Smt B.Baby Rani

1

O.S.No.59/2016

THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – X ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA AT VUYYURU.

Present: Smt B.Baby Rani

Junior Civil Judge – Cum – X Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vuyyuru

Thursday, this the 13th day of October, 2022

Original Suit No.59 of 2016

Between:

Namburi Mangaiah … Plaintiff

And

Natha Pitchaiah …Defendant

This suit is coming on 16.09.2022 for final hearing before me in thepresenceofSriP.Rambabu,AdvocateforthePlaintiffand Sri S.Prasada Rao, Advocate for the Defendant and after perusing the records and having stood for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to declare that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession from the hands of the defendant by putting the plaintiff in possession of the same; to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, supporters and followers from raising any construction in the plaint schedule property, and for costs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff and the defendantarepermanentresidentsofBollapaduandtheplaint schedule property comprising of Item Nos.1 and 2, is situated in the same village.Originally, the plaint schedule property belonged to one

Bandaru Ruthamma, W/o.late Bandaru Raja Sekhara Rao, which is an extent of 133 ¼ Sq. Yards and 13 Sq. yards of house sites, referred to as Item Nos.1 and 2 respectively, totalling to an extent of 146 ¼ sq.

2

O.S.No.59/2016

yards in Bollapadu village, Panchayat area, which was purchased by her from one Natha Chowdary of the same village on 19.01.1961 for a valuable consideration of Rs.50/- under a registered sale deed, vide

Doc.No.149 of 1961 on the file of SRO, Vuyyuru, executed by said

Natha Chowdary.Since then, the plaintiff has became an absolute owner of the same and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Said Ruthamma is no other than the maternal grandmother of the plaintiff herein and she gifted the plaint schedule properties under a registered gift deed vide Doc.No.1798/1990, dt.12.09.1990 on the file of SRO, Vuyyuru and on the date of execution of said gift deed itself, the plaint schedule properties were delivered to him along with the original of the gift deed.Thus, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.Subsequently, the plaintiff raised a thatched house in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and got electricity connection bearing Service No.394, and since he raised thatched house, the gram panchayat Bollapadu did not levy taxes on the house.While so, on 28.1.1990, due to fire accident, the plaintiff’s thatched house situated in Item No.1 was burnt and the plaintiff informed the same to the Fire Department as well as the

M.R.O. of Vuyyuru Mandal, and they issued a certificate to that effect stating that the thatched house was burnt.Again, the plaintiff raised a thatched house in Item No.1 and resided along with his family members upto December, 2011. Subsequently, the authority of Full

GospelChurchesofIndiaappointedtheplaintiff as a Pastor in

Mandapakala Village of Koduru Mandal, Krishna District and ever since, the plaintiff and his family members started residing there itself and he used to come to Bollapadu now and then by visiting the plaint schedulepropertyat his convenience.Taking advantage of the 3

O.S.No.59/2016

absence of the plaintiff at the plaint schedule property, the defendant , who is having house and house site on the western side to the plaint schedule property, hatched a plan to occupy the same and the plaintiff resisted several times. On 29.05.2014,plaintiff gave a report to

Vuyyuru Rural Police against the defendant and on 16.09.2014, he got issued a legal notice to the defendant but though the defendant acknowledged the same did not choose to give any reply. The rough sketch filed before this Court to be treated as part and parcel of this plaint. In the month of August, 2014, during the absence of the plaintiff at the plaint schedule property, the defendant highhandedly with support of brutal strength break opened the doors of the house situated in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property.Again, plaintiff approached the police and informed about the high handed act of the defendant, but they did not take any action and later, they advised him to approach competent court as the dispute is civil in nature.In the month of January, 2015 the plaintiff referred the matter before the elders of Bollapadu village, wherein the defendant assured that he will vacate the plaint schedule property by the end of December, 2015. In the month of January, 2016, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to permit him to vacate the same after two months, and plaintiff granted on humanitarian grounds.But the defendant did not vacate the same and when 25.03.2016, the plaintiff asked the defendant, the defendant replied that he do not care the words of elders. Having no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. Hence, the suit.

03.The defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the gift deed said to have been executed by his grand mother in favour of the plaintiff does not create any 4

O.S.No.59/2016

rights to the plaintiff in any manner.The defendant and his joint family members have been in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till today and possession of the property was never delivered to the plaintiff at any point of time by his grandmother Bandaru Ruthamma. The plaintiff had not brought the said gift deed into light and recently started claiming the plaint schedule property basing on the said invalid gift deed.The plaintiff was not in possession of the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff’s claim over the plaint schedule property is false. The ingredients of the gift deed that the transfer of the physical possession of the property, under the said Gift Deed, Document No.1798/1990, dt.12.09.1990 on the file of SRO, Vuyyuru, executed in favour of the plaintiff are not accepted by the donor and hence the said gift deed is not valid under the law.The plaintiff is not in physical possession of the plaint schedule property even as per the plaint averments also and as per the Item No.1 of plaint schedule property, the eastern boundary holder is Natta Benerjee, who is the father of the defendant and as per the boundaries of the plaint schedule Items 1 and 2 shows that there is no pathway to the plaint schedule property and the schedule property is in between the defendant and his family members.The plaintiff did not approach the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and the plaintiff has no prima facie case and the balance of convenience in his favour and the plaintiff filed the suit for wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the defendant and his joint family members.There is no cause of action to file the suit, court fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct and hence prays to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are framed for trial:

5

O.S.No.59/2016

01. Whether the plaintiff’s predecessors in title had valid title over the plaint schedule property so as

to convey the same to the plaintiff ?

02. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ?

03. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of this Suit ?

04. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction ?

05. To what relief ?

05.To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked EXs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the defendant, DW1 was examined and no documents were marked.

06.Heard both sides.

Issues 1 and 2 :

07.Thecontentionofthe plaintiff’s counsel is that, the plaint schedulepropertywasgotbytheplaintifffromhismaternal grandmother under Ex.A2 and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same but the defendant without having any right or possession, in the absence of plaintiff, occupied the suit schedule property and hence prays to declare the plaintiff as an absolute owner and recovery of possession and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any construction in the plaint schedule property. He further argued that the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 is supported by EXs.A1 to A4 and the defendant did not file any document to show his right and title over the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to decree the suit.

08.The contention of the defendant is that the defendant’s family members have been enjoying the plaint schedule property and there is 6

O.S.No.59/2016

no delivery of property to the plaintiff under Ex.A2, and Ex.A2 is not valid document.His further contention is that the plaintiff did not approach the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and hence prays to dismiss the suit.

09.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Ex.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the sale deed executed by Natha Chowedary in favour of Bandaru Ruthamma along with translated copy, dt.19.1.1961. Ex.A2 is gift deed executed by Bandaru Ruthamma in favour of the plaintiff, dt.12.9.1990. Ex.A3 is the electricity bills two in number. Ex.A4 is the office copy of the legal notice dt.16.9.2014. Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgement, dt.20.09.2014. Ex.A6 is the valuation certificate issued by SRO,

Vuyyuru, dt.18.2.2016.Ex.A7 is the returned postal cover by the

Secretary, Grampanchayat, Bollapadu Village. Ex.A8 is the certificate issued by the police, Vuyyuru Rural Police Station (xerox copy). Ex.A9 is the certificate issued by the M.R.O., (xerox copy)

In his cross-examination, he deposed that he is a Pastor at

Mandapakala Village of Koduru Mandal.Bandaru Ruthamma is his maternal grandmother.She bought the plaint schedule property from one Natha Chowdary, who is grandfather of the defendant (grand father’s brother).He admitted that 13 and half cents of land jointly belongs to the grandfathers of the defendant (Natha Chowdary and

Yesupadam) in which the plaint schedule property is situated.He denied the suggestion that by the date of execution of Ex.A1, no partition took place.He denied the suggestion that the sale deed executed by Natha Chowdary in favour of Bandaru Ruthamma is invalid and hence gift deed/Ex.A2 executed by Bandaru Ruthamma in 7

O.S.No.59/2016

his favour is also invalid.He denied the suggestion that Item No.2 of

Ex.A1 does not belongs to Natha Chowdary and it belongs to Natha

David Raju.He obtained a certificate from the M.R.O., dt.13.2.1990 that his house was burnt in a fire accident and also his certificates were burnt.He filed the said certificates along with the plaint. Ex.A8 is the certificate issued by police, Vuyyuru Rural Police Station in

English (xerox copy). Ex.A9 is the certificate issued by the M.R.O., He denied the suggestion that his grandmother i.e., Bandaru Ruthama did nothandoverthepossession of the property subsequent to the execution of Ex.A2. He admitted that he did not file any documentary proof to show that he is in possession of the plaint schedule property such as possession certificate, house tax receipts etc.,

10.PW2 filed his chief affidavit supporting the chief of PW1.In his cross-examination, he deposed that plaintiff’s parents are belongs to

Bollapadu Village. One Ruthamma is maternal grandmother of the plaintiff. He admitted that Ruthamma resided in the plaint schedule property till her death.

11.Defendant filed his chief affidavit as reiterated in his written statement. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not file documentary evidence to show that Bandaru Ruthamma and Natha

Chowdary are living together as Sahajeevanam in Plaint schedule property.HedeniedthesuggestionthatBandaruRuthamma purchased the Pliant schedule property from Natha Chowdary on 19.01.1961 for Rs.50/- only and since then she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till the occupation by the defendant.He do not know whether Bandaru Ruthamma was the maternal grandmother of the plaintiff.He further deposed that “It is 8

O.S.No.59/2016

true either my father or my grandfather did not file any Suit for partition against Natha Chowdary to cancel the Sale deed executed in favour of Bandaru Ruthamma as we do not know about the said sale.

Either the wife of Natha Chowdary or his children did not file any Suit stating that the said property was their ancestral property, against

Natha Chowdary or Bandaru Ruthamma.”He do not know whether

Bandaru Ruthamma gifted the Plaint schedule property to the plaintiff under Registered gift dated 12.09.1990 vide document No.1798/1990.

He do not know whether Rural Police, Vuyyuru issued a certificate to the Plaintiff for lost his certificates in fire accident.He denied the suggestion that after the fire accident again the Plaintiff constructed houseinthePlaintSchedulePropertyandresidingtherein and obtained Voter Card and paying electricity charges in his name.To the west of the plaint schedule property his house is situated.He denied the suggestion that in the absence of the plaintiff he tried to occupy the plaint schedule property and when plaintiff resisted him he kept quiet for some time and thereafter occupied the plaint schedule property.“It is true on 16.09.2014 plaintiff got issued legal notice to him and after that he came to know about the plaintiff and approached his counsel.

12.Perused the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, DW1 and documents

EXs.A1 to A9.

13.To grant the relief of declaration the plaintiff has to establish his legal right and character in the plaint schedule property.

To prove his contention, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and one Tabeti Yohan as PW2.The evidence of PW1 is supported by

Ex.A2 Gift Deed, executed by his maternal grandmother with regard to 9

O.S.No.59/2016

suit schedule property. Ex.A1 is a link document to Ex.A2, clearly goes to show that the plaint schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff’s maternal grandmother Bandaru Ruthamma from one Natha

Chowdary on 9.1.1961 and in the said document it was mentioned as “���ా����తమ�”.

14.TheevidenceofPWs.1and2clearlygoestoshowthat

Ruthamma had enjoyed the plaint schedule property till her death and thereafter, the plaintiff has enjoyed.Except the denials, nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination of DW1. But, he admitted that he received legal notice issued by the plaintiff under Ex.A4.After receipt of legal notice also, he did not evince any interest to give reply to the said notice or given report to the police denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

15.A perusal of EXs.A8 and A9 Certificates issued by the Police and

M.R.O., shows that thatched house situated in suit schedule property was burnt in the year 1990. The documents filed by the plaintiff provedhistitleoverthe suit schedule property.The plaintiff’s contention is that the defendant occupied the plaint schedule property in his absence and prays to recovery of possession. The documents filed by the plaintiff clearly goes to show the title of the plaintiff and his predecessors over the plaint schedule property and when the plaintiffpleadedthatthedefendantoccupiedthesuitschedule property, he is entitled for recovery of possession.

16.Thecontentionofthedefendant is that originally the suit schedule property belongs to the ancestors of Natha Chowdary and his brother Natha Yesu Padam, who are the sons of Bala Kotaiah, and there is no partition between Natha Chowdary and Yesu Padam and 10

O.S.No.59/2016

hence the documents executed by Natha Chowdary has no value. It is the further contention of the defendant that Natha Nowdary and

BandaruRuthammawerelivedtogetherandduringcohabitation betweenNathaChowdaryandBandaruRuthamma,Bandaru

Ruthamma fraudulently obtained registered sale deed under Ex.A1 from Natha Chowdary.

17.A perusal of the document i.e., Ex.A1, it is a 30 years old document.Presumptionisthere.ThecontentsofEx.A1also established by the plaintiff and defendant did not discharge his burden that they were lived together and Ex.A1 was obtained fraudulently.

The defendant also kept quiet since 1961 till the date of filing of the suit without taking any action about the said document, which also clearly goes to show that Natha Chowdary executed registered sale deed in favor of Bandaru Ruthamma for consideration in respect of plaint schedule property, wherein it was mentioned that “�� �ా����తమ�”.

The defendant also did not issue any reply notice to Ex.A4.

18.DW1 also deposed in his cross-examination that “it is true, either my father or my grandfather did not file any suit for partition against

Natha Chowdary or to cancel the sale deed executed in favour of

BandaruRuthamma.”He further deposed that “either the wife of

Natha Chowdary or his children did not file any suit stating that said property was the ancestral property.”

19.I relied on a citation reported in 2016(5) ALT 739 between

Durgampudi Padmamma Vs. Kallutla Kottamma (died) and

another, wherein their lordships held that :

“The law is well settled that in a suit for declaration of title not only the initial onus of proof but also the legal burden of proof, which never shifts, are on the plaintiff and that in a suit of this nature the 11

O.S.No.59/2016

plaintiff succeeds on her own strength but not on the weakness of the defendant.”

In view of my foregoing discussion, the plaintiff established his legal right and character over the plaint schedule property and hence heisentitledfor declaration and recovery of possession as his predecessors title also valid. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue No.3:

20.As seen from the pleadings of the plaint, it is clear that already defendant occupied plaint schedule property and prayed for recovery of possession. Hence, this issue does not arise. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue No.4

21.In view of the answering of issue No.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as he proved his title over the suit schedule property.

The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant is trying to raise construction in the plaint schedule property and hence prayed to grant permanent injunction.

Theplaintiffclaimpermanentinjunctionrestrainingthe defendant from raising any structures in the plaint schedule property.

But, a perusal of the suit, the claim of permanent injunction is a separate relief and the plaintiff failed to pay the Court Fee for the relief of permanent injunction separately.But, the value of the permanent injunction notionally mentioned as Rs.10,000/- in the plaint but the plaintiff failed to pay the said Court Fee.When the plaintiff 12

O.S.No.59/2016

proved his title over the plaint schedule property and when the defendant is denying his title, it shows his interference and occupation oftheplaintschedulepropertyintheabsenceoftheplaintiff.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue No.5:

22.In view of answering of issues 1 to 4, suit is to be decreed.

23.In the suit, suit is decreed with costs declaring the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the defendant is directedtodeliverthevacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from this day, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed according to law, and also granted permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, supporters and followers from raising any construction in the plaint schedule property.

Office is directed to prepare the decree after payment of Court

Fee for the relief of permanent injunction which is notionally valued at

Rs.10,000/- in the plaint.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 13th October, 2022.

Sd/- B.Baby Rani

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM - X ADDL.

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VUYYURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Plaintiff: PW1: N.Mangaiah PW2: Tabeti Yohan

Witnesses examined for Defendant: DW1: Natha Pitchaiah 13

O.S.No.59/2016

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:CertifiedcopyofthesaledeedexecutedbyNatha ChowedaryinfavourofBandaru Ruthamma along with translated copy, dt.19.1.1961.

Ex.A2:Gift deed executed by Bandaru Ruthamma in favour of the plaintiff, dt.12.9.1990.

Ex.A3:Electricity bills two in numbers.

Ex.A4:Office copy of the legal notice dt.16.9.2014.

Ex.A5:Postal acknowledgement, dt.20.09.2014.

Ex.A6:Valuation certificate issued by SRO, Vuyyuru, dt.18.2.2016.

EX.A7:Returned postal cover by the Secretary, Grampanchayat, Bollapadu Village.

Ex.A8:Certificate issued by the police, Vuyyuru Rural Police Station (xerox copy).

Ex.A9:Certificate issued by the M.R.O., (xerox copy)

Exhibits marked for Defendant: Nil

Id/- BBR.,

JCJ-CUM-XAMM,

VYR

O.S.No.12 of 2021

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – X ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA AT VUYYURU.

Present: Smt B.Baby Rani

Junior Civil Judge – Cum – X Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vuyyuru

Tuesday, this the 11th day of October, 2022

Original Suit No.12 of 2021

Between:

Ogirala Durga Bhavani … Plaintiff

And

Chikkavarapu Srinivasa Rao …Defendant

This suit is coming on 29-09-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Chanti Babu, Learned Counsel for Plaintiff and Sri G.Lakshminarayana, Learned Counsel for Defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of amount a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- being the principal and interest due under suit pronote, dt.15.4.2017 for Rs.2,00,000/-, with subsequent interest, and for costs.

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

Thedefendantborrowedasumof Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.4.2017 for his business development and executed a promissory note at Chinaogirala Village, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., with yearly rests either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. Thereafter, inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, he did not pay any amount and postponed the same on some pretext or the other from time to time by giving evasive replies.

Having no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file this Suit. Though, the suit has to be filed before 14.04.2020 as per law, but in view of

COVID-19 pandemic and in view of the orders of Hon’ble Supreme

O.S.No.12 of 2021

2

Court of India, dt.23.03.2020 reported in 2021(2) ALT 1999 (SC), the plaintiff filed the suit on 18.1.2021 and hence, it is not barred by limitation. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that he executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff with a condition that the pronote amount will be arranged on the next day of its execution.The defendant blindly believed the plaintiff and executed a promissory note without receiving any consideration.The defendant requested many times to give the promissory note amount but, the plaintiff has postponed the same on some pretext or the other.Finally, the defendant demanded the plaintiff to return the suit pronote before the elders, but the plaintiff replied that the suit pronote is misplaced and whenever it is traced, the same will be returned to him and by believing the words of the plaintiff, the defendant kept quiet. Surprisingly, the plaintiff filed the present false suit against the defendant illegally to cause wrongful loss to the defendant. In fact, the plaintiff neither passed the consideration under the suit pronote nor returned the pronote to the defendant.

Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the abovepleadings, the following issues were framed for trial :

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid, supported

by consideration and binding on the defendant ?

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

3. To what relief ?

5.To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and 1st attestor as PW2 and marked Ex.A1.

O.S.No.12 of 2021

3

On behalf of the defendant, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6.Heard both sides.

Issue Nos.1 and 2:

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- under Ex.A1 and thereafter inspite of several demands, he did not pay any amount and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is corroborated with each other with regard to borrowing of amount and execution of Ex.A1 and hence prays to decree the suit.

8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that he never received any amount under Ex.A1 and it was the practice of the plaintiff obtaining the pronotes before passing of consideration itself, in that way, the defendant executed the pronote in favour of the plaintiff anticipating the amount.But, after execution of pronote, the plaintiff neither passed the consideration nor returned the pronote to the defendant and when the defendant demanded for the pronote in front of the elders, the plaintiff stated that it was misplaced and whenever it will be traced, the same will be returned to the defendant and later filed this false suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit as no consideration was passed by the plaintiff under the alleged

Ex.A1.

9.The plaintiff, who is examined as PW1, filed his chief affidavit as reiterated in plaint. Ex.A1 is original promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/- dt.15.04.2017.

In her cross-examination, she deposed that the defendant is her distant relative, and she came to know that he is doing real estate

O.S.No.12 of 2021

4 business.Her father has got 1 ½ acres of land stands in the name of her mother and earning approximately Rs.40,000/- per annum on the said land on lease, and except that there is no other income to her parents.She is not an income tax assessee. Her mother was granted widow pension and now it is cancelled due to a hike in electricity bill.

Heryoungerbrotherisworkingasacardriverandearning

Rs.15,000/- per month since one year, and prior to that he worked on contract basis in the construction field and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Her mother used to get Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent upto 13.07.2022.She lent the amount to the defendant from the amount secured for her marriage.She paid Rs.2,00,000/- in Rs.500/- rupee denomination i.e., 400 notes.She did not obtain receipt for the said Rs.2,00,000/-.She do not know as per income tax rules if the amount is more than Rs.2,00,000/- in any money transaction, cheque should be issued. She got issued legal notice to the defendant prior to filing of the suit. She admitted that she did not file any document to show that the defendant is doing real estate business. She denied the suggestion that no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 as she has no capacity to lend the amount as she was studying B.Tech at that point of time and that deposing false though the defendant never borrowed any amount from her and never executed suit pronote.

10.PW2 filed his chief affidavit supporting the chief of PW1.In his cross-examination,hedeposedthatheisrunningtheofficeof document writer at Vuyyuru.At the house of the plaintiff, he signed on Ex.A1 as 1st attestor.He signed as an attestor on 3 notes. He do notremembertheexactdayofexecutionofEx.A1,butitis 15.04.2017.He knew the defendant.Consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the defendant and the denomination is 4 bundles of

O.S.No.12 of 2021

5

Rs.500/-.He do not know the source of said consideration.To his knowledge attestor signature is necessary for pronotes.The distance between his house and the plaintiff’s house is about 1 furlong.He do not know whether the plaintiff is doing any business.He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such a huge amount, and deposing false.

11.Perused the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. There is no dispute about the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant as the defendant himself admitted in his written statement that suit pronote was executed by him as the plaintiff is in the habit of obtaining the pronote prior to lendingofamounttotheborrowersbutshedidnotpassthe consideration though he demanded her several times to give the amount under pronote executed by him.Except his contention in his written statement that he executed the pronote at the demand of the plaintiff and in fact no consideration was passed on it, inspite of several ample opportunities, he did not enter into the witness to prove his stand taken in his written statement or adduce any evidence on his behalf. The contention of the defendant in his written statement proves that the suit pronote was executed by him.

12.The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is corroborated with each other withregardtoexecutionofEx.A1.PW1deposedinher cross-examination that she got issued legal notice to the defendant prior to filing of the suit and filed a copy of the same before this Court.

But, a perusal of the record, it is clear that no copy of the legal notice was filed at the time of filing of the suit. Mere non-filing of the copy of the legal notice by the plaintiff before this Court, do not affect the case of the plaintiff since the defendant himself admitted in his written

O.S.No.12 of 2021

6 statement that he himself executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff at her demand.

13.So, the burden heavily lies upon the defendant to prove his contention taken in his written statement that no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 and inspite of several demands made to the plaintiff even in the presence of elders also to return the pronote executed by him, the plaintiff did not return the same and stated that the suit pronote was misplaced and she will return the same as and when it will be traced.Further, the defendant did not mention the names of the elders in his written statement to show that in whose presence he demanded the plaintiff to return the pronote executed by him under which no consideration was passed or atleast adduce their evidence before this Court.Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is corroborated with Ex.A1 and hence, plaintiff established her claim as the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant and it is supported by consideration.

SuitisintimeasperordersinMiscellaneousApplication

No.665/21inSMW(c)No.3/2020,dt.10.01.2022assuitis dt.18.1.2021(excludedperiodfrom15.03.2020to28.02.2022).

Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue No..3:

14.In view of answering of Issues 1 and 2, suit is to be decreed.

15.Intheresult,suitisdecreedwithcostsforasumof

Rs.3,44,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., on Rs.2,00,000/-

O.S.No.12 of 2021

7 from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realisation.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 11th day of October, 2022.

Sd/- B.Baby Rani.,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM - X ADDL.

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VUYYURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:

PW1: Ogirala Durga Bhavani PW2: Ogirala Ganga Raju

For Defendant: None

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Original promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/-, dt.15.4.2017

For Defendant: Nil

Id/- BBR.,

JCJ-CUM-XAMM,

VYR

O.S.No.13 of 2021

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – X ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA AT VUYYURU.

Present: Smt B.Baby Rani

Junior Civil Judge – Cum – X Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vuyyuru

Tuesday, this the 11th day of October, 2022

Original Suit No.13 of 2021

Between:

Ogirala Veeramba … Plaintiff

And

Chikkavarapu Srinivasa Rao …Defendant

This suit is coming on 29-09-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Chanti Babu, Learned Counsel for Plaintiff and Sri G.Lakshminarayana, Learned Counsel for Defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of amount a sum of Rs.5,16,000/- beingtheprincipalandinterestdueundertwopromissorynotes, dt.13.4.2017 for Rs.2,00,000/- and dt.01.05.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/-, with subsequent interest, and for costs.

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

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 13.4.2017, and

Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.05.2017, for his business development and executed two different promissory notes on the respective dates at Chinaogirala

Village, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., with yearly rests either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. Thereafter, inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, he did not pay any amount and postponed the same on some pretext or the other from time to time by giving evasive replies. Having no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file this Suit. Though, the suit has to be filed before 12.04.2020 and 30.04.2020 as per law, but in view of COVID-19 pandemic and in view of

O.S.No.13 of 2021

2 the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dt.23.03.2020 reported in 2021(2) ALT 1999 (SC), the plaintiff filed the suit on 18.1.2021 and hence, it is not barred by limitation. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that he executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff with a condition that the amounts will be transferred from the plaintiff’s bank account on the next day.The defendant blindly believed the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes without receiving any consideration thereof.The plaintiff failed to transfer the amount to the defendant’s bank account and kept the said two pronotes in her possession illegally and though he made several demands, the plaintiff did not return the same and postponed on some pretext or the other.

Finally, the defendant demanded to return the pronotes before the elders, but the plaintiff did not return the pronotes and filed this false and frivoloussuitagainstthedefendantwithmalafideintention to gain wrongfully. In fact, any contract made without consideration is void.

Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the abovepleadings, the following issues were framed for trial :

1. Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

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

3. To what relief ?

5.To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and 1st attestor as PW2 and marked EXs.A1 and A2.On behalf of the defendant, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6.Heard both sides.

O.S.No.13 of 2021

3

Issue Nos.1 and 2:

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- under Ex.A1 and Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.A2 and thereafter inspite of several demands, he did not pay any amount and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is corroborated with each other with regard to borrowing of amount and execution of EXs.A1 and A2 and hence prays to decree the suit.

8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that he never received any amount under EXs.A1 and A2 and it was the practiceoftheplaintiffobtainingthepronotesbeforepassingof consideration itself, in that way, the defendant executed the pronotes in favour of the plaintiff anticipating the amount on the next day to his bank account as promised by the plaintiff. But, after execution of pronotes, the plaintiff neither passed the consideration nor returned the pronotes to the defendant and when the defendant demanded for the pronotes before the elders, the plaintiff did not return the pronotes and later filed this false suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit as no consideration was passed by the plaintiff under alleged EXs.A1 and A2.

9.The plaintiff, who is examined as PW1, filed his chief affidavit as reiterated in plaint. Ex.A1 is original promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/- dt.13.04.2017.Ex.A2 is original promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/-, dt.01.05.2017.

In her cross-examination, she deposed that her children studied under fee reimbursement scheme but she do not know whether the incomeperannumisbelowRs.2,00,000/-forentitlementoffees reimbursement.Herhusbandknowsthedefendant.Sheknewthe defendant through their distant relatives. On 12.04.2017 her husband wasaliveandhediedon22.10.2017.Herhusbandusedtodo

O.S.No.13 of 2021

4 cultivation.Pronote was obtained in my name though her husband was alive by that time.The amount was lent to the defendant for his business improvement. She do not have any licence of money lending.

She do not know if any amount lent for commercial purpose, the lender should have a licence from the concerned authorities.She do not know without licence, money lending for commercial purpose is an offence. The defendant is residing at Gollapudi in Vijayawada.Earlier there was transactions between her and the defendant. On 13.04.2017, she lent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and on 01.05.2017, she lent an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant.She do not remember the date of filing of this Suit.She did not issue any legal notice to the defendant prior to filing of the suit.She do not remember that how many transactions took place in her account during the year 2017.There are no transactions through cheque by her to anyone. Her son is a private car driver.After the demonetization only new currency was available in banks. There is no other option to make money transactions with new currency. She used to keep money in bank and also in her house. She denied the suggestion that as a housewife she has no capacity to lend such a huge amount to the defendant for commercial purpose and that EXs.A1 and A2 are not supported by consideration and deposing false.

10.PW2 filed his chief affidavit supporting the chief of PW1.In his cross-examination, he deposed that plaintiff is a house wife and her husband is no more.He do not know the source of income to her.On 13.04.2017 plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant andon01.05.2017,shelentanamountofRs.1,00,000/-tothe defendant.He do not know whether the plaintiff used to lend the amounts to anyone.He do not know whether the plaintiff should possess licencetolendtheamountsforcommercialpurposeandthat documentaryproofmustbenecessary.Hedonotknowwhether

O.S.No.13 of 2021

5 defendant is running any business.He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false to help the plaintiff as she belongs to their village and no consideration was passed under EXs.A1 and A2 and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for commercial transaction.

11.Perused the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. There is no dispute about the execution of EXs.A1 and A2 by the defendant as the defendant himself admitted in his written statement that suit pronotes were executed by him with a condition that the amounts will be transferred from the plaintiff’s bank account to his account on the next day.But, the plaintiff did not pass the consideration though he demanded her several times to give the amount under pronotes executed by him.Except his contention in his written statement that he executed the pronotes at the demand of the plaintiff and in fact no consideration was passed on it, inspite of several ample opportunities, he did not enter into the witness box to prove his stand taken in his written statement or adduce any evidence on his behalf.The contention of the defendant in his written statement proves that the suit pronotes were executed by him.

12.The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is corroborated with each other with regard to execution of EXs.A1 and A2.The burden heavily lies upon the defendant to prove his stand taken in his written statement that no consideration was passed under EXs.A1 and A2 and he demanded the plaintiff several times to return the pronotes executed by him and even finally before the elders, the plaintiff did not return the same.Further, the defendant did not mention the names of the elders in his written statement to show that in whose presence he demanded the plaintiff to return the pronotes executed by him under which no consideration was passed or atleast adduce their evidence before this Court. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is corroborated with EXs.A1 and A2 and hence,

O.S.No.13 of 2021

6 plaintiff established her claim as the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant and they are supported by consideration.

Suit is in time as per orders in Miscellaneous Application No.665/21 in SMW(c) No.3/2020, dt.10.01.2022 as suit is dt.18.01.2021 (excluded period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022). Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue No.3:

13.In view of answering of Issues 1 and 2, suit is to be decreed.

14.In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.5,16,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., on Rs.2,00,000/-, dt.13.4.2017 and

Rs.1,00,000/-, dt.01.05.2017 from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realisation.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 11th day of October, 2022.

Sd/- B.Baby Rani.,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM - X ADDL.

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VUYYURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:

PW1: Ogirala Veeramba PW2: Ogirala Ganga Raju

For Defendant: None

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Original promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/-, dt.13.4.2017 Ex.A2:Original promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/-, dt.1.5.2017

For Defendant: Nil

Id/- BBR.,

JCJ-CUM-XAMM,

VYR

02/12/2024, 16:26Kiosk e-CourtIS, The Application for Indian Judiciary e-CourtIS, The Application for Indian Judiciary

Court Establishment

<>

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGES COURT, VUYYURU

Back

Case Status Case Status

Daily Status

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judges Court,Vuyyuru

Advocate Advocate

Case No. :CC/0000392/2022 The SHO, Vuyyuru Rural Police Station Vs Arepalli Durga Rao

Date : 14-10-2022

Business: Accused is produced in another crime No.102/2022 of VRPS and

Cause List Cause List

at this time police served summons to the accused. L.W.1 also present. Both parties filed Joint memo to refer the matter to Lok Adalat. Heard both sides. The offence U/s.379 IPC is compoundable in nature. Hence,matter is refer to Lok Adalat. Accused and L.W.1 present. Matter compromised at the

Lok Adalat Report Lok Adalat Report

intervention of Lok Adalat members. Accordingly award is passed. Accused is acquitted U/s.320 (8) Cr.P.C. Case property already returned to L.W.1 under signed receipt and it holds good after appeal time is over. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT

Search Caveat Search Caveat

Disposal Date: 14-10-2022 Junior Civil Judges Court,Vuyyuru

Pre Trial Pre Trial

Application Application

Copy Status Copy Status

Deposit/Payment Deposit/Payment

172.17.80.162/swecourtis/kiosk/1/1

Case Historyhttp://172.17.80.162/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no...

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judges Court,Vuyyuru

Case No. :OS/0000060/2020 Rallapalli Ranga Kumari Vs Ankem Ananthalakshmi

Date : 15-10-2022

Business: Suit is advanced to this day as per the Orders in IA.No.632/2022, dated 15.10.2022. Both parties filed joint memo as they want to compromise the matter. Heard and referred to Lok Adalat. Both parties present. Matter compromised before the Lok Adalat at the intervention of Lok Adalat members. Accordingly award is passed as per the terms mentioned therein. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 15-10-2022 Junior Civil Judges Court,Vuyyuru 1 of 122/11/24, 15:54