Sri B.Appala Swamy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : REPALLE

Present: Sri B.Appala Swamy, B.A., L.L.M., Prl Junior Civil Judge: Repalle.

Monday, this the 4th day of May, 2015

ORIGINAL SUIT No.260/2014

Between:

Pisupati Seetaramarao, S/o Venkateswara Sarama, age 48 years, Hindu, Cultivation,R/o D.No.4-37, Vemavaram, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Repalle JCJC. … Plaintiff

And

Jalli Adam @ Adamu, S/o Munu Swamy, age 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o D.No.3-45, Surepalli, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Repalle JCJC.

... Defendant

This suit is having come on 1-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Chandra Sekhar , Advocate for plaintiff Sri M.K.Deena Dayal and K.V.Surya Rao, Advocate for defendant and having perusal the material and other circumstances available on record, till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for recovery an amount of Rs.67,966-00 (Rupees Sixty seven thousand nine hundred and sixty six only), based on pronote.

2.The Plaint averments in nutshell are as follows;

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 21-09-2011 for family expenses and agreeing to repay the same with the 24 % rate of interest per annum compoundable with yearly rests either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day i.e., 21-09-2011 at Vemavaram. Subsequently the defendant has been postponing the repayment of suit promissory note debt on some pretext or other till now, in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff but the defendant did not pay any amount under promissory note debt. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit promissory note debt with subsequent interest, costs and for other incidental relieves. Even though the defendant agreed to pay compoundable interest at 24% under suit promissory note with yearly rests, the plaintiff voluntarily claims simple interest at 12% per annum only in the suit as the defendant is an agriculturist.

2

3. The defendant filed written statement and contended that all the allegations in the plaint are false and the suit is not maintainable under law. The defendant humbly submit that it is false to say that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 21-09-2011 for the purpose of family expenses and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% compoundable interest with every year and executed the suit promissory note and postponing the payment in spite of several demands by the plaintiff. This defendant humbly submit that there is a money dealing with the plaintiff to his defendant prior to 2009. The plaintiff used to obtain signature on empty pronote and after discharging the debt , he used to tear the pronote. From 2009 on wards there are no money dealings to this defendant with the plaintiff. This defendant humbly submit that one Perikala Israel of Vemavaram borrowed Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff and having acquaintance with the plaintiff, this defendant recommended the plaintiff to lend the amount. This defendant used to do the agricultural work of the plaintiff from the last 10 years. In this year 2011-2012 the defendant did the agricultural work and leveled the land by removing the palm trees etc., and the plaintiff in the connection has to pay Rs.35,300/- to this defendant as demanded by this defendant to pay the amount of Rs.35,300/- the plaintiff got angry and cried on the defendant to discharge the debt of Perikala Israel which was given on the recommendation of the defendant. On that due to exchange of words, the plaintiff bore grudge against this defendant and created the suit pronote and filed the suit against this defendant. This defendant humbly submit that there is no debtor and creditor relation under the suit pronote and there is no consideration. The plaintiff during the exchange of words, stated that he know how to lead this defendant and he will see him. The plaintiff further stated that if he forgive the defendant, his prestige will be lowered. So, this defendant believes that in that connection, the plaintiff hatched up the plan and created the suit pronote and filed the suit with false claim. The plaintiff further stated that he will see how the defendant will receive Rs.35,300/-. This defendant denies such other allegations which are not specifically denied herein and put the plaintiff to strict proof of the same. This defendant therefore pray that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs of this defendant.

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

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is rank forged one document ?

3. To what relief ?

5.On behalf of plaintiff PW1 to PW3 examined. Ex.A1 to A4 marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW.1 was examined. No documents were marked on behalf of defendant. The chief affidavit of DW.2 was eschewed.

3

6.Heard arguments.

7. Issues 1 and 2:

For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, this Court inclined to answer Issues 1 and 2 together at once.

The main contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 21-09-2011 for his family expenses and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of attestor and scribe, and agreed to repay with interest @ 24% per annum on demand either to him or on his order. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to repay the said amount. On the other hand, the defendant denied the entire case of plaintiff and also denied the execution of suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff by contending that the suit pronote is forged one. Hence, the initial burden to prove the execution of suit promissory note is on the plaintiff.

8. In order to prove that the suit promissory note is executed by the defendant after receiving consideration, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and through him

Ex.A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 is suit pronote executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 21-09-2011, Ex.A2 is copy of notice got issued by defendant to the plaintiff dt.5-11-2014, Ex.A3 is office copy of reply notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 27-11-2014, Ex.A4 is postal acknowledgment of defendant dt.28- 11-2014

9.As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he almost all reiterated his plaint averments that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from PW.1 and in evidence thereof, the defendant executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note . By the time of Ex.A1 pronote transaction dt.21-09-2011 PW.2 and PW.3 who are attestor and scribe of

Ex.A1 pronote were present. PW.2 signed as attestor and PW.3 scribed Ex.A1 pronote.

PW.1 demanded the defendant for repayment of the debt under Ex.A1 but he did not pay the same later. After knowing about filing of the suit for recovery of money the defendant got issued Ex.A2 registered notice through his counsel with all false claims and false averments to defeat and delay the suit pronote debt. The plaintiff got issued

Ex.A3 reply notice dt.27-11-2014 through his counsel the same was served on the defendant under Ex.A4 postal acknowledgment. During course of cross-examined of

PW1, he stated that he is an agriculturist his father got Ac.10-00 cents agriculture land at Vemavaram village of Bhattiprolu Mandal. He has 3 brothers ,they used to take the income from Ac.10.00 cents of agricultural land equally. PW.1 has no other business 4 except the agricultural and that he used to get Rs.20,000/- per annum from each acre and sometimes there will be a loss due to natural calamities and that he used to maintain balance of bank account about 2 to 3 lakhs and he can produce the account of his bank account. PW.1 further stated that he used to do agricultural operations with the assistance of coolies and machineries and that he used to do the agricultural operations with the help of Kallamsetti Srinivasarao who got tractor. Except Ex.A1 transaction there were no other transaction between himself and the defendant. The learned counsel for defendant suggested that PW.1 has no financial capacity to lend such use amount of Rs.50,000/- and that the income arose from the landed property is not sufficient not to lend money to the defendant and that one Perikala Israel used to assist the agricultural operations of PW.1 and that the said Perikala Israel is need of money the defendant recommended the plaintiff to lend money to Israel and that some disputes arose between plaintiff and Israel with regard to repayment of debt the plaintiff put pressure on the defendant to repayment of the debt of Israel and that the defendant used to assist the plaintiff for his agricultural operations and that he got acquaintance with the defendant who used to attend agricultural operations and that when the defendant demanded money for the services rendered to the plaintiff, the plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant and filed the false suit against the defendant and that the signature contains on Ex.A1 pronote is not that of the defendant. But in spite of grilled cross-examination, he stands to the test of cross-examination and nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 in respect of the execution of suit promissory note or in support of the contention of the defendant.

10. The plaintiff also examined PWs.2, PW.3 who are attester and scribe of Ex.A1.

P.W2 and PW.3 testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 21.09.2011 from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 pronote in favour of the plaintiff. PW.2 is attester, PW.3 scribed the pronote.

11.When this Court carefully gone through the evidence of PWs.1 to PW.3, they unequivocally stated about the execution of suit promissory note by the defendant and passing of consideration there under. This factum has been vehemently denied by the defendant by taking plea that he never executed suit promissory note as contended by the plaintiff and he never borrowed any amount. It is the specific contention of defendant that one Perikala Israel in need of money approached him for that he recommended the plaintiff to lend money to him and that the defendant rendered services for the agricultural operations of the plaintiff and also removal of palm trees in the fields of the plaintiff which was thrown by the time of making repairs to the canal bund and the plaintiff is due an amount of Rs.35,300/- and that when the defendant demanding for payment of said amount the plaintiff filed the suit by creating Ex.A1. In 5 order to prove the contention of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW.1 but no documents were marked on his behalf. Dw.1 deposed that the plaintiff filed false against him. He did not borrow Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 pronote.

There were money dealing business in between himself and the plaintiff prior to 2009.

the plaintiff used to obtain signatures on empty pronotes and after discharging the debt he used to tear the pronote, since 2009 there are no money dealings between himself and plaintiff. DW.1 further deposed that one Perkala Israel of Vemavaram borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff and haivng acquaitance with the plaintiff, the defendant recommended the plaintiff to tend the amount. DW.1 further deposed that he used to do agricultural work of plaintiff from the last 10 years. In the year 2011-2012 he did agricultural work and leveled the land by removing the palm trees and that the plaintiff in this connection has to pay Rs.35,300/- to the defendant and that when the defendant demanded for payment of the said amount the plaintiff cried against the defendant to discharge the debt of Perikala Israel which was given on the recommendation of the defendant and that due exchange of words the plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant.

The defendant did not adduce any other evidence on his behalf to show that the plaintiff lend money to the Perikala Israel and the defendant rendered services to the plaintiff in agricultural operations and for removal of palm tree from the land of plaintiff and the plaintiff is due to an amount of Rs.35,300/-

12. As discussed earlier the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is trust worthy and the defendants failed to put forth necessary evidence to establish his defense. Except the bald averments in the written statement , the defendant did not put forth any satisfactory evidence to consider the defense taken by him in the written statement.

After filing the suit the defendant got issued Ex.A2 legal notice to the plaintiff demanding him to pay Rs.35,300/- towards the service rendered by him to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued reply notice through his counsel for Ex.A2 legal notice and the same was served on the defendant. The contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff is due for an amount of Rs.35,300/- for the services rendered by him to the plaintiff in agricultural operations for the year 2011-2012 but the defendant did not make any efforts to get same from the plaintiff. The defendant got issued Ex.A2 legal notice to the plaintiff only after filing the suit in the year 2014. if really the plaintiff is due for an amount of

Rs.35,300/- to the defendant he would have issue legal notice to the plaintiff prior to filing of the suit instead of issuing notice under Ex.A2 after filing the suit. The defendant did not adduce any sech on his behalf of to establish that he rendered services to the plaintiff in agricultural operations. The defendant did not adduce any evidence on their behalf to establish his contention that the plaintiff is due an amount of Rs.35,300/- 6 except the oral testimony, no documentary evidence was filed on behalf of the defendant to establish his contention. Therefore, the mere defense that due to the disputes between himself and plaintiff, the plaintiff fabricated suit promissory note by forging his signature cannot come to his rescue to accept the defense taken by him in the written statement.

13. The defendant further contended that the suit promissory note is a forged document and it was brought into existence at the instance of plaintiff, and defendant did not execute the Ex. A1 pronote. The plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 and PW.3 by relying on Ex.A1 to A4 could enlighten the Court on the points urged by him with regard to the execution of suit promissory note and successfully discharged the burden, then the onus shifted on the defendant. Even then, the defendant not make any attempts to substantiate his contentions. By taking the defense that the suit pronote is forged one and he is not executed Ex A1. Though the plaintiff specifically contended that the promissory note was executed by the defendant and it contains the signature of the defendant, but he did not even make any attempts to refer the disputed pronote to handwriting expert for the signature on the suit promissory notes when these options are very much available to the defendant, even then for the reasons best known to them, he did not choose to avail it.

Thus, except his self-serving testimony, the defendant did not put forth any satisfactory evidence in support of his contentions. Even at the cost of repetition, after going through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiff and also after considering the suit promissory note and the defense taken by defendant, it is crystal clear that the evidence of PWs.1 to PW3 are not at all shattered and the plaintiff could enlighten the Court about the execution of suit promissory note by the defendant after receiving consideration with all probabilities and the defendant failed to establish his contentions that the suit promissory note is forged one. For all these reasons, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

14.Issue-3:

In view of my findings on Issues-1 and 2, the suit is deserves to be decreed with costs. Therefore this issues are answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

15.In the result, suit is decreed with costs for Rs.67,966/- (Rupees Sixty seven thousand nine hundred and sixty six only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and there on at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

7

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 4th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- B.Appala Swamy,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Repalle. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For plaintiff: For defendant:

PW.1 : Pisupati Seetharamarao DW.1: Jalli Adam @ Adamu

PW.2 : Chenna Venkateswara Rao

PW.3 : Menta Sambasiva Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 21-09-2011.

Ex.A2 is office copy of registered notice got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff dated 5-11-2014.

Ex.A3 is office copy of reply notice got issued by plaintiff dt.27-11-2014.

Ex.A4 is postal acknowledgment of defendant dt.28-11-2014.

Exhibits marked on behalf of defendant:

-Nil-

Sd/- B.Appala Swamy,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Repalle.

//True copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Repalle.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, REPALLE

PRESENT:- SRI B.Appala Swamy,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, REPALLE.

Thursday, this the 07 th day of May, 2015

E.P. No.135/2014

Between:-

Palem Venkata Narasamma

...D.Hr

And

Palem Venkateswara Rao ...J.Dr

This suit coming on 07.05.2015 before me in the presence of Sri M.P.C.R, Advocate for the D.Hr and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

DOCKET ORDER

Batta not paid Dhr called absent NR, hence, the EP is dismissed for default, attachment hereby raised.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 07th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- B.Appala Swamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Repalle.

Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- B.Appala Swamy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Repalle.

//True Copy// PJCJ, Repalle.