Sri. B. Appala Swamy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: BHIMAVARAM

Present: Sri B.Appala Swamy Assistant sessions Judge, Bhimavaram

Friday, this the 11th day of September, 2024

SESSIONS CASE NO. 545 of 2012

(P.R.C.No.11 of 2017 of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram connected with Crime No.27/2016 of Akividu Police Station)

Name of complainantThe State, Sub-Inspector of Police, Akividu Police Station

Name of the accused1. Yalla Prasangi, S/o.Venkataratnam, Aged 55 years, Adi-Andhra Christian, Ajjamuru Garuvu, Akividu Mandal.A1

2. Boddu Vajram, S/o.Premanandam, Aged 57 years, Adi-Andhra Christian, Janakinagar, Akividu village and Mandal. A3

3. Sadarla Issac, S/o.Devasahayam, Aged 42 years, Adi-Andhra Christian, Janakinagar, Akividu village and Mandal.A5

4. Ponna Ismeal, S/o.John Sundara Rao, Aged 48 years, Adi-Andhra Christian, Wulvertanpet, Akividu village and Mandal.A8

The Prosecution conducted byMr. M.Venkateswarlu

Additional Public Prosecutor

Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram.

The accused is defended by Sri A.Nataraj and Mr. B.Suresh Kumar Advocates for the accused 2

Offences1. Punishment wrongful confinement punishable under section 342 of I.P.C.

2. Attempt to murder punishable under section 307 of I.P.C.

3. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention punishable under Section 34 of I.P.C.

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the JudgeNot guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, A1, A3, A5 and A8 are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 342 and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and accordingly they are acquitted of the said charges under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be sent to the Trial Court for destruction after appeal time is over.

This case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, Sessions

Division, West Godavari, Eluru for the offences punishable Under Sections 342, 307 I.P.C. read with 34 of I.P.C. by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Bhimavaram in the Order, dated 09-08-2018 in P.R.C.No.11 of 2017

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Akividu Police Station laid the charge sheet alleging that A1,A3,A5 and A8 have committed offences punishable under Sections 342, 307. read with 34 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows. On 31-01-2016 at 10:30 a.m. at Central Baptist Church, Wulvertanpet of Akivudu, wherein the complainant Bondada Yona was in Church for prayer, at that time, the 3 accused altercated with the management issue in Church premises, the complainant rescued and chastised A1 for his high handed acts and his behaviour upon the members in the Church who are going to contest for

President of the Church Management, the accused who had no respect against the members and the committee members raised hot words upon

P.W1 hence, P.W.1 chastised A1, thereupon A1 secured iron rod attached on

P.W.1/Bondada Yona and beat on his head and caused bleeding head injury and the same was supported by other accused. Basing on the statement of

P.W.1, a case was registered in Cr.No.27/2016 under Section 342, 307 read with 34 I.P.C. by P.W.8 H.C.1441 and took up investigation. P.W.9 S.I. of

Police verified the investigation done by P.W.8 and on 04-03-2016 he arrested the accused 1 ,3 5, 8 and sent them for judicial custody and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

3.The above said Court took cognizance against A1,A3 A5, A8 for the aforesaid sections of law and registered the case as P.R.C.No.11/2017 and by its order dated 09-08-2018 committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions which made over the case to this court.

4.Upon appearance of A1,A3,A5, A8 and on consideration of the record, charges under Sections 342, 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. were framed against them and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 are examined and

Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked and M.O.1 is marked. Ex.D1 is marked on behalf of accused.

6.On closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the incriminating circumstances appearing against A1,A3,A5, A8 were put to them and they denied the incriminating circumstances and he reported no evidence.

7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1, A3, A5, A8.

4

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges under Sections 342, 307 I.P.C. read with

Section 34 I.P.C or not?

P O I N T:

10.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused wrongfully confined P.Ws.1 and 2 and attempted to commit murder of PW1. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution cited as many as 14 witnesses, out of which P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined.

11.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, who is de facto complainant, that on 31-01-2016, he went to Church situated at Wulvertanpet of Akividu. Two weeks prior to that some disputes arose between A1 and

P.W.2 in respect of committee of the Church. P.W.2 worked as President of the Church for the past 10 years. On 31-01-2016 some quarrels took place between accused group and P.W.2, then himself and Bunga Ravi tried to pacify the dispute. A1 beat P.W.1 with iron rod on his right portion of forehead and caused bleeding injury, then P.W.2 and others shifted him to Government

Hospital, Bhimavaram by ambulance and after providing first aid, at he advice of Doctors, he was referred to Bhimavaram Hospital, Bhimavaram for better treatment. Later, police came to Bhimavaram hospital and recorded his statement and also examined him. A3, A5, A8 picked him and torn his shirt.

Bantumilli Suresh, Godi Raja Bhushanam picked and also beat him with chairs.

12.P.Ws.2 and 3 supported and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and stated that on 31-01-2016 at about 10:30 a.m. when he was present in

CBCNC Church at Akividu, while he as collecting donations from the members who attended the Church on the date of incident, P.W.1 and Bunga Ravi and some others came to Church and advised the accused to continue the previous committee and not to make any altercations. The accused and 10 5 others namely Godi Raja Bhushanam and his wife, Bantumilli Suresh and his wife, Vipparthi Thomas, Subbarao, Velpula Kotesh Babu, Ponna Ismael and his wife and others made altercations and thrown him on the chair. In the meanwhile P.W.1 and Bunga Ravi came there and tried to pacify the altercation. Then accused caught hold P.W.1 and A1 beat P.W.1 with iron rod on the left portion of forehead and they also abused with foul and filthy language and raised loud cries to kill him and P.W.1. He further stated that when P.W.1 fell down after receiving injury, his son took him to Government hospital, the Doctors at Government hospital examined P.W.1 and thereafter for better treatment he was shifted to Bhimavaram Hospital, Bhimavaram.

13.P.W.3 who is none other than the son of P.W.1 deposed that on 31-01-2016 in between 9 and 10 a.m. while he was preparing to go to

Church, he received a phone call from known person that somebody beat

P.W.1 in the Church and PW1 received bleeding injuries. On enquiry, P.W.1 stated that the accused tried to beat P.W.2, he went in rescue, on that the accused no1 beat him. The other members of the Church gathered at the place where his father was sitting in the Church.. They called 108 ambulance and he shifted P.W.1 to Government Hospital, Bhimavaram.

14.P.W.4 also stated that on 31-01-2016, one altercation took place between 10:30 and 11 a.m. the A1 made altercationswith P.W.2 regarding the management affairs of the Church. When the altercation took place between

P.W.2 and accused, P.W.1 came there and tried to pacify the dispute, then A1 beat P.W.2 with chairs. When the accused beating P.W.2, P.W.1 asked them if any disputes, it would be discussed after completion of the prayers in the

Church, other accused caught hold the hands of P.W1, then A1 beat P.W.1 on right portion of forehead with iron rod and caused bleeding injury and the accused also stated that if they kill one person among P.Ws.1 and 2 nobody will come and question them. P.W.1 was shifted to Government hospital,

Bhimavaram and thereafter to Bhimavaram Hospitals.

6

15.So in order to prove the injuries caused to P.W.1, the prosecution examined P.W.5 who is Dr.Alladi Rajarao, Bheemavaram Hospitals, he deposed that he is working in administration department of Bhimavaram

Hospitals and on 31-01-2016 at 2:30 p.m. P.W.1 was brought by P.W.2 and he examined and found longitudinal cut injury over fore-head upto cheek of 12 x ½ inch irregular and a small cut injury over right eye brow 1 x ½ inch irregular. P.W.1 was treated by neurosurgeon Dr.V.Srinivasa Rao and he opined that the injuries 1 and 2 are simple in nature and the age of injury is 4 hours prior to his examination, hence he issued Ex.P2 wound certificate.

16. To prove the seizure of MO1 under seance observation report the prosecution examined P.W.6 who is working as V.R.O. of Kapavaram and mediator for seizure of M.O.1, he deposed that on 01-02-2016 at about 10:30 a.m. himself and Ralingi Himabindu were called over phone and requested them to come to police station, himself and Ralingi Himabindu went to police station and they went to the scene of offence and police seized M.O.1 in their presence under cover of scene observation report Ex.P3.

17.P.W.7 is the then Head Constable of Akividu police deposed that on 31-01-2015 at about 11.30 p.m. while he was present in the police, he received medical intimation under Ex.P4 from Bhimavaram Hospital, immediately he rusehd to hospital and recorded the statement of pw1 and after returned to the police station, he handed over the same to P.W.8.

18.P.W.8 deposed that on 01-02-2016 at about 2:00 p.m. he received hospital intimation from P.W.7 and he registered as a case in

Cr.No.27/2015 under Section 342 and 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. of

Akividu Police station. Ex.P5 is F.I.R. and copies of it was sent to the II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram. He examined P.Ws.1 to

3 at Bhimavaram hospital and recorded their statement under Section 161(3)

Cr.P.C. He also visited the scene of offence which is situated in CBCNC

Church, Wulvarthanpet, Akividu, he secured P.W.6 and Relangi Hima Bindu 7 and observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and also prepared scene observation report. During course of investigation, he seized

M.O.1 iron rod under cover of scene observation report in the presence of

P.W.6 and another.

19.P.W.9 is the Investigation Officer and S.I. of Police deposed that he took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by P.W.8 and found it on correct lines. On 10-02-2016, he received wound certificate of

P.W.1 and on 04-03-2016 he arrested A1 and A8 and produced before the

Court for judicial remand. The remaining accused 2 and 5 obtained anticipatory bail from District and Sessions Court, Bhimavaram vide

Crl.M.P.406/2016 dated 19-04-2016 and Crl.M.P.515/2016, dated 03-05-2016.

Later filed memo for deletion of A2, A4, A6, A7, A9 to A15 and served the copy of the same to the complainant.

20.Admittedly the case was registered against 15 persons and after deletion of the other accused, the case against A1, A3, A5, A8 only made out and field charge sheet. There is no evidence that the defecto complainant challenged the deletion of case against other accused.

21.As per the evidence of P.Ws.1, P.W.2 is the President of the scene of offence Church. The agitation of the prosecution is that accused in total 15 members made altercation with him and when the accused tried to beat P.W.2, P.W.1 went to rescue him, then A1 beat P..1 with iron rod and caused bleeding injury on his forehead. P.W.2 evidence corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of PW.3 is hearsay evidence who stated that on intimation of one of the members of the Church, he shifted the P.W.1 to Government Hospital, Bhimavaram and at the advise of the Doctors at

Government Hospital, Bhimavaram, P.W.1 was shifted to Bhimavaram

Hospital for better treatment. There are some contradictions in the evidence of

PW1 PW2 about the place occurrence of offence in the church. During cross 8 examination it was elicited from the mouth of PW1 that some previous disputes PW2 and accused.

22.As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.1 was treated in

Government Hospital, Bhimavaram and First-Aid was provided to him, but the prosecution did not examine anybody from the Government hospital, at

Bhimavaram about the treatment given to PW.1 as First Aid, so as per the statement of P.W.7 on medical intimation, he came to Bhimavaram hospital, recorded the statement of PW..1 and handed over the same to S.H.O of

Akividu police station i.e., P.W.8. P.W.8 stated that on receiving medical intimation and statement of P.W.1, he registered the case and took up further investigation and examined P.Ws.1 to 3, so there is contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 about the presence of all accused.

23.Initially the prosecution not cited the mediators and not filed scene observation report along with charge sheet and subsequently they filed

Crl.M.P.No.7/2024 in S.C.No.311/2018 and the same was allowed and the

mediators were examined and mediators report was marked through P.W.6

24.Admittedly the case was registered against 15 accused, out of which, A1, A3, A5 and A8 were only charge sheeted and the rest of the accused was deleted, but the defacto did not file protest petition against them.

So, the medical evidence under Ex.P5 clearly discloses that the injuries caused by P.W.1 is simple injuries. Admittedly the prosecution witnesses

P.Ws.1 to 4 belong to same group and they are interested witnesses and there is some ill feelings between then and accused in respect of management affaires of the church. PW8 who is the Investigating Officer in this case admitted in cross-examination that except P.Ws.1 to 4, he did not try to examine any other witnesses at the scene of offence though there other witnesses are available at seance of ofence . Further case of the prosecution is that the accused wrongfully confined P.Ws.1 and 2 and tried to kill P.W.1, but none of the prosecution witnesses deposed about the wrongful 9 confinement and the accused tried to kill or attempted to kill P.W.1 and there is no evidence that the accused wrongfully confined PW.2 to attract the ingredients for the offence under Section 342 and 307 I.P.C.

25.Upon the foregoing discussion this court holds that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of, the accused 1, 3, 5 and 8 for the charges under section 342,307r/w IPC beyond all reasonable doubts,hence the accused are entitled for the benfit of doubt ,accordingly they are entitled for acquittal for the charges under Sections 342 and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C, accordingly the point is answered.

26.In the result, A1, A3, A5 and A8 are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 342 and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C and accordingly they are acquitted of the said charges under Section 235(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be sent to the Trial Court for destruction after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade – I on computer directly,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 9th day of September, 2024.APPALA Digitally signed by

APPALA SWAMY

SWAMY BALAKA BALAKADate: 2024.09.11 17:20:17 -0500

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

BHIMAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : Bondada YonaNone

P.W.2 : Buraka Benzimen

P.W.3: Bondada John Victor

P.W.4 : Davuluri Aruna Kranthi

P.W.5 : Alladi Rajarao 10

P.W.6 : Ampavalli Satyanarayana

P.W.7 : P.B.N.Srinivasa Rao

P.W.8 : Kolla Srinivasa Rao

P.W.9 : K.Ashok Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/-/Statement of P.W.1

Ex.P2/-/Wound certificate of P.W.1

Ex.P3/-/Scene observation report

Ex.P4/-/Medical intimation from Bhimavaram Hospital addressed to Bhimavaram II Town police station Ex.P5/-/F.I.R Ex.P6/-/Rough sketch

FOR DEFENCE

Ex.D1/-/Relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4

NO MATERIAL OBJECTS WERE MARKED

Digitally signed APPALAby APPALA SWAMY

SWAMYBALAKA

M.O.1 : Iron rodDate: BALAKA 2024.09.11 17:20:06 -0500 A.S.J. BVRM 11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Tabular form annexed to the Judgment in Sessions Case No.311 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District under Rule 318 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

Sessions Case Number andS.C.No.311 of 2018

Name of the Sessions CourtAssistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram

P.R.C. Number and P.R.C. No.11 of 2017 Name of the committal CourtII Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate’s Court, Bhimavaram Crime Number andCrime No.27 of 2016 Name of the Police StationAkividu Police Station

Name of the complainantThe State, Sub-Inspector of Police, Akividu Police Station

Name and address of the1. Yalla Prasangi, S/o.Venkataratnam, Aged accused55 years, Adi-Andhra Christian, Ajjamuru Garuvu, Akividu Mandal.

2. Boddu Vajram, S/o.Premanandam, Aged 57 years, Adi-Andhra Christian, Janakinagar, Akividu village and Mandal.

3. Sadarla Issac, S/o.Devasahayam, Aged 42 years, Adi-Andhra Christian, Janakinagar, Akividu village and Mandal.

4. Ponna Ismeal, S/o.John Sundara Rao, Aged 48 years, Adi-Andhra Christian, Wulvertanpet, Akividu village and Mandal.

Date of offence31-01-2016

Date of complaint01-02-2016

Date of apprehension04-03-2016 – A.1 04-03-2016 – A.4 Date of release on bail16-03-2016 – A.1 16-03-2016 – A.4 A2 and A3 obtained anticipatory bails vide 12

Crl.M.P.Nos.406/2016, dated 19-04-2016 and

Crl.M.P.515/2016,dated03-05-2016

respectively Section of law342, 307 read with 34 I.P.C

Date of commencement of trial19-02-2024

Date of closure of trial04-09-2024

Date of judgment11-09-2024

SentenceIn the result, A1, A3, A5 and A8 are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 342 and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C and accordingly they are acquitted of the said charges under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months under Section 437- A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be sent to the Trial Court for destruction after appeal time is over. Explanation for the delayNo avoidable delay Remarks prescribed under RuleNo delay 319 of Cr.P.C. with regard toDiary extract enclosed submitted by the Committing

Magistrate

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

BHIMAVARAM

Copies submitted to (1)The Hon'ble Registrar ( Judicial) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi Through The Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (2)The Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (3)The Director of Prosecution, Vijayawada

Copies to (4)The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram (5)Additional Public prosecutor, Bhimavaram (6)The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Bhimavaram 13 (7)The District Collector, West Godavari, Bhimavaram (8)The Station House Officer, AkividuPolice Station (9)The Public Prosecutor, West Godavari, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

BHIMAVARAM

Present : Sri B.Appala Swamy

Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram.

Monday this the 9th day of September, 2024

O.S.No.24/2021

Between:

Dokala Satyanarayana, S/o.Rambabu, Aged 61 years, Business, D.No.18-22, Sivalayam street, Jawaharpet,

Akividu, BJCJC. …..Plaintiff

and

Chempati Narasimha Raju, S/o.Surapa Raju, Aged 57 years, Business, Prop: Vinayaka Traders, Opp: Indian

Bank, Main Road, Akividu, BJCJC…..Defendant

This suit is coming on 04-09-2024 before me in the presence of Sri

K.S.S.Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.G.K.Raju,Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration to this day till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed basing on a promissory note for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,71,572/- with costs and interest at the rate of 18% from the date of suit till the date of realization.

2.The plaint averments are as follows. The defendant had borrowed an amount Rs.13,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 18-12-2017 and executed the suit promissory note by agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 18% compound per annum. The plaintiff has been demanding the defendant for repayment of the the pronote debt but the defendant did not repay the debt, hence the plaintiff got issued a notice

dated 29-01-2020 to the defendant to repay the amount under the above

/12/ pronote debt, the defendant received the notice and kept quiet. Hence the suit.

3.Defendant filed his written statement. He denied the plaint averments. He alleged as follows. He never borrowed any amount

Rs.13,00,000/- at any point of time from the plaintiff on 18-12-2018 and no debtor or creditor relationship between them. The plaintiff and his son

Nani did gunny mills and brokerage business in supplying fish feed to the fish tank owners for which they are getting commission from the fish feed companies. The plaintiff and his son approached the defendant in the month of August and agreed to supply fish feed without any lorry hire charges and unloading expenses, on that the defendant agreed and they supplied fish feed wroth of R.18,70,363/- to the defendant from August, 2016 to December, 2016. At that time, the plaintiff obtained signatures of this defendant on five blank printed pronotes and also obtained two blank cheques bearing Nos.591736 and 591737 drawn on Indian Bank, Akividu from this defendant. The defendant paid the entire amount towards the fish feed supplied by the plaintiff and his son on various dates by way of cash, through bank transactions and some amount through Indian Bank,

Akividu Branch and State Bank of India, Akividu branch and the amounts were paid from August, 2016 to November, 2019. The same was known to one Mangaraju Murali son of Padma Rao of Akividu who is working as clerk under the defendant. After receiving the notice, the defendant approached the plaintiff and his son, Nani with elders namely (1)

Namburi Satyanarayana Raju and Yannamuri Gopala Krishna Krishna.

Then the plaintiff and his son Nani demanded more amount from the defendant than the amount already paid by the defendant. The defendant refused to oblige the demands of the plaintiff and his son Nani.

On that the plaintiff and his son Nani bore grudge against this defendant and filed this suit with the active assistance of his son. The details of fish /12/ feed supplied by the plaintiff and his son Nani and made payments made by the defendant. In the above facts and circumstances, the defendant firmly believed that the plaintiff and his son, Nani fabricated the one of the said five blank promissory notes, which contains the signatures of the defendant and filed the above suit in the name of the plaintiff against the defendant with an intention to get unlawful gain and cause unlawful loss to this defendant to harass this defendant in one way or the other. The defendant never saw the attestors and scribe in the suit pronote and hence pray to dismiss the suit.

4.Following issues have been framed on the basis of the above pleadings.

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

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit claim as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and and got examined

P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Defendant examined himself as

D.W.1 and got examined D.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Ex.B1 to B14.

6.Heard learned counsel for both sides.

Issue Nos.1 and 2:

7. The plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit which rtreated the plaint averments that the defendant borrowed Rs.13,00,000/- from him on 18-12-2017 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with yearly rests.

P.W.1 further deposed that the defendant executed the suit promissory note in the presence of the attestors Gopisetti Rambabu and Nandam /12/

Madhusudhana Rao and it was scribed by G.Ravi. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that after receipt of the pronote amount, the defendant did not repay the debt though on repeated demands by him, hence the plaintiff issued a registered notice on 29-01-2020 under Ex.A2 demanding the defendant for repayment of the pronote debt. The defendant received the said notice under Ex.A3 postal acknowledgment and kept quiet.

8.In the cross-examination of P.W.1 admitted that he is doing ganni bags business and his son is also doing ganni bags business.

PW1 further stated in cross examination that his son fish feed business by purchasing from the company and selling to fish tank formers. The learned counsel for defendant suggested to PW1 that himself and his son supplied fish feed to the defendant and obtained five empty pronotes and two cheqeus bearing Nos.591736 and 591737 from the defendant.

In this regard, the defendant exhibited Exs.B1 to B14 in his chief evidence about the supply of fish feed by plaintiff and his son for the period of August, 2016 to December, 2016, but not put forth any evidence

before this Court that Ex.B1 to B14 relate to Ex.A1 and they relate to one

transaction. Moreover, the defendant took a stand that he gave five signed promissory notes to the plaintiff and that out of those pronotes, the plaintiff used one by filling the blanks and filed the suit for wrongful gain.

9.P.W.2 who is one of the attestor of Ex.A1 pronote stated in his chief examination affidavit that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 18-12-2017 and on receipt of consideration, the defendant executed a demand pronote in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. and Gopisetti

Rambabu also attested the pronote and it was scribed by the one /12/

Gullipalli Ravi.

10.The evidence of P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 that in his presence the defendant borrowed the amount of

Rs.13,00,000/- and executed the pronote on 18-12-2017 and the same was witnessed by Gopisetti Rambabu and Gullipalli Ravi scribed it, hence the plea taken by the defendant that the plaintiff used one of the five blank pronote issued by him to the plaintiff and filed this suit does is not supported by documentary evidence.

11.In the cross-examination of P.W.2 nothing is elicited to discredit his evidence.

12.D.W.1 in his chief evidence stated that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and when the plaintiff and his son approached him in the year 2016 stating that they would supply fish feed, on that he gave 5 printed blank prontoes and also given 2 blank cheques. He further stated that the plaintiff and his son Nani supplied fish feed worth of Rs.18,70,363/- from August, 2016 to December,2019 and thereafter he paid the entire amount towards fish feed and the same was known to Mangaraju Murali who is his clerk. He further stated that after receipt of the notice, he along with elders went to plaintiff and his son and when they demanded more money, he refused, hence the plaintiff filed this suit.

13.In this perspective, the defendent has not explained why he has not sent reply under Ex.A2 registered notice. The defendant has not denied the his signature on Ex.A1 except stating that Ex.A1 pronote was fabricated by the plaintiff out of the five blank pronotes which is in the possession of the plaintiff. If that be so, till date, why the defendant has not issued any notice or filed any criminal complaint against the plaintiff for return of the blank pronotes which are in possession of the plaintiff as stated by the defendant.

/12/

14.D.W.2 supported the case of the defendent. He stated in his cross-examination that that he was an employee under D.W.1. He further stated in his cross-examination that he identified the signature of D.W.1 on Ex.A1 pronote. The evidence of D.W.2 is corroborated with respect of the signature of D.W.1 on Ex.A1 with P.W.2 who is attestor of Ex.A1 who spoke that D.W.1 borrowed the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- and executed

Ex.A1 strengthens the case of the plaintiff.

15.D.W.3 stated in his evidence that he is 3rd party to the suit and he stated in his chief that the defendant never borrowed any amount of Rs.13,00,000/- on 18-12-2017. He further stated that after receipt of notice, the defendant approached the plaintiff and his son Nami with elders namely himself, Namburi Satyanarayana Raju. The name of

D.W.3 in his chief evidence and cross-examination is mentioned as

Innamuri Gopala Krishna, where as in the heading of the chief of D.W.2 it is stated as Yannamuri Gopala Krishna. The D.W.3 signed as Innamuri

Gopala Krishna in his chief evidence and cross-examination also. In the evidence of D.W.1 he stated that he along with Yannamuri Gopala

Krishna and Namburi Satyanarayana approached the plaintiff and his son after receipt of the notice. But strangely in the evidence of D.W.3 no explanation is put forth by the defendant that whether D.W.2 is

Yannamuri Gopala Krishna or Innamuri Gopala Krishna.

16.D.W.3 in his cross-examination stated that he was present when plaintiff and his son went to the shop of defendant that they will supply fish feed to the defendant and at that time, the plaintiff and his son asked the defendant to furnish signed empty pronotes. Nowhere in the evidence of D.W.1 or in his written statement or from the evidence of

D.W.2, they did not utter a word in respect of D.W.3 was present at the time of signing the alleged pronotes, but strangely D.W.3 stated as such.

D.W.3 also identified the signature of the defendant on Ex.A1 which also /12/ supports the case of plaintiff. D.W.3 stated in further cross-examination that he do not know why the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant and he do not know the reason for issuance of legal notice to the defendant and he do not know whether the plaintiff filed this suit against he defendant for recovery of money based on Ex.A1. In his chief evidence he stated that the defendant never borrowed any amount of

Rs.13,00,000/- on 18-12-2017, hence his evidence contradicts from his chief to cross-examination. Thus, the evidence of D.Ws.2 and 3 contradicts with each other and they revolve in supporting the evidence of D.W.1.

17.In the above circumstances, here it is necessary to consider whether the contention of the defendant is sustainable under law or not.

Section.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act reads as follows:

Until contrary is proved the following presumptions shall be made. That Every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted , endorsed negotiated or transferred for consideration.

18. The presumption under Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument act is one of law imposing a duty on the court to raise the presumption that the instrument was made for consideration, but before the presumption made the execution of the pronote executed by the defendant is to be proved. This presumption shifts the burden of proof of establishment that there was no consideration on the defendant. It is settled law when once the execution pronote is proved by the plaintiff, the court shall presume that the same is executed after receiving the consideration.

19.Though the defendant along with D.Ws.2 and 3 are examined, there is no evidence at all to prove his defence that he gave /12/ five signed pronotes and two cheques towards security for supply of fish feed. Moreover, in spite of the receipt of the notice dated 29-01-2020 (Ex.A2) defendant did not issue reply in writing to put forward his defence at the earliest point of time. As stated above, his defence is proved to be false. In the circumstances, the defendant’s evidence cannot be thrown- out the consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Hence, the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 can be relied upon. Their evidence thus proves that the suit promissory note is true and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount. For the failure of the defendant to discharge the debt under the suit promissory note, the suit can be decreed, accordingly Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

Issue No.2:

20.In the result, suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.22,71,572/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs seventy one thousand five hundred and seventy two only) with costs and interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till realization on the principal amount of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs only).

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I (on deputation) on computer,

typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 9th day of September, 2024.Digitally signed by APPALA

APPALA SWAMY

SWAMY BALAKA

BALAKADate: 2024.09.09 16:47:36 - 0500

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

BHIMAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Dokala SatyanarayanaD.W.1: Champati Narasimha Raju P.W.2 : Nandam Madhusudana Rao D.W.2 : Mangaraju Murali Krishna @ Murali D.W.3 : Innamuri Gopala Krishna /12/

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/18-12-2017/Original promissory note executed by the defendant Ex.A2/29-01-2020/Office copy of registered lawyer notice issued to the defendant Ex.A3/30-01-2020/Postal acknowledgment

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1/25-08-2016/Jai Durga Oil extraction Private Limited Challan weighing Bridge bill commercial tax receipt (3 in number) Ex.B2/10-09-2016/Original invoice of Merchant Agri Global (P) Ltd., weighing bridge bill, commercial tax receipt Ex.B3/05-10-2016/Original weighing bridge bill receipts (2) Ex.B5/22-10-2016/Original weighing bridge bill receipts (2) Ex.B6/17-11-2016/Original Nico Agro Oil products (P) Ltd., invoices way bill Ex.B7/16-12-2016/Original Nico Agro Oil products (P) Ltd., invoices way bill Ex.B8/03-12-2016/Indian Bank voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- Ex.B9/05-12-2016/Original Indian Bank voucher for Rs.50,000/- dated 05-12-2016 Ex.B10/01-02-2023/Indian Bank statement of account in two above amounts Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/-. Ex.B11/04-03-2017/Original Indian Bank voucher Ex.B12/11-02-2020/Original Indian Bank statement of account Ex.B13/01-02-2023/Original State Bank of India statement of account Rs.3,00,000/- dated 12-06-2019 and Rs.1,00,000/- Ex.B14/01-02-2023/Original State Bank of India statement of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 05-09-2019APPALADigitally signed by

APPALA SWAMY

SWAMYBALAKA

BALAKADate: 2024.09.09 16:47:24 -0500

C.J (SD),

BVRM

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

BHIMAVARAM

Present : Sri B.Appala Swamy

Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram.

Monday this the 9th day of September, 2024

O.S.No.24/2021

Between:

Dokala Satyanarayana, S/o.Rambabu, Aged 61 years, Business, D.No.18-22, Sivalayam street, Jawaharpet,

Akividu, BJCJC. …..Plaintiff

and

Chempati Narasimha Raju, S/o.Surapa Raju, Aged 57 years, Business, Prop: Vinayaka Traders, Opp: Indian

Bank, Main Road, Akividu, BJCJC…..Defendant

This suit is coming on 04-09-2024 before me in the presence of Sri

K.S.S.Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.G.K.Raju,Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration to this day till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed basing on a promissory note for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,71,572/- with costs and interest at the rate of 18% from the date of suit till the date of realization.

2.The plaint averments are as follows. The defendant had borrowed an amount Rs.13,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 18-12-2017 and executed the suit promissory note by agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 18% compound per annum. The plaintiff has been demanding the defendant for repayment of the the pronote debt but the defendant did not repay the debt, hence the plaintiff got issued a notice

dated 29-01-2020 to the defendant to repay the amount under the above

/12/ pronote debt, the defendant received the notice and kept quiet. Hence the suit.

3.Defendant filed his written statement. He denied the plaint averments. He alleged as follows. He never borrowed any amount

Rs.13,00,000/- at any point of time from the plaintiff on 18-12-2018 and no debtor or creditor relationship between them. The plaintiff and his son

Nani did gunny mills and brokerage business in supplying fish feed to the fish tank owners for which they are getting commission from the fish feed companies. The plaintiff and his son approached the defendant in the month of August and agreed to supply fish feed without any lorry hire charges and unloading expenses, on that the defendant agreed and they supplied fish feed wroth of R.18,70,363/- to the defendant from August, 2016 to December, 2016. At that time, the plaintiff obtained signatures of this defendant on five blank printed pronotes and also obtained two blank cheques bearing Nos.591736 and 591737 drawn on Indian Bank, Akividu from this defendant. The defendant paid the entire amount towards the fish feed supplied by the plaintiff and his son on various dates by way of cash, through bank transactions and some amount through Indian Bank,

Akividu Branch and State Bank of India, Akividu branch and the amounts were paid from August, 2016 to November, 2019. The same was known to one Mangaraju Murali son of Padma Rao of Akividu who is working as clerk under the defendant. After receiving the notice, the defendant approached the plaintiff and his son, Nani with elders namely (1)

Namburi Satyanarayana Raju and Yannamuri Gopala Krishna Krishna.

Then the plaintiff and his son Nani demanded more amount from the defendant than the amount already paid by the defendant. The defendant refused to oblige the demands of the plaintiff and his son Nani.

On that the plaintiff and his son Nani bore grudge against this defendant and filed this suit with the active assistance of his son. The details of fish /12/ feed supplied by the plaintiff and his son Nani and made payments made by the defendant. In the above facts and circumstances, the defendant firmly believed that the plaintiff and his son, Nani fabricated the one of the said five blank promissory notes, which contains the signatures of the defendant and filed the above suit in the name of the plaintiff against the defendant with an intention to get unlawful gain and cause unlawful loss to this defendant to harass this defendant in one way or the other. The defendant never saw the attestors and scribe in the suit pronote and hence pray to dismiss the suit.

4.Following issues have been framed on the basis of the above pleadings.

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

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit claim as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and and got examined

P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Defendant examined himself as

D.W.1 and got examined D.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Ex.B1 to B14.

6.Heard learned counsel for both sides.

Issue Nos.1 and 2:

7. The plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit which rtreated the plaint averments that the defendant borrowed Rs.13,00,000/- from him on 18-12-2017 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with yearly rests.

P.W.1 further deposed that the defendant executed the suit promissory note in the presence of the attestors Gopisetti Rambabu and Nandam /12/

Madhusudhana Rao and it was scribed by G.Ravi. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that after receipt of the pronote amount, the defendant did not repay the debt though on repeated demands by him, hence the plaintiff issued a registered notice on 29-01-2020 under Ex.A2 demanding the defendant for repayment of the pronote debt. The defendant received the said notice under Ex.A3 postal acknowledgment and kept quiet.

8.In the cross-examination of P.W.1 admitted that he is doing ganni bags business and his son is also doing ganni bags business.

PW1 further stated in cross examination that his son fish feed business by purchasing from the company and selling to fish tank formers. The learned counsel for defendant suggested to PW1 that himself and his son supplied fish feed to the defendant and obtained five empty pronotes and two cheqeus bearing Nos.591736 and 591737 from the defendant.

In this regard, the defendant exhibited Exs.B1 to B14 in his chief evidence about the supply of fish feed by plaintiff and his son for the period of August, 2016 to December, 2016, but not put forth any evidence

before this Court that Ex.B1 to B14 relate to Ex.A1 and they relate to one

transaction. Moreover, the defendant took a stand that he gave five signed promissory notes to the plaintiff and that out of those pronotes, the plaintiff used one by filling the blanks and filed the suit for wrongful gain.

9.P.W.2 who is one of the attestor of Ex.A1 pronote stated in his chief examination affidavit that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 18-12-2017 and on receipt of consideration, the defendant executed a demand pronote in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. and Gopisetti

Rambabu also attested the pronote and it was scribed by the one /12/

Gullipalli Ravi.

10.The evidence of P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 that in his presence the defendant borrowed the amount of

Rs.13,00,000/- and executed the pronote on 18-12-2017 and the same was witnessed by Gopisetti Rambabu and Gullipalli Ravi scribed it, hence the plea taken by the defendant that the plaintiff used one of the five blank pronote issued by him to the plaintiff and filed this suit does is not supported by documentary evidence.

11.In the cross-examination of P.W.2 nothing is elicited to discredit his evidence.

12.D.W.1 in his chief evidence stated that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and when the plaintiff and his son approached him in the year 2016 stating that they would supply fish feed, on that he gave 5 printed blank prontoes and also given 2 blank cheques. He further stated that the plaintiff and his son Nani supplied fish feed worth of Rs.18,70,363/- from August, 2016 to December,2019 and thereafter he paid the entire amount towards fish feed and the same was known to Mangaraju Murali who is his clerk. He further stated that after receipt of the notice, he along with elders went to plaintiff and his son and when they demanded more money, he refused, hence the plaintiff filed this suit.

13.In this perspective, the defendent has not explained why he has not sent reply under Ex.A2 registered notice. The defendant has not denied the his signature on Ex.A1 except stating that Ex.A1 pronote was fabricated by the plaintiff out of the five blank pronotes which is in the possession of the plaintiff. If that be so, till date, why the defendant has not issued any notice or filed any criminal complaint against the plaintiff for return of the blank pronotes which are in possession of the plaintiff as stated by the defendant.

/12/

14.D.W.2 supported the case of the defendent. He stated in his cross-examination that that he was an employee under D.W.1. He further stated in his cross-examination that he identified the signature of D.W.1 on Ex.A1 pronote. The evidence of D.W.2 is corroborated with respect of the signature of D.W.1 on Ex.A1 with P.W.2 who is attestor of Ex.A1 who spoke that D.W.1 borrowed the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- and executed

Ex.A1 strengthens the case of the plaintiff.

15.D.W.3 stated in his evidence that he is 3rd party to the suit and he stated in his chief that the defendant never borrowed any amount of Rs.13,00,000/- on 18-12-2017. He further stated that after receipt of notice, the defendant approached the plaintiff and his son Nami with elders namely himself, Namburi Satyanarayana Raju. The name of

D.W.3 in his chief evidence and cross-examination is mentioned as

Innamuri Gopala Krishna, where as in the heading of the chief of D.W.2 it is stated as Yannamuri Gopala Krishna. The D.W.3 signed as Innamuri

Gopala Krishna in his chief evidence and cross-examination also. In the evidence of D.W.1 he stated that he along with Yannamuri Gopala

Krishna and Namburi Satyanarayana approached the plaintiff and his son after receipt of the notice. But strangely in the evidence of D.W.3 no explanation is put forth by the defendant that whether D.W.2 is

Yannamuri Gopala Krishna or Innamuri Gopala Krishna.

16.D.W.3 in his cross-examination stated that he was present when plaintiff and his son went to the shop of defendant that they will supply fish feed to the defendant and at that time, the plaintiff and his son asked the defendant to furnish signed empty pronotes. Nowhere in the evidence of D.W.1 or in his written statement or from the evidence of

D.W.2, they did not utter a word in respect of D.W.3 was present at the time of signing the alleged pronotes, but strangely D.W.3 stated as such.

D.W.3 also identified the signature of the defendant on Ex.A1 which also /12/ supports the case of plaintiff. D.W.3 stated in further cross-examination that he do not know why the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant and he do not know the reason for issuance of legal notice to the defendant and he do not know whether the plaintiff filed this suit against he defendant for recovery of money based on Ex.A1. In his chief evidence he stated that the defendant never borrowed any amount of

Rs.13,00,000/- on 18-12-2017, hence his evidence contradicts from his chief to cross-examination. Thus, the evidence of D.Ws.2 and 3 contradicts with each other and they revolve in supporting the evidence of D.W.1.

17.In the above circumstances, here it is necessary to consider whether the contention of the defendant is sustainable under law or not.

Section.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act reads as follows:

Until contrary is proved the following presumptions shall be made. That Every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted , endorsed negotiated or transferred for consideration.

18. The presumption under Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument act is one of law imposing a duty on the court to raise the presumption that the instrument was made for consideration, but before the presumption made the execution of the pronote executed by the defendant is to be proved. This presumption shifts the burden of proof of establishment that there was no consideration on the defendant. It is settled law when once the execution pronote is proved by the plaintiff, the court shall presume that the same is executed after receiving the consideration.

19.Though the defendant along with D.Ws.2 and 3 are examined, there is no evidence at all to prove his defence that he gave /12/ five signed pronotes and two cheques towards security for supply of fish feed. Moreover, in spite of the receipt of the notice dated 29-01-2020 (Ex.A2) defendant did not issue reply in writing to put forward his defence at the earliest point of time. As stated above, his defence is proved to be false. In the circumstances, the defendant’s evidence cannot be thrown- out the consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Hence, the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 can be relied upon. Their evidence thus proves that the suit promissory note is true and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount. For the failure of the defendant to discharge the debt under the suit promissory note, the suit can be decreed, accordingly Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

Issue No.2:

20.In the result, suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.22,71,572/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs seventy one thousand five hundred and seventy two only) with costs and interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till realization on the principal amount of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs only).

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I (on deputation) on computer,

typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 9th day of September, 2024.Digitally signed by APPALA

APPALA SWAMY

SWAMY BALAKA

BALAKADate: 2024.09.09 16:47:36 - 0500

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

BHIMAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Dokala SatyanarayanaD.W.1: Champati Narasimha Raju P.W.2 : Nandam Madhusudana Rao D.W.2 : Mangaraju Murali Krishna @ Murali D.W.3 : Innamuri Gopala Krishna /12/

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/18-12-2017/Original promissory note executed by the defendant Ex.A2/29-01-2020/Office copy of registered lawyer notice issued to the defendant Ex.A3/30-01-2020/Postal acknowledgment

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1/25-08-2016/Jai Durga Oil extraction Private Limited Challan weighing Bridge bill commercial tax receipt (3 in number) Ex.B2/10-09-2016/Original invoice of Merchant Agri Global (P) Ltd., weighing bridge bill, commercial tax receipt Ex.B3/05-10-2016/Original weighing bridge bill receipts (2) Ex.B5/22-10-2016/Original weighing bridge bill receipts (2) Ex.B6/17-11-2016/Original Nico Agro Oil products (P) Ltd., invoices way bill Ex.B7/16-12-2016/Original Nico Agro Oil products (P) Ltd., invoices way bill Ex.B8/03-12-2016/Indian Bank voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- Ex.B9/05-12-2016/Original Indian Bank voucher for Rs.50,000/- dated 05-12-2016 Ex.B10/01-02-2023/Indian Bank statement of account in two above amounts Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/-. Ex.B11/04-03-2017/Original Indian Bank voucher Ex.B12/11-02-2020/Original Indian Bank statement of account Ex.B13/01-02-2023/Original State Bank of India statement of account Rs.3,00,000/- dated 12-06-2019 and Rs.1,00,000/- Ex.B14/01-02-2023/Original State Bank of India statement of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 05-09-2019APPALADigitally signed by

APPALA SWAMY

SWAMYBALAKA

BALAKADate: 2024.09.09 16:47:24 -0500

C.J (SD),

BVRM

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

BHIMAVARAM

Present : Sri B.Appala Swamy

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhimavaram.

Friday this the 20th day of September, 2024

O.S.No.10/2019

Between:

1.Kothapalli Ranga Raju (died) (As per order in I.A.No.46/2021, dated 06-05-2022 the word (died was added)

2.Kothapalli Parvathi (died) (As per order in I.A.No.56/2021, dated 06-05-2022 the word (died) was added)

3.Alluri Durga, W/o.Alluri Ganapathi Raju, D/o.Late Kothapalli Ranga Raju, Female, Aged 43 years, R/o.D.No.9-1-12/2, Rajakulapeta, Maruthi Nagar, Bhimavaram, WG..Dt.

4.Gadiraju Sarada, W/o.Gadiraju Kishore Raju,…..Plaintiffs

D/o.Late Kothapalli Ranga Raju, Female, Aged 38 years, R/o.D.No.9-1-11/4, Rajakulapeta, Maruthi Nagar, Bhimavaram, WG..Dt.

(As per the order in I.A.No.463/2021, dated 06-05- 2022, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as parties to the suit)

and

1.Kandivalasa Appa Rao (died) (As per the order in I.A.No.56/2022, dated 06-05- 2022 the word (died) was added)

2.Khandivalasa Srinivasu, S/o.Late Appa Rao, Aged 46years,R/o.D.No.89-10-10,Morampudi, Rajahmundry,RJCJC.

3.Khandivalasa Venkatesh, S/o.Late Appa Rao, Aged 43years,R/o.D.No.89-10-10,Morampudi, Rajahmundry,RJCJC.

4.Jonnada Lakshmi, W/o.Appa Rao, Aged 50 years, House wife, R/o.D.No.51-52-56, Rajendra Nagar, /13/

Near Sai Baba temple, Rajahmundry.

5.Khandivalasa Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, aged 30 years, R/o.D.No.89-10-10, Morampudi, Rajahmundry.

6.Khandivalasa Durga Rao, S/o.Late Satyanarayana, Aged 30 years, R/o.D.No.89-10-10, Morampudi, Rajahmundry.

7.Khandivalasa Padmavathi, W/o.Late Satyanarayana, Aged 50 years, R/o.D.No.89-10-10, Morampudi, Rajahmundry.

8.Vendrapu Peddi Raju, H/o.Late Appala Narasamma, aged 55 years, resident of Gollalakoderu, Palakoderu Mankdal.

9.Vendrapu Ravi Kumar, S/o.Peddi Raju, Aged 28 years, resident of Gollalakoderu, Palakoderu Mandal,W.G.Dt.

10.Vendra Adi Lakshmi, D/o.Late Appala Narasamma, Aged 35 years, resident of Gollalakoderu, Palakoderu mandal.

11.Vendra Durga, D/o.Late Appala Narasamma, Aged 30 years, resident of Gollalakoderu, Palakoderu Mandal.

12.Sivapu Nageswara Rao, H/o.Late Venkata Ramana, Aged 45 years, resident of D.No.89-10-10, Morampudi, Rajahmundry.

13.Sivapu Satish, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged 26 years, residentofD.No.89-10-10,Morampudi, Rajahmundry.

14.Sivapu Durga Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged 23 years, resident of D.No.89-10-10, Morampudi, Rajahmundry. (As per orders in I.A.No.56/2022, dated 06-05-2022

defendants 2 to 14 added)…..Defendants

This suit is came up on 13-09-2024 before me in the presence of

Sri A.Sivaji Raju, advocate for the plaintiff and of Smt.M.B.Bhavani advocate for the defendants 2 to 14 and having stood over for consideration to this day till this day, this Court delivered the following:

/13/

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed basing on a promissory note for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,88,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 24% from the date of suit till the date of realization.

2.The plaint averments are as follows. The 1st defendant had borrowed an amount Rs.15,00,000/- from the 1st plaintiff on 06-09-2016 and executed the suit promissory note by agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The 1st plaintiff has been demanding the 1st defendant for repayment of the the pronote debt but the 1st defendant did not repay the debt, hence the plaintiff got issued a notice dated 12-02-2019, the 1st defendant received the notice, neither paid any amount not issued, reply, hence the 1st plaintiff filed the suit against the 1st defendant.

(b).Subsequent to filing of the above suit, on 08-01-2021 the 1st plaintiff died leaving behind the plaintiffs 2 to 14 as his legal heirs, hence the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are added as his legal heirs. Later on 20-12-2021

Kothapalli Parvathi/2nd plaintiff who is the wife of deceased 1st plaintiff also died leaving behind the plaintiffs 3 and 4.

(c).Subsequent to filing the suit, the 1st defendant died intestate on 23-01-2021 leaving behind defendants 2 to 14 as his legal heirs of the 1st defendant

3.The 1st defendant filed his written statement. He denied the plaint averments. He is a washerman living with his family doing caste profession. His son Srinivas is a salesman in a cloth shop at Tadithota for a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. One Akula Nageswara Rao @ Bujji approached his son to do loss business to get good profits and therefore

Srinivas took a shop for Rs.6,500/- p.m in the year 2010. The said

Nageswara Rao asked Srinivasa Rao to arrange security for the rent /13/ shop and thus the son of defendant approached him and obtained his signatures on empty pronotes and stamp papers and as he not worldly wise scribed his signatures and also obtained the son in law of the defendant Jonnada Apprao on empty cheques and also the signatures of wife of Jonnada Apparao on empty promissory notes and N.J. stamp papers. The said Srinivasa and this defendant never suspected the acts of the plaintiff and Akula Nageswara Rao and further this defendant contends that said Nageswara Rao is man of plaintiff.

(b).The said Akula Nageswara Rao mismanaged the said

Srinivas and arranged the stock with high rates more than the value of retail market and therefore no stock was sold and thereafter Akula

Nageswara Rao informed the same to him and vacated the premises.

The said Akula Nageswara Rao and the plaintiff not agreed for vacation of shop till the payment of damages imposed against said Srinivas and he has no assets and capacity. The said Akula Nageswara Rao took the stock in the shop worth of Rs.5,00,000/- and used the empty pronotes and cheques in the name of plaintiff and pressed into service in the name of defendant and also in the name of his son in law. The defendant stated that he did not take anything as alleged in the plaint such a huge amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and this never executed any pronote or any N.J. stamp paper to the plaintiff at any time this plaintiff is name lender by one Akula

Nageswara Rao.

(c). During course of this defendant sickness the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.367/2016 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge,

Rajahmundry and obtained ex parte decree and filed E.P.26/2017 and brought the patta land property of this defendant for sale. This defendant after came into his knowledge about the fraud played by Akula

Nageswara Rao and this plaintiff and advised and resist the suit.

/13/

(d).The defendant and never contracted him any debt as alleged in the suit in O.S.No.367/2016. The defendant and the plaintiff have no relation as debtor and creditor. The signatures obtained from this defendant for the reason of security of providing rent a shop to his son

Srinivas. The plaintiff and Akula Nageswara Rao conspired and filed this suit. The attestors and scribe on the alleged documents are henchmen of said Akula Nageswara Rao. The interest is not correct. This defendant have no assets and he was living in the house which was patta land and hence the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Following issues have been framed on the basis of the above pleadings.

1. Whether the suit pronote dated 06-09-2016 is true, valid and supported by cash consideration?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 is marked.

6.Heard learned counsel for both sides.

Issue Nos.1 and 2:

7. The 4th plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit as P.W.1 affidavit where he reiterated averments of the plaint and in his chief evidence he stated that that the 1st defendant borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from 1st plaintiff on 06-09-2016 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. with yearly rests. P.W.1 further deposed that on repeated demands made by the 1st plaintiff, the 1st defendant did not repay the above pronote, as such he issued Ex.A2 legal notice and he received the notice under Ex.A3 /13/ postal acknowledgment.

8.In the cross-examination of P.W.1 he stated that he saw 1st defendant at the time of his father i.e., 1st plaintiff lending amount and he was present at the time of Ex.A1 pronote transaction. The counsel for the defendants except giving suggestions during cross-examination of

P.W1, which are denied by him, nothing is brought out to discredit her evidence. The defendants did not deny the presence of P.W.1 at the time of Ex.A1 transaction.

9.The scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note is examined as P.W.2, he supported the evidence of P.W.1 and stated that he scribed Ex.A1. He further stated that 1st defendant borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from 1st plaintiff and Ex.A1 promissory note was attested by Peddisetti Subrahmanyam and Ch.Madhu and after receipt of consideration by 1st defendant, he signed on Ex.A1 promissory note.

10.In his cross-examination, he stated that he know 1st defendant four or five years prior to filing the suit and he does cloth business and also washerman. He further stated that plaintiff lend an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to 1st defendant.

11.The 2nd defendant filed his chief examination affidavit as

D.W.1 and reiterated the averments of the written statement filed by 1st defendant. In his cross-examination he admitted that 1st defendant issued legal notice on 12-02-2019 demanding for repayment of the pronote debt and after receipt of notice, 1st defendant did not issue reply.

Thus it is clear that 1st plaintiff demanded 1st defendant for repayment of the above pronote debt under Ex.A1 though 1st defendant received the notice under Ex.A2, he did not repay the debt or issue reply.

12.In the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the defendants stated the 1st plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.367/2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajahmahendravaram and /13/ without the knowledge of the defendant managed the postman and with a fraudulent measures obtained ex parte decree and filed E.P.No.26/2017 and brought the patta land property of the defendant for sale. In cross- examination of D.W.1, he admitted that 1st plaintiff did not file the suit in

O.S.No.367/2016 and the E.P.26/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s

Court, Rajamahendravaram against 1st defendant. The defendant’s version in respect of filing the suit in O.S.No.376/2016 on the file of

Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajahmahendravaram contradicts

from the written statement to the evidence, hence the contention of the plaintiffs is having force.

13.D.W.1 was recalled and got filed Ex.B1 which is rice card.

He admitted in his cross-examination that on the date of Ex.A1 pronote,

Ex.B1 is not in existence and the profession of his father is also not mentioned in Ex.B1, so also the income of his father is also not mentioned in it, hence Ex.B1 cannot be taken into consideration.

14. In the above circumstances, here it is necessary to consider whether the contention of the 1st defendant is sustainable under law or not.

Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act reads as follows:

Until contrary is proved the following presumptions shall be made. That Every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed negotiated or transferred for consideration.

15. The presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument

Act is one of law imposing a duty on the court to raise the presumption that the instrument was made for consideration, but before the presumption made the execution of the pronote executed by the /13/ defendant is to be proved. This presumption shifts the burden of proof of establishment that there was no consideration on the 1st defendant. It is settled law when once the execution pronote is proved by the plaintiffs, the court shall presume that the same is executed after receiving the consideration.

16.Though D.W.1 is examined and Ex.B1 is marked, there is no evidence at all to prove his defence. As stated above, his defence is proved to be false. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 can be relied upon.

Their evidence thus proves that the suit promissory note is true and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount. For the failure of the defendant to discharge the debt under the suit promissory note, the suit can be decreed, accordingly Issue

Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

Issue No.2:

17.In the result, suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.23,88,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs eighty eight thousand only) with costs and interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till realization on the

principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) from the

estate of deceased 1st defendant which is lying in the hands of defendants 2 to 14.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I (on deputation) on computer,

typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 20th day of September, 2024.Digitally signed by APPALA

APPALA SWAMY

SWAMY BALAKA

BALAKADate: 2024.09.20 16:31:37 - 0500

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

BHIMAVARAM

/13/

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Gadiraju Sarada D.W.1: Kandivalasa Srinivas

P.W.2 : Urakaranam Sai Srinivasa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/06-09-2016/Original promissory note executed by D1 Ex.A2/12-02-2019/Office copy of registered lawyer notice issued to the defendant Ex.A3/-/Postal acknowledgment

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1-/Rice card

APPALA

Digitally signed by APPALA

SWAMY

SWAMY BALAKA

Date: 2024.09.20

BALAKA

16:31:26 -0500

C.J (SD),

BVRM

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

BHIMAVARAM

Present : Sri B.Appala Swamy

Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram.

Wednesday this the 18th day of September, 2024

O.S.No.98/2018

Between:

Veeramallu Anand Bhavani Shankar, S/o.Ramulu, Hindu, Aged 42 years, Business, R/o.8-313, Near Santha Market, Gandhi Nagar, Elurupadu village of Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District, Mobile No.9490259669.

…..Plaintiff

and

Yalla Chakradhara Rajagopala Embramannar Kesava Rao, S/o.Ranganayakulu, Hindu, Aged 65 years,

Retd.Head Master, R/o.D.No.5-24/1, Peda Amiram,…..Defendant

Kalla ManDal,

This suit is came up on 06-09-2024 before me in the presence of

Sri B.Srinivasa Rao, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P.Narasimham, advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration to this day till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed basing on a promissory note for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,52,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 24% from the date of suit till the date of realization.

2.The plaint averments are as follows. The defendant had borrowed an amount Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 10-09-2016 and executed the suit promissory note by agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The plaintiff has been demanding the defendant for repayment of the the pronote debt but the defendant /10/ did not repay the debt, hence the plaintiff got issued a notice dated 09- 03-2018, the defendant received the notice and issued reply. Hence the suit.

3.Defendant filed his written statement. He denied the plaint averments. The brief averments of written statement are as follows. He stated that the plaintiff is a stranger to him and he has no need to borrow amount from anybody as this defendant is an affluent person. The pronote dated 10-09-2016 is a forged document. After receiving the notice sent by the plaintiff, he requested the plaintiff to send the copy of the pronote to give detail reply, but the plaintiff did not send any copy.

There is no transaction took place between this defendant and the plaintiff on the alleged date. The defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff much less an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 10-09-2016, hence pray to dismiss the suit.

4.Following issues have been framed on the basis of the above pleadings.

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

2. Whether the suit promissory note is a forged document as alleged by the defendant or not?

3. To what relief?

5.Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got examined D.Ws.2 and 3 and no documents are marked. The Assistant Director in APFSL

Mangalagiri examined as C.W.1. The evidence of PW2 was eschewed

6.Heard learned counsel for both sides.

Issue Nos.1 and 2:

7. The plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit where he reiterated averments of the plaint and in his chief evidence he stated that that the defendant borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from him on 10-09-2016 and /10/ executed Ex.A.1 promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. with yearly rests. P.W.1 further deposed that on repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the above pronote, as such he issued Ex.A2 legal notice. The defendant after receipt of the notice and issued reply notice under Ex.A3.

8.In the cross-examination of P.W.1 admitted that he knows the defendant who does pisci culture in Krishna District and he know through co-son-in-law Meka Venkatesh. In the written statement of the defendant, he stated that plaintiff is a stranger, coming to the cross- examination the learned counsel for the defendant himself got admitted the plaintiff that he knows the defendant through co-son-in-law Meka

Venkatesh. In the further cross-examination P.W.1 stated that he do not know there are disputes between his co-son-in-law and the defendant regarding lease and eviction and he field suit against the defendant for injunction from the same it is clear that the defendant is a known person to the plaintiff through his co-son-in-law and the plea taken by the defendant that the plaintiff is a stranger to him does not have weight.

9.On the other hand the defendant taken another plea that the plaintiff is not having financial capacity to lend Rs.6,00,000/- to him.

Coming to the cross-examination of P.W.1, he stated that he is having

Ac.6-00 cents of land in Elurupadu village in his name, which is crystal clear that the plaintiff is having properties and an able man.

10.The other contention in the written statement of the defendant is that he got issued reply under Ex.A3 demanding the plaintiff to send the xerox copy of the pronote and he stated that he found bear the expenses for sending the xerox copy of the pronote, but if the defendant really need the xerox copy of the pronote, he would definitely send the expenses to be incurred for obtaining the xerox copy of the pronote by the plaintiff, but no such expenses were sent by the defendant /10/ which created suspicion and genuineness of the defendant.

11.In the cross-examination of P.W.1 nothing is elicited to discredit his evidence.

12.The defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and no documents are marked through him. He reiterated the averments of the written statement in his chief-evidence. In the cross-examination, he stated that the signature on Ex.A1 does not belong to him.

13.As per Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, this Court has got power to verify the signature on Ex.A1, but on the petition filed by the defendant in I.A.No.1234/2023, this Court has send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert to prove his signature on Ex.A1 as forged and thus

Ex.A1 was sent to the handwriting expert wherein the report under Ex.X1 opined by the handwriting expert that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked as S1 to S10 also wrote the red enclosed signature marked Q, hence the signature of the defendant on Ex.A1 was proved to be genuine as per opinion’s report. To corroborate the opinion he was examined as C.W.1 and stated that after careful examination of questioned and standard signatures, he gave his opinion that the person wrote the red enclosed signature marked S1 to S10 also wrote the red enclosed signature marked Q, which clearly proves that the signature on

Ex.A1 is that of the defendant.

14.The defendant was examined as D.W.1, in his chief evidence, he reiterated the averments of his written statement. In his cross-examination he stated that the signature on Ex.A1 does not belong to him, whereas the opinion of C.W.1 under Ex.X1 report clearly stated that the signature belongs to the defendant himself. In his further cross- examination, he stated that he did not chose to file petition to send Ex.A1 handwriting expert for comparison of signature on Ex.A1 with his admitted signature. As per the petition in I.A.No.1234/2023, the petition /10/ is filed by D.W.1 to send Ex.A1 to handwriting expert, but in his cross- examination he stated that he has not send Ex.A1 to handwriting expert for comparison with his signatures, so this witness differs his own version.

15.D.W.2 examined and he supported the evidence of D.W.1. In his cross-examination, he stated that he know the plaintiff and defendant and do not know personally about the borrowing money of Rs.6,00,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff and has no idea about the house of the plaintiff at Elurupadu. The evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 contradicts with each other.

16.In the above circumstances, here it is necessary to consider whether the contention of the defendant is sustainable under law or not.

Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act reads as follows:

Until contrary is proved the following presumptions shall be made. That Every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed negotiated or transferred for consideration.

17. The presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable

Instrument Act is one of law imposing a duty on the court to raise the presumption that the instrument was made for consideration, but before the presumption made the execution of the pronote executed by the defendant is to be proved. This presumption shifts the burden of proof of establishment that there was no consideration on the defendant. It is settled law when once the execution pronote is proved by the plaintiff, the court shall presume that the same is executed after receiving the consideration.

18.Though D.Ws.1 and 2 are examined, there is no evidence at all to prove his defence. As stated above, his defence is proved to be /10/ false. In the circumstances, the defendant’s evidence can not be thrown out the consistent evidence of P.W.1. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 can be relied upon. Their evidence thus proves that the suit promissory note is true and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount. For the failure of the defendant to discharge the debt under the suit promissory note, the suit can be decreed, accordingly Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

Issue No.2:

19.In the result, suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.8,52,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty two thousand only) with costs and interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till realization on the principal amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs only).

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I (on deputation) on computer,

typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this Digitally signed by the 18th day of September, 2024.APPALA SWAMY

APPALA SWAMY BALAKA

BALAKADate: 2024.09.18 17:23:53 -0500

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

BHIMAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Veeramallu Anand Bhavani D.W.1: Yalla Chakradara Shankar Rajagopala Embramannar P.W.2 : Kamatam Israel (eschewed) Kesava Rao D.W.2 : Irrinki Apparao @ Murali /10/

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/10-09-2016/Original promissory note executed by the defendant Ex.A2/09-03-2018/Office copy of registered lawyer notice issued to the defendant Ex.A3/03-04-2018/Reply notice issued by the defendant counsel to the defendant

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Nil

COURT WITNESS

APPALA

C.W.1 : K.Vani Prasada RaoDigitally signed by APPALA

SWAMY

SWAMY BALAKA

Date: 2024.09.18

Ex.X1 : 16-10-2023/OpinionBALAKA

17:23:42 -0500

C.J (SD),

BVRM