P.W.2. Except the bare suggestions made by the counsel for defendant nothing could be elicited to disprove the case of the plaintif. The defendant did not file any document to prove that she did not execute the suit promissory note Ex.A1 and also Ex.A2 endorsement and failed to prove that she did not borrow

Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintif on the alleged date 05.02.2015.

14. Coming to the main aspect of raising of presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,it is of two kinds viz., presumption of fact and of law. Presumptions of fact are inferences logically drawn from one fact as to the existence of other facts. Presumptions of fact which are rebuttable by evidence to the contrary. Presumptions of law may be either irrebuttable so that no evidence to the contrary may be given or rebuttable. A 6/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.659 of 2019 rebuttable presumption of law is a legal rule to be applied by the court in the absence of conflicting evidence. In this case we are concerned with rebuttable presumptions, one among which is enshrined under Sec.118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The provisions of Sec.118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 direct that the court shall presume "until the contrary is proved". If the fact to be presumed is therefore presumed until contrary is proved or until disproved. In a decision between Kundunlal Vs. Custodian

Evacuee Property1 our Honorable Apex court while dealing with rebuttable presumptions as contained in Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 observed as follows:

"Once the defendant shows either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or by use of other presumptions of law or fact that the promissory note is not supported by consideration, in the manner stated in the promissory note or in the manner stated in the suit notice or in the pleading, the evidential burden shifts to the plaintif and the legal burden of the plaintif is revived, i.e. to prove that the promissory note is supported by consideration and at that stage, the presumption of law covered by S. 118 'disappears' and no longer subsists. …. Once such rebuttal evidence is given by the defendant to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court acting on a preponderance of probabilities and not requiring an absolute proof of negative i.e. absence of all conceivable forms of consideration, the efect of the presumption shifting the initial evidential burden to the defendant 'disappears'

15. Applying the above principles to the facts of present case on hand, it is now relevant to examine whether the defendant could able to bring on record any probable circumstances to show that he did not execute Ex.A1 promissory note and the Ex.A2 part payment endorsement as pleaded in the plaint. As already discussed supra, the defendant failed to bring on record any probable circumstances to show that she did not execute Ex.A1 promissory note and

Ex.A2 part payment endorsement that it was not supported by consideration.

Absolutely, there is nothing in the cross-examination of Pws.1 and 2 to hold that

Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration. Coming to the evidence adduced by the defendant, as already referred above, the defendant examined as DW.1 it can 1AIR 1961 Supreme Court page 1316 7/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.659 of 2019 be said that without any hesitation that the defendant failed to bring on record any probable circumstances to show that Ex.A1 promissory note is not executed by her and that it is not supported by consideration. Except a bare denial, the defendants failed to come up with any specific case as to why the plaintif has created Ex.A1 promissory note by fabricating the Ex.A1 and A2. However, as discussed supra, the defence taken by the defendant during cross-examination of Pws.1 and 2 is not worthy. Therefore, the defendant failed to rebut the presumption drawn under Section 118(a) of NI Act. Since the defendant failed to repay the amount under Ex.A1 promissory note and as the limitation starts from the date of endorsement of Ex.A2, and as the suit is within the limiation, the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the plaintif with future interest and costs. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintif and antagonist the defendant.

16.ISSUE No.2: In view of my findings on issue No.1, the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount with future interest and costs. This issue is answered accordingly.

17.ISSUE No.3: In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintif is to be decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.6,04,300/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) with subsequent interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of

Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs only).

This issue is answered accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Grade-III, Corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of June, 2023.

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For Defendant:

8/8 III AJCJ, NLR O.S.No.659 of 2019

P.W.1 :T.Vijaya Kumari DW.1:Galiboyana Khajamma

P.W.2: J.Sailaja

Documents marked on behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A1: is the Original promissory note dt.05.02.2015 for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of P.W.1

Ex.A2: is the part payment of endorsement dt.03.01.2018 for Rs.5,000/-

Documents marked on behalf of defendant: NIL

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

III AJCJ,NLR 1 O.S.No.940/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Present :Smt. B.Akhila

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Thursday, this the 06 th day of July, 2023.

O.S.No. 940 /2022

Between: Patti Venkata Kameswara Hema Chandra Rao, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 54 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.6-3-27, Flat No.206, KAC Avenue, Near Water Tank, Pappula Street, Nellore City. ....Plaintif

And

Avvari Venkata Ram Krishna Sarma, S/o.Late Venkata Subrahmanya Sastry, Hindu, aged 45 years, Veda Pandit in Sri.Rajeswari Devasthanam, R/o.D.No.25-12-68, Sri Krishna Nilayam, Police Colony, Near Womens Hostel, Dargamitta, Nellore.

...Defendant

This suit is came on 04/07/2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Balendra Singh Advocate for the plaintif and the defendant remained exparte and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintif filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,71,624/- on the foot of the two promissory notes dated 16.06.2019 and 06.07.2019.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

On 16.06.2019 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif and in consideration thereof the defendant executed a demand promissory note on the same date in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the said sum together with interest at 30% per annum either to the plaintif or to his order on demand and again on 06.07,2019 the defendant borrowed

Rs.1,00,000/- and executed a promissory note in favor of the plaintif with his own handwriting agreeing to repay the same with interest at 30% p.a., either to the plaintif or to his order on demand. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif the defendant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- through cheque drawn on Union bank of India, Nellore dt.08.11.2021 in respect of promissory

dated 16.06.2019 and thereafter inspite of oral demands the defendant did not

choose to repay the amount due by him in respect of above two promissory

III AJCJ,NLR 2 O.S.No.940/2022 notes after deducting payments made by him and that the defendant is not entitled to the benefits under AP Agriculturist Relief Act, 1938 or Act 9 of 1977.

Hence, the plaintif filed the suit and the interest is complied by the plaintif as per the contract rate.

3.summons were served to thedefendant but the defendant failed to appear

before the court and contest the matter. Hence he was set exparte.

4. Heard counsel for the plaintif.

5.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the

defendant with future interest and costs?

6.Point:

On behalf of the plaintif, plaintif himself was examined as P.W.1 and through him Ex.A1 and A2 got marked. Heard the counsel for the plaintif.

Admittedly the plaintif filed the above suit against the defendant for recovery of the money basing on two promissory notes dated 16.06.2019 06.07.2019 in which he contended that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintif and agreeing to repay the said sum with an interest of 30% p.a., to the plaintif or to his order on demand. In order to support the contention of the plaintif, the plaintif got exhibited Ex.A1 and A2 viz., Original promissory note, dated 16/06/2019 for

Rs.1,00,000/- and original promissory note dt.06.07.2019 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif. The plaintif in his plaint pleaded that inspite of repeated demands made by him, the defendant paid

Rs.50,000/- towards part payment of the sum due under the Ex.A1 promissory note and has failed to discharge the remaining debt. The said fact was not denied by the defendant. Moreover the defendant did not appear before this court to put forth her contention. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged.

When the defendant has failed to challenge the evidence of Pw.1, this court believes the same as true and correct. The plaintif by examining himself as

Pw.1 by exhibiting Ex.A1 and A2, proved that the defendant borrowed amount

III AJCJ,NLR 3 O.S.No.940/2022 from him and he has failed to repay the amount. When the defendant failed to repay the suit amount, the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from him. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

7. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.2,71,624/- with subsequent interest @30% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% p.a. thereon from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 06 th day of July, 2023.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

Pw.1:Patti Venkata kameswara Hema -Exparte- Chandra Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1:Original promissory note, dated 16/06/2019 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif. Ex.A2:Original promissory note, dated 06/07/2019 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:-

-NIL-

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

III AJCJ,NLR 1 O.S.No.378/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Present :Smt. B.Akhila

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Thursday, this the 06 th day of July, 2023.

O.S.No. 378 / 2020

Between: Galinki Goutham, S/o. G.Sudha, Hindu, Male aged 29 years, Private Employee, R/o. 1014, B.C. Hospital Compound,

Railway Feeders Road, Nellore.....Plaintiff

And

Sri.Doraswamy John, Technical (Electric), S/o. Doraswamy, Hindu,aged 50 years, R/o.H.No.96A, Railway quarters, Opp. Office of Health inspector and Lockup Dispensary, Near Railway Station, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

...Defendant

This suit is came on 04/07/2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Sk.Shanawaz Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,75,600/­ on the foot of the promissory note dated 10.10.2019.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

On 10.10.2019 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ from the plaintiff for his family necessities and in consideration thereof the defendant executed a demand promissory note on the same date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said sum together with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to repay any portion of the amount due under the above said promissory note. The plaintiff got issue legal notice to the defendant on 20.06.2020 calling upon the defendant to repay the promissory note debt but the defendant evaded the said notice and got it returned with false endorsement. And the defendant is not entitled to the benefits under Ap Agriculturist Relief Act, 1938

III AJCJ,NLR 2 O.S.No.378/2020 or Act 9 of 1977, he is an employee in south central railway. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit and the interest is claimed by the plaintiff as per the contract rate.

3.summons were served to the defendant but the defendant failed to engage an advocate or requested to contest in person even though he appeared before the court, hence he was set exparte.

4. Heard counsel for the plaintiff.

5.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the 

defendant with future interest and costs?

6.Point:

On behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and through him Ex.A1 to A3 got marked. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Admittedly the plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendant for recovery of the money basing on a promissory note dated 10.10.2019 in which he contended that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the said sum with an interest of 24% p.a., to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In order to support the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got exhibited Ex.A1 to A3 viz., Original promissory note, dated 10/10/2019 for Rs.1,50,000/­ and EX.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.20.06.2020 along with postal receipt Ex.A3 is the unserved legal notice. The plaintiff in his plaint pleaded that inspite of repeated demands made by him, the defendant failed to discharge any portion of the suit amount. The said fact was not denied by the defendant. Moreover the defendant did not appear before this court to put forth her contention. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged. When the defendant has failed to challenge the evidence of Pw.1, this court believes the same as true and correct. The plaintiff by examining himself as Pw.1 by exhibiting Ex.A1 to

A3, proved that the defendant borrowed amount from him and he has failed to repay

III AJCJ,NLR 3 O.S.No.378/2020 the amount. When the defendant failed to repay the suit amount, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from him. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

7.  In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,75,600/­ with subsequent interest @24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% p.a. thereon from the date of decree till the date of realization on

principal sum of Rs.1,50,000/­.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade­III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 06 th day of July, 2023.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

Pw.1:Galinki Gowtham ­Exparte­

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:­

Ex.A1: Original promissory note, dated 10/10/2019 for Rs.1,50,000/­ executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2: Is the office copy of legal notice dated 20.06.2020 along with postal receipt. Ex.A3: Is unserved legal notice

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:­ 

­NIL­

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

III AJCJ,NLR 1 O.S.No.979/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Present :Smt. B.Akhila

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

Thursday, this the 06 th day of July, 2023.

O.S.No. 979 / 2022

Between: Meda Madana Mohan Reddy, S/o.Late Ranga Reddy, Hindu, aged 71 years, Agriculturist, R/o. Gangapatnam Village, & Post, Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

....Plaintiff

And

Mannem Venkamma, W/o.Late Ramanaiah, Hindu, aged 55 years, Agriculturist, R/o. Kapu Street, Gangapatnam Village, & Post, 

Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District....Defendant

This suit is came on 04/07/2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.SPS Vijaya Saradhi Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,54,250/­ on the foot of the promissory note dated 25.03.2021.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

On 25.03.2021 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,16,000/­ from the plaintiff for her family necessities and in consideration thereof the defendant executed a demand promissory note on the same date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said sum together with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to repay any portion of the amount due under the above said promissory note. The plaintiff got issue legal notice to the defendant on 28.07.2022 calling upon the defendant to repay the promissory note debt but the defendant refused to receive the said notice. The defendant is an agriculturist the interest is claimed at 121/2% p.a., Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

III AJCJ,NLR 2 O.S.No.979/2022

3.summons were refused by the defendant hence the service was held sufficient but the defendant failed to appear before the court, and contest the matter, hence she was set exparte.

4. Heard counsel for the plaintiff.

5.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the 

defendant with future interest and costs?

6.Point:

On behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and through him Ex.A1 to A3 got marked. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Admittedly the plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendant for recovery of the money basing on a promissory note dated 25.03.2021 in which he contended that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,16,000/­ and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the said sum with an interest of 24% p.a., to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. In order to support the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got exhibited Ex.A1 to A3 viz., Original promissory note, dated 25/03/2021 for Rs.2,16,000/­ and EX.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.28.07.2022 along with postal receipt Ex.A3 is the returned unserved legal notice.

The plaintiff in his plaint pleaded that inspite of repeated demands made by him, the defendant failed to discharge any portion of the suit amount. The said fact was not denied by the defendant. Moreover the defendant did not appear before this court to put forth her contention. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged. When the defendant has failed to challenge the evidence of Pw.1, this court believes the same as true and correct. The plaintiff by examining himself as Pw.1 by exhibiting Ex.A1 to

A3, proved that the defendant borrowed amount from him and he has failed to repay the amount. When the defendant failed to repay the suit amount, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from him. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

III AJCJ,NLR 3 O.S.No.979/2022

7. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.2,54,250/­ with subsequent interest @121/2% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @6% p.a. thereon from the date of decree till the date of realization on

principal sum of Rs.2,16,000/­.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade­III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 06 th day of July, 2023.

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

Pw.1:Meda Madana Mohan Reddy ­Exparte­

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:­

Ex.A1: Original promissory note, dated 25/03/2021 for Rs.2,16,000/­ executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2: Is office copy of legal notice dated 28.07.2022 along with postal receipt. Ex.A3: Is returned unserved notice

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:­ 

­NIL­

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.