Smt. B. Aparna Devi

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MIRYALAGUDA.

(Dated, this Tuesday, the 9th day of April, 2019)

PRESENT: SMT. B. APARNA DEVI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA.

O.S.NO. 409 OF 2013

Between:

Yandapalli Venkata Naga Durga Prasad, S/o Krishna Murthy, Age 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.28-1073, Vidyanagar, Miryalguda Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District … PLAINTIFF. AND

Ambati Krishna Reddy, S/o Narsi Reddy, Age 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o Pareddygudem Village of Garidepally Mandal, Nalgonda District … DEFENDANT

This suit is coming before me on 25.03.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ravindra Reddy, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri Godala Venkat Reddy, Counsel for the defendant and after having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of money of Rs.6,60,000/- based on the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

2.CASE OF PLAINTIFF:-

(i)Plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of the said acquaintance, defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff, on 12.07.2013 to meet his family expenses at Miryalguda and executed demand promissory note of even date as a collateral security for the said loan amount agreeing to repay the same with an interest @

Rs.2.00 per one hundred per month. It is further submitted that after obtaining the loan amount, the defendant dodged the matter on one pretext or the other and avoided payment. About 6 months back, the stone crushing

Page 2 of 8 unit of the defendant was seized by the banker, as such the defendant sought sometime for discharging the loan amount on the ground that the defendant has come out at first from the problem of seizure of unit.

Believing his words, the plaintiff waited for all these days with a fond hope that the defendant will discharge the loan amount by keeping his promise.

But, strangely the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is trying to evade the loan amount and trying to alienate his stone crusher unit by entering into a tripartite agreement with the intending purchaser of the same as well as the banker to whom the defendant also fell due of

Rs.44,44,662/-. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit without issuing any legal notice.

3.CASE OF DEFENDANT:

(i)Defendant filed written statement denying the entire averments of the plaint except acquaintance between them. It is further submitted that he is the sole proprietor of M/s A.K. Reddy Stone Crushers, Pareddygudem

Village, Garidepally Mandal, Nalgonda District, dealing with manufacture and transport of crushing stone, located in survey No.529 to an extent of

Ac.5.00 gts situated at Ponugode Revenue Village and survey No.104 to an extent of Ac.4.00 gts, total Ac.9.00 gts. one piece of compact situated at

Garidepally Revenue Village, within the limits of Garidepally Mandal,

Nalgonda District consisting mine, mill, machinery and transport vehicles i.e. stone crusher, tipper and two tractors and allied machinery. It is further submitted that the plaintiff, defendant herein and one Pasham Aravinda

Reddy together has jointly taken the said crushing mill of the defendant on lease on monthly rent basis @ Rs.1,30,000/- per month for a period of one year from 10.03.2013 to 09.03.214. In first month itself the said lessees has jointly paid an amount of Rs.10,40,000/- to the lessor i.e. defendant,

O.S. No. 409 OF 2013

Page 3 of 8 towards 8months rents in advance. The subsequent monthly rents from 9th month onwards shall be paid on 5th day of every month. On 10.03.2013 the defendant delivered the possession over the said crushing mill to the lessees and the lessees shall handover the same to the defendant immediately after termination of lease i.e. on 09.03.2014 with the same electricity (ACD) status as on 10.03.2013. Similarly, the defendant shall bear the major repairs to the vehicles for a period of first one month and all of the lessees shall bear the subsequent repairs if any during the lease period.

Accordingly, all the lessees and lessors have entered into a lease agreement

dated 09.03.2013. It is further submitted that subsequent to 8th month, the

lessees failed to pay the rents and also failed to vacate the said crushing mill on termination of lease agreement. The lessor i.e. the defendant herein several times personally demanded the lessees for the arrears of rent and as well as to vacate the crushing mill, but the lessees are postponing the same on one and other lame pretexts. As of now, the lessees are liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,10,000/- to the defendant towards arrears of rent as on 09.06.2014. Thereby some differences arose in between them. Thus, the plaintiff herein chosen to file the present false suit with all false allegations by suppressing the facts basing on forged and fabricated promissory note without any prior notice so as to harass the defendant to gain unlawfully. It is further submitted that the defendant herein got issued legal notice to the said lessees including the plaintiff herein demanding them to vacate the crusher mill by paying the arrears of lease amount, which is under transit. It is further submitted that the alleged suit promissory note is forged and fabricated one and not supported by consideration and as on the date of the alleged suit promissory note, the defendant had no need to borrow such huge amount. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs, in the interest of justice.

O.S. No. 409 OF 2013

Page 4 of 8

4.Basing on the pleadings above, my learned Predecessor settled the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim, as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5.At the stage of trial, that plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 and A2. In the cross-examination of PW.1, Ex.B1 and B2 are marked. The plaintiff also got examined one Nookala Venu Gopal

Reddy, attester to Ex.A1 as P.W.2. The plaintiff reported no further evidence on his behalf. Hence, plaintiff evidence is closed. The defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B3 to B5.

6.Heard, the arguments and perused the entire record.

7.Issue No.1:

It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from him, on 12.07.2013 to meet his family expenses at

Miryalguda and executed suit promissory note, but when the defendant failed to repay the said amount along with interest, he filed the suit.

The plaintiff filed chief evidence affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the legal notice got issued by the defendant was confronted to him along with the postal acknowledgement, for which, PW.1 admitted his signature and Ex.B1 copy of legal notice, dated 28.05.2014 and postal acknowledgment card Ex.B2 which were marked through him. He also identified the signature of the defendant on un-registered lease deed, dated 09.03.2013. PW.1 admitted that he has not issued reply notice to Ex.B1. It is further elicited that PW.1 lent Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendant at his house at Vidyanagar, Miryalguda

O.S. No. 409 OF 2013

Page 5 of 8 at 06.00 p.m. in the presence of defendant, Nandyala Shekar Reddy and

Nookala Venu Gopal Reddy/PW.2. The defendant himself brought the above persons along with him. The defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/-, he paid the same in Rs.500/- denomination, then the defendant executed Ex.A1. Ex.A1 was signed by the defendant in Telugu. Defendant put two signatures on

Ex.A1. Nandyala Shekar Reddy scribed the contents of Ex.A1. PW1 denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration. PW.1 admitted that though he personally demanded the defendant to repay the amount with interest, but he did not issue legal notice. As PW1 came to Know through the newspaper that defendant’s crusher was being seized by the banker, hence, PW1 filed the suit directly. PW1 denied the suggestion that he along with defendant and P. Aravindra Reddy obtained lease of M/s A.K.

Reddy Stone Crusher Unit under un-registered lease deed dated 09.03.2013 for a period of one year from 10.03.2013 to 09.03.2014. PW1 further denied the suggestion that three of them paid Rs.10,40,000/- towards advance rent for 8 months @ Rs.1,30,000/- and balance rent for four months has to be paid by 5th of every month. PW1 further denied the suggestion that he acted as active managing Partner for M/s A.K. Reddy Stone Crusher Unit. PW1 further denied that due to the disputes in the said business, he fabricated

Ex.A1 to make false claim with the help of their common friends. PW1 further denied other suggestions put to him.

In the cross-examination of PW.2 it is elicited that the defendant is doing stone crushing business and he supplies stone dust (metal) to him. He has acquaintance with the plaintiff and P. Aravinda Reddy. It was further elicited that on 12.07.2013, the defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/-from the plaintiff at his house at Vidya Nagar, Miryalguda in between 05.00 to 06.00 p.m. The plaintiff gave the amount in 12 bundles of Rs.500/- denomination.

O.S. No. 409 OF 2013

Page 6 of 8

PW2 along with Venkat Reddy and Nandyala Shekhar Reddy were also present at that time. PW2 does not know whether P. Aravinda Reddy, plaintiff and defendant are partners in the business of M/s A.K. Reddy

Stone Crushing unit. PW2 denied the suggestion that he being the customer and friend of them, he is intentionally deposing false by suppressing the same. PW2 further denied that Ex.A1 is created and fabricated with their help by the plaintiff and the same is not supported by consideration. Further it was elicited that the defendant put his signature at first on Ex.A1. When

PW.2 was confronted with postal acknowledgment, he deposed that the signature of the defendant appear on it in English. He further deposed that he has no knowledge whether the plaintiff conducted business in M/s A.K.

Reddy Stone Crushing Unit in the year 2013. He denied that he along with others conducted panchayath to resolve dispute between plaintiff and defendant in connection with said business.

Though, PWs.1 and 2 were examined at length, nothing worth was elicited to disprove the claim of the plaintiff. Further, in the cross- examination of PW.1 as well as in the cross-examination of PW.2, suit transaction was elicited by the learned counsel for the defendant. In view of the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence

Ex.A1 and A2, the court is of opinion that the plaintiff proved his claim.

Once, the plaintiff proved the execution of suit promissory note, then the presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act is drawn in his favour as the suit promissory note is supported by consideration. Now the burden shifts on the defendant to disprove the claim of the plaintiff.

The defendant got examined himself as DW.1 by filing chief affidavit which is nothing but replica of his written statement, wherein he narrated that he along with plaintiff and one Pasham Aravinda Reddy together jointly

O.S. No. 409 OF 2013

Page 7 of 8 taken the said crushing mill on lease with regard to that he has some disputes with the plaintiff and he got issued legal notice vide Ex.B1 and B2 and the same were served on plaintiff. But, in his cross-examination he admitted that after issuing the legal notice, he did not institute any suit against the plaintiff for recovery of amount. Though it was the contention of the defendant that he has no need to borrow the amount from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has no capacity to lent the amount, but in his cross- examination he admitted that due to financial crisis he was unable to pay the loan taken by him from the banker and the banker has seized his crushing unit and proposed for conducting auction of the crushing unit,

Ex.A2 filed by the plaintiff is the publication issued by the bankers in the newspaper for conducting auction. PW.2 is the common friend of the plaintiff and defendant. PW.2 further deposed that he used to purchase the material from the crushing unit of the defendant. Though the defendant contended that in view of the disputes with regard to the business conducted by him along with the plaintiff and Pasham Aravinda Reddy, the plaintiff got fabricated the said suit promissory note for the purpose of filing of this suit and denied his signature on Ex.A1, but he did not challenge the same by sending the same to the FSL for opinion of the expert and DW1 also not adduced any other evidence in support of his contention. In the absence of any contracting evidence to the claim of the plaintiff, this court is of opinion that the defendant failed to prove his contention by rebutting the evidence of plaintiff. Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiff successfully proved his claim. This issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.Issues No.2:

As the plaintiff proved his claim successfully, he is entitled to recovery the suit amount, as prayed for.

O.S. No. 409 OF 2013

Page 8 of 8

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

Rs.6,60,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization on decreetal amount of Rs.6,60,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of April, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW-1: Yendapalli Venkata Naga Durga Prasad (Plaintiff) PW-2: Nookala Venu Gopal Reddy (Attester)

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: DW-1: Ambati Krishna Reddy (Defendant) :: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Suit promissory note, dated 12.07.2013 Ex.A2: Publication in Eenadu Telugu daily newspaper, dated 02.08.2013

Ex.B1: Office copy of legal notice, dated 28.05.2014 Ex.B2: Postal acknowledgment card

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: -NIL-

Ex.B3:Postal receipts (3), dated 30.05.2016 Ex.B4:Acknowledgment card of Pasham Aravinda Reddy Ex.B5:Acknowledgment card of Ambati Krishna Reddy

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA.

O.S. No. 409 OF 2013

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT MIRYALGUDA

(On this 15th day of April’2019)

PRESENT: SMT. B. APARNA DEVI, Assistant Sessions

Judge,

Miryalaguda.

SESSIONS CASE No. 235 of 2017

(P.R.C. No.11/2017 on the file of the J.M.F.C. Nidmanoor in Crime No.48/2011 of P.S. Nidmanoor)

COMPLAINANTThe State through Circle-Inspector of Police, Halia Circle

ACCUSED:

A1 Gantala Sevya, S/o Buchya, Age 30 years, Occ: Worker in Saradhabi Physically Handicapped, R/o Gandinagar, Devarakonda

A2 Dhanavath Mesya, S/o Saida, Age 26 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o Thimmapuram Village, Damaracherla Mandal, Nalgonda District

A3 Kurapati Thomas, S/o Chinna Moshaiah, Age 37 years, Occ: Kirana Shop, R/o H.No.2-3221-1/2-351, SC Colony, Mallamolu Village, Machavaram Mandal, Guntur District

For the offence:under Section 489(a), 489(b), 489(c), 489(d) and 420 IPC

Plea of the Accused:pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charge under Sections 489 (a), 489(b), 489 (c), 489(d) and 420 IPCand they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 Scanner, M.O.2 cutter, M.O.3 Rs.100/- notes, M.O.4 paper bundle, M.O.5: 2 bundles of Rs.100/- notes, M.O.6: 2 bundles of Rs.100/-, M.O.7: 1000/- denomination notes of 2 affixed on A4 size papers 42 – 500/- notes affixed on A4 size papers. M.O.8 2 notes of Rs.100/- affixed on A4 size papers. M.O.9 4 notes of 1000/-. M.O.10 8

SC NO. 235 OF 2017

2 notes of Rs.500/-. M.O.11 110 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.12 120 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.13 25 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.14 25 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.15 22 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.16 18 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.17 knife Shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period

Prosecution conducted by:Sri Md. Tajuddin, Addl. P.P.

Sri Ch. Raghu Rama Rao, Accused is defended by: Advocate for accused.

This case is coming before me on 08.04.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Md. Tajuddin, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri.Ch. Raghu Rama Rao, Learned counsel for accused having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following; : J U D G M E N T:

1. The Circle-Inspector of Police, Halia Circle filed charge sheet in Cr.

No.48 of 2011 against A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 489(a), 489(b), 489(c), 489(d) and 420 IPC.

2.CASE OF PROSECUTION: (i) On 02.05.2011 at 06.00 hours, LW.10 D. Anjaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police along with his staff conducted vehicle checking at Peddavoora Y junction and apprehended A1 in suspicious circumstances and on checking thoroughly, he found bunches of Rs.100/- notes which appeared different from original. On questioning him about the same, A1 revealed that about 15 days back his relative A2 contacted him and informed that he had fake currency notes and asked him whether he was willing to sale the same at his Thanda. On agreeing the said proposal, on 01.05.2011 he went to Halia to meet A1 at his mother-in-law’s house and took two bundles each 100 denomination 100/- rupee fake

SC NO. 235 OF 2017

3 currency notes to exchange the same in the Thanda and also asked him to pay Rs.5,000/- for the same. LW.10 secured the presence of mediators LW.6

Chilakala Eedaiah and LW.7 Vanguri Gangaiah , in their presence, seized two bundles of Rs.100/- notes under cover of panchanama and brought the accused to the police station and suo-motto registered a case in crime No.48 of 2011, under Section 489 (B) and 420 IPC. He took up the investigation and recorded the statements of LW.1 Mohd Kayum, LW.2 Burrugu

Nandaiah and LW.3 Ramavath Hari Chandra @ Chandu. During the course of investigation, LW.11 G. Venkateshwar Reddy, Circle Inspector of

Police, Halia, recorded the confessional statement of A1, took him to Bodrai

Centre, near Chinna Badi and showed one person i.e. A2 in the house of

Ramavath Padma and informed that he is the one who gave him fake currency notes for exchange. LW.11 apprehended A2. A2 confessed that he is having close relationship with one Shiva, who introduced A3 to him and recently A3 contacted him on phone and informed him about the fake currency notes and asked him to sell the same, for which he agreed and went to Piduguralla and contacted A3, who gave him Rs.40,000/- fake currency 100 rupee notes in 4 bundles. After returning to his village, he contacted A1 and informed him about the fake notes and entrusted two bundles of

Rs.100/- fake notes to A1 on 01.05.2011 to exchange the same at his Thanda by keeping remaining Rs.100/- notes with him to exchange the same in his

Thanda. By saying so, he has shown the said amount, which was kept on the cot of the house covered with bed sheet. LW.11 secured the presence of

LW.8 Yata Vijay and LW.9 Angothu Latchi Ram, recorded the confessional

SC NO. 235 OF 2017

4 statement of A2 and seized the fake currency notes under cover of panchanama. Further, A2 led the police to Piduguralla of Guntur District to the house of A3, where A3 voluntarily admitted that one year back he joined in the rented house saying that he is doing real estate business. He purchased

HP Zerox machine for Rs.4,500/- at Vijayawada for preparing Rs.100/-, 500/- and 1,000/- fake currency notes by printing with Xerox and handed over 4 bundles of Rs.100/- to A2 to exchange the same in Thanda. L.W.11 in the presence of LWs.8 and 9 recorded the confessional statement, seized

HP Xerox machine and fake currency notes in their presence under cover of panchanama. LW.11 sent the seized property to FSL. The investigation revealed that A3 by purchasing the colour Xerox machine prepared fake currency notes and handed over four bundles to A2 to exchange the same in the Thanda and interior villages, who in turn gave two bundles to A1 to exchange the fake currency notes in his Thanda. Thereby A1 to A3 committed the offences under Sections 489 (a), 489 (b), 489 (c), 489 (d) and 420 IPC. Lw.11 laid charge sheet for the above offences against A1 to A3.

3.This case is taken cognizance by the learned Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Nidmanoor in P.R.C. No.11/2017 for the offence under

Section 489 (a), 489 (b), 489 (c), 489 (d) and 420 IPC against A1 to A3.

After supply of copies to the accused u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., the learned

Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Nalgonda u/Sec. 209

Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda took cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 489 (a), 489 (b), 489

SC NO. 235 OF 2017

5

(c), 489 (d) and 420 IPC against A1 to A3 and made over to this court for trial and disposal according to law.

4.After appearance of A1 to A3, this Court framed the charge against the accused for the offences under Section 489 (a), 489 (b), 489 (c), 489 (d) and 420 IPC. The charge was read over to accused and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined LW.1 to

LW.5 eye witnesses as PWs.1, 8, 2, 3 and 9 respectively. LW.6 and L.W.7 panch witnesses for confession and recovery of A1 as PWs.4 and 5 respectively. L.W.8 and L.W.9 panch witnesses for confession and recovery of A2 and A3 as PWs.6 and 7 respectively. LW.10 and L.W.11 investigating officers as PWs.10 and 11 respectively. The learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW.12 S G Siva Shankar,

Inspector of Police.

6.Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting all incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

7.Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is:

SC NO. 235 OF 2017

6

1) Whether the prosecution was able to prove that, A1 to A3 sold fake currency notes to the people of thandas and villages, knowing that the same are fake and cheated the Public knowingly indulged in exchanging of fake currency notes as genuine Indian currency notes and thereby A1 to A3 committed the offence punishable u/Secs 489 (a), 489 (b), 489 (c), 489 (d) and 420 IPC?

2) Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 489 (a), 489 (b), 489 (c), 489 (d) and 420 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Point No.1:

The case of the prosecution is that, A1 to A3,knowingly indulged in exchanging fake currency notes as genuine Indian currency notes to the people of Thandas and villages, knowing that the same are fake and cheated the public.

Apart from the official witness PW1, PW8 and investigating officers

PW10, PW11, panch witnesses PW6, supported seizure of MO1 to M04 from the house of A3 & PW.8 supported the confession made by A1 and failed identify A1 instead, identified A2 present in the court hall.

None of the independent eye witness, as well as panch witness for confession and recovery narrated the story of prosecution nor supported conducting of confession panchanamas and seizure of case property from the possession of accused A1 to A3.

Though, the prosecution examined investigating officer in this case but not exhibited FIR, 161 Cr.P.C. Statement, Panchanamas for the reason best known to it.

SC NO. 235 OF 2017

7

In the absence of marking FIR, the evidence of prosecution witness is of no use, as FIR is the first step of criminal procedure which set the criminal law in motion. It is most important supportive evidence based on which the entire structure of the case of the prosecution is built up. It enables the police officer in charge of the police station to initiate the investigation on the crime and to collect evidence as soon as possible. FIR should be marked as an exhibit. When the maker of the FIR is examined in the court, but if such FIR is not tendered by the prosecution in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, the court is debarred from relying on the FIR.

FIR has great significant role in each criminal litigation. Though, FIR is not a substance piece of evidence but being an information first in point of time, is a valuable piece of evidence in any criminal trial either for corroborating evidence or for contradicting witnesses.

In the absence of marking FIR and in the absence of material evidence on record. This court is of opinion that, the evidence placed on record is not sufficient enough to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This point is answered in favour of the accused.

10. Point No.2:

In view of the evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution failed to elicit any incriminating material against the accused connecting them with the offence alleged against them. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion

SC NO. 235 OF 2017

8 that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. This point is answered in favour of the accused.

11.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charge under Sections 489 (a), 489(b), 489 (c), 489(d) and 420 IPCand they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.M.O.1 Scanner, M.O.2 cutter, M.O.3 Rs.100/- notes, M.O.4 paper bundle, M.O.5: 2 bundles of Rs.100/- notes, M.O.6: 2 bundles of

Rs.100/-, M.O.7: 1000/- denomination notes of 2 affixed on A4 size papers 42 – 500/- notes affixed on A4 size papers. M.O.8 2 notes of Rs.100/- affixed on A4 size papers. M.O.9 4 notes of 1000/-. M.O.10 8 notes of

Rs.500/-. M.O.11 110 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.12 120 notes of Rs.100/-.

M.O.13 25 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.14 25 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.15 22 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.16 18 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.17 knife shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 15th day of April, 2019.

ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW-1: Mohd. Kayyum (LW-1)

PW-2: Ramavath hari Chandra @ Chandu (LW-3)

SC NO. 235 OF 2017

9

PW-3: Ramavath Padma (LW-4)

PW-4: Chilakala Eadaiah (LW-6)

PW-5: Vanguri Gangaiah (LW-7)

PW-6: Yata Vijay (LW-8)

PW-7: Angothu Latchi Ram (LW-9)

PW-8: Burrugu Nandaiah (LW-2)

PW-9: Challa Venkateshwarlu @ Buddaiah (LW-5)

PW-10: D. Anjaiah (LW-10)

PW-11: G. Venkateshwara Reddy (LW-11)

FOR DEFENCE: NONE : EXHIBITS MARKED :

FOR PROSECUTION: -NIL-

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1 Scanner, M.O.2 cutter, M.O.3 Rs.100/- notes, M.O.4 paper bundle, M.O.5: 2 bundles of Rs.100/- notes, M.O.6: 2 bundles of Rs.100/-, M.O.7: 1000/- denomination notes of 2 affixed on A4 size papers 42 – 500/- notes affixed on A4 size papers. M.O.8 is 2 notes of Rs.100/- affixed on A4 size papers. M.O.9 is 4 notes of 1000/-. M.O.10 is 8 notes of Rs.500/-. M.O.11 is 110 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.12 is 120 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.13 is 25 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.14 is 25 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.15 is 22 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.16 is 18 notes of Rs.100/-. M.O.17 is knife

ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

SC NO. 235 OF 2017

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MIRYALAGUDA.

(Dated, this Tuesday, the 16th day of April, 2019)

PRESENT: SMT. B. APARNA DEVI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA.

O.S.NO. 14 OF 2014

Between:

Smt Vanama Vijaya W/o Venkata Ramana, Age 26 years, Occ: Household, R/o Ranganna Colony, Miryalguda Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District … PLAINTIFF. AND

Rayini Nagamani W/o Chandrashekhar, Age 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.22-11 & 22-12, Main Bazar, Miryalguda Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District … DEFENDANT

This suit is coming before me on 08.04.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ravindra Reddy, Counsel for the plaintiff and Smt D. Sreedevi, Counsel for the defendant and after having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of money of Rs.2,12,500/- based on the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

2.CASE OF PLAINTIFF:-

(i)Plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of the said acquaintance, defendant approached the plaintiff for financial accommodation of Rs.1,25,000/- to the defendant to meet his family needs at Miryalguda on 15.01.2011 and the defendant executed demand promissory note of even date as a collateral security for the said loan amount and agreed to repay the same with interest @ Rs.2-00 per one hundred rupees per month. It is further submitted that the defendant failed to discharge the said loan amount inspite of repeated requests by dodging

Page 2 of 6 the matter on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff learnt that the defendant is trying to alienate her husband’s property to the name of third parties. Therefore, the plaintiff without issuing legal notice filed this suit.

3.CASE OF DEFENDANT:

(i)Defendant filed written statement denying the entire averments of the plaint and took pleas such as the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated one created for the purpose of filing this suit and the same is not supported by consideration. There is no acquaintance with the plaintiff.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings above, my learned Predecessor settled the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim, as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5.At the stage of trial, that plaintiff got examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1. Though chief affidavit of one of the attester to Ex.A1 was filed before this court in lieu of examination in chief of PW2, but as the said witness PW.2 failed to appear before this court inspite of granting several adjournments and even after imposing condition to subject himself to cross- examination. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 is closed by the Court and not taken into consideration. Plaintiff reported no further evidence. Hence, plaintiff evidence is closed. The defendant got examined herself as DW.1 and no documents were marked on her behalf.

6.Heard, the arguments and perused the entire record.

O.S. No. 14 OF 2014

Page 3 of 6

7.Issue No.1:

It is the case of the plaintiff that having obtained loan from her, the defendant got executed Ex.A1 in her favour and failed to repay the loan.

In order to prove her case, the plaintiff filed chief affidavit reiterating the averments of plaint and got marked Ex.A1 suit promissory note, dated 15.01.2011, which supported the transaction that took place between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it was elicited by the learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff gave an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on 15.01.2011 to the defendant in the presence of Repala Shankaraiah and Voruganti Ramesh. The defendant executed the promissory note by putting her signature. Voruganti Ramesh scribed promissory note and put his signature in the scribe column. Repala

Shankaraiah put his signature as attester. Further, it was elicited that at the time of lending this amount, the petitioner worked as a tailor and at the time of transaction, she got married. Her surname is Vanama and her name is Vijaya. She got mentioned in the promissory note as “Vanama Vijaya”. It is denied by PW.1 that after one year of date of transaction, the defendant paid the entire amount in the presence of her senior maternal aunt. PW.1 denied the suggestion that her senior maternal aunt died. She stated that she paid the amount in 500 and 1000 rupee denomination and the entire transaction took place at her house. She gave the amount by withdrawing the same from State Bank, but she has not filed any voucher before this

Court. PW.1 denied the suggestion that the signature of the defendant is forged on promissory note.

In the cross examination of PW1, the detailing pertaining to the transaction that took place between the plaintiff and defendant was

O.S. No. 14 OF 2014

Page 4 of 6 elicited very clearly by the learned counsel for the defendant. Therefore, nothing remained on record to disprove the chief of PW.1.

From the above it is clear that PW.1 successfully proved that she gave loan of Rs.1,25,000/- to the defendant on 15.01.2011 at her house in the presence of Repala Shankaraiah and Voruganti Ramesh. Since the execution is proved, the presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments

Act is drawn in favour of the plaintiff that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration. Now the burden of proof shifts on the defendant to rebut the averments of the plaint.

The defendant filed her chief affidavit, which is nothing but replica of her written statement. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she has no knowledge whether her husband borrowed loans from several persons and failed to repay the same, upon which those persons filed number of cases against her husband and it was elicited that the house bearing No.22- 11 and 22-12 stood in the name of her husband. She denied the suit transaction and also denied that having acquaintance with one Oruganti

Ramesh and R. Shankaraiah. She denied the suggestion that with an intention to evade repayment of the loan amount, she is deposing false that suit promissory note is forged one and the signature on the suit promissory note does not belongs to her. Further it was elicited that she is having account in State Bank of India, Miryalguda. When DW.1 was confronted with her signature on the vakalath, she denied the same by saying that it does not belongs to her and is a forged one. When she was confronted with her signatures on the written statement and chief affidavit, she admitted those signatures. When she was confronted with promissory note, she denied the same.

O.S. No. 14 OF 2014

Page 5 of 6

Though, the defendant did not plead that after taking the loan amount, after period of one year she repaid the entire amount to the plaintiff in the presence of her maternal aunt, neither in her written statement nor in her chief affidavit, but surprisingly the said suggestion was posed to PW.1 in her cross-examination, for which PW.1 denied. Further, it was observed from the cross-examination of defendant that she is in a habit of denying her signature, as she denied her signature on vakalath. Though, the defendant took plea of forgery, but the defendant did not prefer to send the promissory note to the expert for his opinion.

In the absence of any contradicting evidence, this court is of opinion that the defendant failed to rebut the claim of the plaintiff. In view of the above observation, this court is of opinion that the plaintiff successfully proved her claim by examining herself by getting marked Ex.A1 in support of her evidence. This issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.Issues No.2:

As the plaintiff proved her claim successfully, she is entitled to recovery the suit amount, as prayed for.

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

Rs.2,12,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve Thousand and Five Hundred only) in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization on decreetal amount of Rs.2,12,500/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA.

O.S. No. 14 OF 2014

Page 6 of 6 :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW-1: Vanama Vijaya (Plaintiff)

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: DW-1: Rayini Nagamani (Defendant) :: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Demand promissory note, dated 15.01.2011

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: -NIL-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA.

O.S. No. 14 OF 2014

1 OS.No.76 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MIRYALAGUDA

(Dated, this the 16th day of April, 2019)

PRESENT: SMT B. APARNA DEVI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA.

OS.No. 76 of 2017

Between:

Singh Ramulu S/o. Satyanarayana, Age: 38 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.7-189/1, Chaitanyanagar locality of Miryalaguda Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… PLAINTIFF AND

Ballem Sowjanya D/o. Ramanarsaiah, Age: 36 yrs, Occ:Staf Nurse in Area Hospital, Miryalaguda, R/o.Miryalaguda Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… DEFENDANT

This suit is coming before me on 10-04-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Counsel for the plaintif and the defendant remained set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed for recovery of money of Rs.4,31,520/- based on the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif.

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

Plaintif and the defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of the said acquaintance the defendant requested the plaintif to lend amounts for her family necessities. At the said request of defendant, the plaintif lent an amount of

Rs.3,48,000/-(Three Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Only) on 04-06- 2016 as a hand loan to her. The defendant immediately after receiving the said amount from the plaintif, executed a 2 OS.No.76 of 2017 demand promissory note for the said sum of Rs.3,48,000/- in favour of the plaintif and handed over the same to the plaintif agreeing thereby to repay the said hand loan with an interest @ 24% i.e., Rs.2/- per hundred per month as a collateral security to the above transaction.

It is further submitted that, the plaintif several times demanded the defendant to repay his demand promissory amount. But, the defendant has successfully postponed the matter of payment on one pretext or the other. Finally the plaintif approached the defendant and requested to pay the loan amount with interest, she did hear the words of the plaintif and the defendant denied paying the amount. The plaintif issued legal notice to the defendant on 12-04-2017 but, the defendant did neither gave reply to the notice nor paid any amount to the plaintif. The plaintif lost his hopes. Hence, the suit.

3.Though, summons were affixed to the door of the defendant. Defendant called absent no representation on her behalf. Hence, defendant set-exparte.

4.To substantiate the claim of plaintif, the plaintif got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4.

As the defendant is set-exparte and as there is no representation on her behalf, cross-examination of PW-1 is closed by this Court as treated a s nil. The plaintif reported no 3 OS.No.76 of 2017 further evidence on his behalf. Hence, the plaintif evidence is closed.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif and perused the entire record.

6.The point for consideration is :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, as prayed for?”

7.Point:

a) The case of the plaintif is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,48,000.00 on 04-06-2016 and executed suit promissory note in his favour. On her failure to repay the same, the plaintif filed the present suit.

b)Plaintif filed chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1: Demand Promissory Note, dated.04-06-2016, which reveals the transaction between the plaintif and defendant, Ex.A2: Office Copy of Legal Notice, dated.12-04-2017, Ex.A3: Postal Receipt, dated 12-04-2017,

Ex.A4: Served Acknowledgment, dated 17-04-2017

c)In the circumstances of this case, when there is no rebuttal evidence on record apart from the oral and documentary evidence of PW-1, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1. More-so, in the circumstances of the case, 4 OS.No.76 of 2017 when the defendant chooses to remain ex-parte. Thus, this

Court believes in the oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence Ex.A1 to A4. This suit is filed within the limitation period.

d)With the above observation, this Court is of opinion that, the plaintif has proved his claim successfully and is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant along with interest and cost. This point is answered in favour of the plaintif.

8.In the result, suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.4,31,520/- (Rupees Four Lakh Thirty

One Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty only) and interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on decreetal amount of Rs.4,31,520/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW-1: Singh Ramulu (plaintif)

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: - NIL - 5 OS.No.76 of 2017

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS::

Ex.A1: Demand Promissory Note, dated.04-06-2016

Ex.A2: Office Copy of Legal Notice, dated.12-04-2017

Ex.A3: Postal Receipt, dated 12-04-2017

Ex.A4: Served Acknowledgment, dated 17-04-2017

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:: - NIL -

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA.

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MIRYALAGUDA

(Dated, this the 9th day of April, 2019)

PRESENT: SMT B. APARNA DEVI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA.

OS.No. 178 OF 2018

Between:

Lakumarapu Varun S/o. Pandurangaiah, Age: 32 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.28-1091, Housing Board Colony, Miryalaguda Town Nalgonda District.

… PLAINTIFF AND

Nakka Gopal S/o. Mutyalu, Age:55 yrs, Occ:Business, R/o. H.No.18-182/15, Ashok Nagar, Miryalaguda Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… DEFENDANT

This suit is coming before me on 02.04.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Srinivas, Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed for recovery of money of Rs.3,56,600/- based on the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

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

Plaintiff and the defendant are acquainted to each other for the last several years. Out of such acquaintance the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, on interest, on 15-01-2018 from the plaintiff to meet his business necessities. After receiving the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, the defendant executed a demand 2 promissory note of even date as a collateral security to the said loan transaction with a stipulation to repay the borrowed amount together with interest @ 24% per annum, to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

It is further submitted that, the plaintiff demanded the defendant several times for repayment of the borrowed together with interest accrued thereon, by presenting the promissory note executed by him. But, the defendant postponed the payment on one pre-text or the other and failed to make the borrowed amount together with interest till today. Hence, the suit.

3.Though, summons were affixed to the door of the defendant. Defendant called absent no representation on his behalf. Hence, defendant set-exparte.

4.To substantiate the claim of plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1. As the defendant is set-exparte and as there is no representation on his behalf, cross-examination of Pw-1 is closed by this Court as treated as nil. The plaintiff reported no further evidence on his behalf. Hence, the plaintiff evidence is closed.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire record.

3

6.The point for consideration is :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, as prayed for?”

7.Point:

a) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 on 15.01.2018 and executed suit promissory note in his favour. On his failure to repay the same, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

b)Plaintiff filed chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and got marked Ex.A1. Demand promissory note, dated.15-01- 2018, which reveals the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant.

c)In the circumstances of this case, when there is no rebuttal evidence on record apart from the oral and documentary evidence of Pw-1, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Pw-1. More-so, in the circumstances of the case, when the defendant chooses to remain ex-parte.

Thus, this Court believes in the oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence Ex.A1. This suit is filed within the limitation period.

d)With the above observation, this Court is of opinion that, the plaintiff has proved his claim successfully and is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant along with 4 interest and cost. This point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.In the result, suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,56,600/- (Rupees Three Lakhs

Fifty Six Thousand Six Hundred Only) and interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on decreetal amount of Rs.3,56,600/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of April, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW-1: Lakumarapu Varun (plaintiff)

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS::

Ex.A1: Demand promissory note, dated.15-01-2018.

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:: - NIL -

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA.