Smt. B Deepti
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda
Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex · Nalgonda · Telangana
Based on 6 recent ordersSmt. B Deepti, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, is posted at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana, India. 6 court orders on record since 2024. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, SC, H cases.
Featured Judgments
Page 1 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
NALGONDA
Present: B. Deepthi Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nalgonda FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.
Tuesday, on this 11th day of March, 2025
O.S. No. 250 of 2017
BETWEEN:
Lingampally Gopal S/o Late Lingaiah, Age: 54 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.4-10-834/CS/1, Real Medical Hall, DVK Road, Nalgonda Town.
… Plaintiff
And
1. Merugu Gopinath S/o Late Janaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.409, S.S. Pride Villa, Hyd. Road, Nalgonda Town.
2. Burri Srinavas Reddy S/o Anji Reddy, Age:45 years, Occ: Business, R/o Srinagar Colony, Hyd. Road, Nalgonda Town.
… Defendants
This suit coming for disposal before me in the presence of Sri A. Vasantha Rao, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff; and Sri K. Surya Sampath, Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1; and the Defendant No.2 remained ex parte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:
Page 2 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for the relief of recovery of money of Rs.8,60,000/- basing on the promissory note, dt.10.10.2014 along with interest @ 24% per annum, in the interest of justice.
2.The brief facts which are necessary for adjudicating the dispute involved in the instant suit are as follows:
i. That the plaintiff and defendants are acquainted with each other. The defendants No.1 and 2 approached the plaintiff on 10.10.2014 at plaintiff’s house situated in DVK Road and defendant
No.1 sought a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in order to meet his business requirements. The plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are into business field and hence, they were acquainted with each other. In view of the acquaintance, the plaintiff had extended hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant No.1 on 10.10.2014 itself. The defendant No.1 had executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff for the amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.10.2014 agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% per annum. It was further contended that defendant
No.2 stood as surety and signed the promissory note. It was also
Page 3 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG contended that the said transaction was witnessed by G. Prabhakar
Rao and one Nagubandi Venkanna at the house of the plaintiff.
ii. The plaintiff further contends that despite repeated demands, the defendant did not repay the amount covered by the promissory note along with the interest accrued. After repeated demands, the defendant No.1 gave a cheque on 11.07.2016 for
Rs.4,00,000/- bearing No.352299 drawn on SBH, Hyderabad Road,
Nalgonda. The said cheque was dishonoured and as such the plaintiff had filed a complaint vide CC No.2 of 2017 as per the provisions of NI
Act and the same is pending on the file of Special JFCM (Proh. &
Excise) Nalgonda. It was further contended that though the case had been filed against defendant No.1, he had not taken steps to repay the amount covered by the promissory note. That the plaintiff had approached the defendant No.1, upon which he dodged the repayment on one pretext or the other. It was further contended that as the prescribed limitation period for the pronote was going to be completed, the plaintiff was constrained to file the instant suit seeking recovery of the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the accrued interest of Rs.3,60,000/-. It was further contended that defendants No.1
Page 4 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendants. Hence, the suit.
3.The plaint was presented in the court by the plaintiff on 09.10.2017 and the plaint was taken on file by the court. The plaint was registered as suit vide O.S No.250/2017 and summons were issued to the defendants. On receipt of the summons, the defendant No.1 had engaged Sri K. Surya Sampath,Advocate, who filed vakalath on behalf of defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 had engaged Sri K.V.
Sudhakar, Advocate who filed vakalath on behalf of the defendant
No.2. However, thereafter, D2 remained absent and D2 had not chosen to file written statement. Hence, my learned predecessor had set ex parte D2 on 10.06.2019. The counsel for the defendant No.1 filed written statement.
4.The defendant No.1 in his written statement had denied the allegations made in the plaint by the plaintiff in toto and inter alia contended that the defendants had close acquaintance with the plaintiff. However, the defendant No.1 contended that he never had an occasion to borrow huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.10.2014. He
Page 5 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG denied to have executed demand promissory note on 10.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- chargeable with an interest of 24% per annum in the presence of witnesses specified by the plaintiff in the plaint. It was further contended that the alleged demand promissory note did not belong to defendant No.1. He further contended that the signature on the promissory note is not the signature of defendant No.1. He also contended that the plaintiff did not mention in his pleadings the purpose for which the defendant No.1 was alleged to have borrowed the amount. He further contended that the plaintiff failed to mention the source of income of the plaintiff from which he could accumulate such a huge amount so as to lend the amount to the defendant. That the plaintiff failed to produce the income tax returns in which the suit transaction would figure. It was also contended that the age of handwriting i.e., the signature of the borrower vis-a-vis the other handwritings seen on the promissory note are at variance. It was contended that the manipulation/fabrication of document i.e., promissory note was obvious. It was contended that the document/promissory note was brought into existence to extort money from the defendant under threat of legal proceedings. It was
Page 6 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG further contended that the defendant No.2 never stood as guarantor for defendant No.1 undertaking responsibility of repayment of the amount alleged to have been borrowed under the promissory note and the defendant No.2 had not executed any jameen promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. It was also contended that the defendant had fabricated the promissory note. It was also contended that the defendant No.1 had never issued any cheque in favour of the plaintiff towards discharge of any liability. The defendant No.1 further contended that the plaintiff is a professional money lender and he had been doing the money lending business without valid permission and thereby he violated AP (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act. He had taken a plea the plaintiff and the defendants have close acquaintance with each other. The defendant No.1 had borrowed an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and had repaid the amount. It was further contended that at the time of advancing the hand loan, the plaintiff had demanded the defendant No.1 to give blank promissory note with defendant No.1’s signature on the promissory note and the plaintiff had also demanded a cheque and then the defendant No.1 had issued a cheque bearing No.352299 drawn on SBH, Nalgonda and
Page 7 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG the cheuque also bears the signature of defendant No.1. It was further contended that the above mentioned cheque and the promissory note were obtained as a collateral security of the said amount. That after he repaid the amount borrowed and defendant No.1 demanded the plaintiff to return the documents, but the plaintiff had made the defendant No.1 to believe that the documents were misplaced and they would be returned as and when traced. That defendant No.1 had believed the plaintiff and did not persuade the plaintiff to return the promissory note and the cheque mentioned above and therefore, urged the court dismiss the suit.
5.Basing on rival pleadings of the parties including the documents relied upon by the parties and on hearing the parties, my learned predecessor on 03.03.2021 framed/settled the following issues:
1. Whether the suit promissory note, jameen and receipt are
true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2. To what relief?
6. Thereafter, on 27.02.2024, the following additional issue was framed by my learned predecessor.
Page 8 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG “ Whether the plaintiff is a professional money lender doing money lending business without valid license and thereby violated the provisions of Telangana Money
Lenders Act ” .
7.In the course of trial to establish his case, the plaintiff himself got examined a PW1 and exhibited Exs.A1 and A2 as documentary evidence. Ex.A1 is the original Promissory Note, dt.10.10.2014. Ex.A2 is the original jameen, dt.10.10.2014.
8.In order to support his case, the plaintiff got examined one
T. Rayapu Reddy as PW2.
9.On behalf of defendants, the defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW1. (Exs.B1 to B15 were exhibited in the course of cross- examination of PW1). Ex.B1 is the CC of chief examination and cross- examination of the witness examined as PW1 in OS No.520 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the decree in OS No.137 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge’s Court, Nalgonda. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of plaint in OS
No.101 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda
Page 9 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG against V. Anjali Devi and another. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of the plaint in OS No.100 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court,
Nalgonda filed against A. Krishnaiah. Ex.B5 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.458 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court,
Nalgonda. Ex.B6 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.414 of 2015 on the file on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda. Ex.B7 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.120 of 2013 on the file of Hon’ble
Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. Ex.B8 is the certified copy of
complaint vide CC No.179 of 2016 on the file of Principal JMFC,
Nalgonda. Ex.B9 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.186 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda. Ex.B10 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.118 of 2018 on the file of Hon’ble Principal
District Judge, Nalgonda. Ex.B11 is the certified copy of complaint
along with certified copy of pronote vide CC No.165 of 2018 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda. Ex.B12 is the certified copy of the judgment in CC No.165 of 2018. Ex.B13 is the certified copy of FIR along with certified copy of charge sheet in Crime No.3 of 2019 registered with Nalgonda I Town Police Station. Ex.B14 is the certified copy of Judgment in CC No.719 of 2017 on the file of Special JFCM (for
Page 10 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
Proh. & Excise offences), Nalgonda. Ex.B15 is the relevant portion marked in certified copy of the deposition of PW1 in CC No.165 of 2018 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda.
10.After closure of the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendants, heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant No.1.
11.The plaintiff/P.W.1 in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination had restated the contents as expressed in the plaint.
Therefore, narrative of those facts over again will not serve any useful purpose.
12.During the cross examination PW.1 testified that he has a medical shop. He earns about Rs.60,000/- per month. He is an income tax assessee. He denied the suggestion that he is a money lender and lends money on interest to known people. That since 2014 he had been lending loans to persons who are known to him on interest. He admitted the suggestion that he filed suit vide OS No.520 of 2006 against one Suryanarayana for recovery of Rs.50,000/- on the file of
Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of chief examination and cross-examination of the witness examined as PW1 in
Page 11 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG the said suit. PW1 admitted that he filed a suit vide OS No.137 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda against one Mendu
Mahipal Reddy for recovery of money of Rs.2,58,500/-. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of decree in OS No.137 of 2011. He admitted that he filed suits vide OS No.100 of 2015 and OS No.101 of 2015 on the file of this court against A. Krishnaiah and V. Anjali Devi respectively seeking recovery of money basing on promissory note. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.101 of 2015 on the file of this court filed against
V. Anjali Devi and another. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of plaint in OS
No.100 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda filed against A. Krishnaiah. He admitted that he also filed a suit vide OS
No.458 of 2015 on the file of this court against one V. Anjaiah @
Anjaneyulu for recovery of money basing on pronote (sic., simple mortgage deed). Ex.B5 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.458 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda. He admitted that his wife Vijayalaxmi filed OS No.414 of 2015 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge Court, Nalgonda against one V. Anjaiah @ Anjaneyulu for
recovery of money basing on pronote for Rs.10,56,500/-. Ex.B6 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.414 of 2015 on the file of this court.
Page 12 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
He admitted that he filed OS No.186 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge’s Court, Nalgonda against one Kema Ramya for Rs.15,00,000/-.
He admitted that he filed OS No.120 of 2013 on the file of Hon’ble
Principal District Judge, Nalgonda against one Ch. Shyam Sunder
seeking recovery of money. He admitted that he filed OS No.218 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda against one Konda
Saidulu seeking recovery of money basing on the promissory note. He admitted that he filed OS No.120 of 2013 on the file of Hon’ble
Principal District Judge, Nalgonda against one Ch. Shyam Sunder
seeking relief of recovery of money. Ex.B7 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.120 of 2013 on the file of Hon’ble Principal District
Judge, Nalgonda. He admitted that he filed complaint alleging the
offence under Section 138 of NI Act against one K. Venkata Ramulu vide CC No.179 of 2016 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda. Ex.B8 is the certified copy of the complaint vide CC No.179 of 2016 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda. Previously he was cross examined on 10.11.2022 and had admitted that he filed OS No.186 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda against one Kema Ramya and others seeking relief of recovery of money of Rs.15,00,000/-. Ex.B9 is
Page 13 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG the certified copy of the plaint in OS No.186 of 2017. He admitted that he filed OS No.18 of 2018 on the file of Hon’ble Principal District
Judge, Nalgonda against P. Ananda Reddy and others seeking relief of
the recovery of money of Rs.20,64,000/-. Ex.B10 is the certified copy of the plaint in OS No.18 of 2018 on the file of Hon’ble Principal District
Judge, Nalgonda. He admitted that he filed complaint alleging offence
under Section 138 of NI Act against one D. Ashok vide CC No.165 of 2018 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda. Ex.B11 is the certified copy of the complaint along with certified copy of pronote vide CC
No.165 of 2018 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda. He admitted that the said case vide CC No.165 of 2018 ended in acquittal. Ex.B12 is the certified copy of the judgment in CC No.165 of 2018. He admitted that the case was registered against him by Police Nalgonda I Town for running illegal chit business vide Cr.No.3 of 2019 under Section 420
IPC and Sections 3, 5, 10 (ib) and 13 of Money Lenders Act and a charge sheet was also filed in that case. Ex.B13 is the certified copy of
FIR along with the certified copies of charge sheet. He admitted that police have seized 14 signed blank promissory notes, signed blank cheques, 07 original sale deeds, original agreement of sale (11 in
Page 14 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG number) and three diaries in connection with crime No.3 of 2019 vide
CC No.848 of 2019 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda. He did not
disclose the alleged loan amount that was lent to the defendant No.1 in his income tax returns. He admitted that since 2001 he had been filing
cases against various persons for recovery of money basing on loan
advance with interest. He admitted that he did not have money lending licence to lend loans. However, he had been lending loans with interest with interest to various persons. He denied the suggestion that despite repayment of loans by various persons he never used to return the blank promissory notes and other documents and he used to misuse them and foist cases against them. He denied the suggestion in the course of investigation, police have found that he is a money lender and had been doing money lending business without licence.
He denied the suggestion that taking advantage of blank promissory notes and other documents that were in his possession, he conveniently filled up the documents and filed cases against various persons with an intention to extract money. He denied the suggestion that the defendant No.1 had already retained the entire amount, but he took the advantage of the promissory note that was in his possession
Page 15 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG and had foisted the case. He denied the suggestion that the defendants are not liable to pay any amount as the defendant No.1 had already repaid the amount. He denied the suggestion that he misused the cheque that belonged to defendant No.1 and filed a false cheque bounce case and therefore, defendant No.1 was acquitted in CC No.719 of 2017 on the file of Special JMFC (for Proh. & Excise offences),
Nalgonda. Ex.B14 is the certified copy of judgment in CC No.719 of 2017 on the file of Special JMFC (for Proh. & Excise offences),
Nalgonda. He denied the suggestion that in the course of cross- examination in CC No.165 of 2018 on the file of Principal JMFC,
Nalgonda he admitted that in the month of January, 2019 police raid was conducted and the same was published in Andhra Jyothi newspaper on 11.01.2019 stating that he was doing money lending business and a criminal case was registered against him on the ground that he was harassing the accused. Ex.B15 is relevant portion in the certified copy of deposition of PW1 in CC No.165 of 2018 on the file of
Principal JMFC, Nalgonda. Ex.A1 was scribed by G. Prabhakar Rao.
He admitted that in Ex.A1 there was no mention that Prabhakar Rao had scribed Ex.A1 and Prabhakar Rao had not appended his signature
Page 16 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG to Ex.A1. He admitted that in the course of cross-examination in CC
No.719 of 2017 on the file of Special JMFC (for Proh. & Excise offences),
Nalgonda he had deposed that he did not know the name of person who scribed the promissory note ie. Ex.A1. He denied the suggestion that had Prabhakar Rao scribed Ex.A1 he would have mentioned his name and appended his signature to Ex.A1. He denied the suggestion that neither Prabhakar Rao nor Venkanna were present at the time of alleged execution of Ex.A1. He denied the suggestion that defendant
No.1 had obtained loan from him as his mother was contesting as
Ward Councilor for Nalgonda Municipality. He denied the suggestion that the defendant is not liable to pay and he is not entitled to recover money from the defendants.
13.PW2 in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination had testified that he knows the parties to the suit and the witnesses namely Gone Prabhakar Rao and N. Venkanna. That on 10-10-2014 he went to the house of plaintiff (Pw1) to meet the plaintiff and at that time the defendant, one Gone Prabhakar Rao and N. Venkanna were present in the house of the plaintiff and in his presence, the plaintiff (PWl) had given an amount of Rs.5,00,000-00 (Rupees five lakhs only)
Page 17 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG to the defendant. That having received the said amount, the defendant had executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff (PW1) by agreeing to repay the loan amount together with interest at the rate of 24% P.A. from the said date till the date of realization and the said Gone Prabhakar Rao and N. Venkanna had also attested the said promissory note as attesting witnesses. That the above transaction took place in his presence. That he can identify the signatures of the defendant. Ex.A1 is the promissory note, which bears the signatures of the defendant and the said G. Prabhakar Rao and N. Venkanna.
14.In the course of cross-examination, PW2 testified that he hails from Warrangal. He has been residing in Nalgonda since 1990.
He had a house at DVK Road, Nalgonda and reside in the house. His house is situated near Sidhardha College. He had no close acquaintance with Venkanna and Prabhakar Rao but he knows both of them. He met Prabhakar Rao and Venkanna on the date of transaction i.e., on 10.10.2014 for the first time. He met the defendant in real medical shop Nalgonda situated at DVK Road few times and that is how he knew him. He can identify Gopinadh if he would see him.
Prior to the transaction few times he met Gopinadh at real medical
Page 18 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG shop. The chief affidavit was prepared by the advocate and he subscribed signature to it. PW2 denied the suggestion that he did not know the contents of the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief and he is deposing falsely. He knew the plaintiff from 20 to 25 years as the plaintiff is the owner of real medical shop and he purchases medicines at his shop. He did not know if the plaintiff has any other business besides the medical shop. He learnt that the plaintiff is in habit of lending money. He did not know if a criminal case has been registered against the plaintiff for lending money without money lending license. He did not know if any criminal cases are filed against the plaintiff accusing that the plaintiff lends money and obtains blank promissory notes and Cheques and plaintiff does not return the promissory notes and Cheques even after the amount payable under them have been repaid by the borrowers to the plaintiff and plaintiff files cases with false claims basing on the above mentioned promissory notes. He did not know if the cases filed by the plaintiff seeking the realization of money on the promissory note are being dismissed as false cases. That on the date of transaction, he went to the medical shop by then the plaintiff and the defendant were
Page 19 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG already present at the shop and the defendant brought the promissory note. That the defendant borrowed Five Lakhs rupees. That the denomination of the notes that were delivered to the defendant are five hundred notes in ten bundles. That after execution of the promissory note the amount was delivered to the defendant. That the promissory note was in English. That the promissory note was in printed format and the names were filled in English. That there are four signatures on the promissory note. That the scribe of the promissory note is one Prabhkar Rao. That the Prabhkar Rao signed promissory note as attesting witness but not as a scribe. That the
Prabhkar Rao signed twice on the promissory note and Venkanna subscribed two signatures on the promissory note. He did not know the purpose for which the defendant borrowed money. PW2 denied the suggestions that he did not know the defendant and the witnesses, that he has not witnessed the execution of the promissory note and the transaction covered by the promissory note, that since he is not a witness to the transaction and the execution of the promissory note he did not append his signature to the promissory note and that the defendant had not executed the suit promissory note in his presence
Page 20 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG and he had not witnessed the delivery of the amount covered by the suit promissory note. He did not know if the plaintiff filed a cheque bounce case against the defendant on the file of Spl. JFCM for Excise,
Nalgonda C.C.No.719 of 2017 and the case ended in acquittal. PW2 denied the suggestion that the defendant had repaid the loan under the suit promissory note and the plaintiff did not return suit promissory note despite the re-payment and he filed the instant suit with a false claim by conveniently filling of the blank promissory note delivered by the defendant at the time of transaction. PW2 denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the execution of suit promissory note and the suit transaction. That at the request of the plaintiff he is giving evidence as a witness. PW2 denied the suggestion that as the plaintiff is his friend, he is deposing falsely supporting his claim. PW2 denied the suggestion that there is no evidence to prove that he had witnessed the execution of suit promissory note and the suit transaction. PW2 denied the suggestion that the defendant did not owe any amount to the plaintiff under the suit promissory note. He did not know if the amount payable under the promissory note had been
Page 21 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG repaid by the defendant to the plaintiff. PW2 denied the suggestion that he was not a witness to the transaction and he is deposing falsely.
15.On behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.1 in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief-examination as DW1 had narrated the facts as stated in his written statement and denied the transaction and the execution of the documents and further DW1 testified that he had no necessity to borrow the alleged loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.10.2014 from the plaintiff (PW1) and the alleged attestors are yes- man of the plaintiff and they did not know him. DW1 further testified that PW2 who was examined for the plaintiff was also not known to him and the said Pw2 was a planted witness. PW2 is no way concerned with the alleged loan transaction as he has not signed on the alleged promissory note. DW1 testified that very long back he had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff (PW1) as hand loan and at that time of advancing the said amount, as per the demand of the plaintiff, he had given his blank signed promissory note along with a cheque bearing No.352299 of State Bank of Hyderabad,
Nalgonda to the plaintiff. Later, he repaid the loan amount. After repayment of the loan amount, he had demanded the plaintiff for
Page 22 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG return of his blank signed promissory note and cheque, but the plaintiff had informed to him that the said documents were misplaced and he agreed to return the same as and when traced out. Having belief and faith on the plaintiff he did not insist the plaintiff to return the said documents, but the plaintiff with a malafide intention to filled the promissory note in collusion with the alleged attestors and scribe had filed the present suit with all false and baseless allegations to extract money from him. DW1 testified that the plaintiff had filed a case under NI Act vide CC No.719 of 2017 before the JFCM (for Proh.
& Excise offences), Nalgonda. After full length of trial, the said court was passed a judgment on 13.03.2024 by dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff by acquitting him from the charges leveled against him.
DW1 testified that the said court gave finding that the complainant failed to establish that the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Moreover, the amount lent by the plaintiff to him is unaccounted money. Therefore, such debt is not recoverable, consequently he is not liable for the offence under Section 138 of NI
Act.
Page 23 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
16.In the course of cross-examination of DW1, he testified that he is a Graduate. He is a Realtor and a Civil Work Contractor.
DW1 admitted that he was Congress Party worker for Long period and presently he is a worker of TRS/BRS Party. DW1 admitted that
D2/Burri Srinivas Reddy is his acquaintance. DW1 admitted that D2 had been Chairman Ramalayam, Nalgonda and presently D2 is the
Municipal Chairman, Nalgonda. DW1 admitted that his mother had earlier worked as Councilor. DW1 denied the suggestion that he had taken only Two Lakhs rupees from PW1. DW1 admitted that he issued a cheque No.352299 drawn on SBH for Rs.4,00,000/-, he did not issue cheque for Four Lakhs. He issued cheque for Two Lakhs. He delivered blank cheque appending his signature to the cheque. DW1 admitted that D2 and himself appended signatures to the promissory note. DW1 adds that it was a blank Promissory Note with no material particulars such as amount, date etc. DW1 denied the suggestions that the entire transaction took place on 10.10.2014 at the house of PW1, that he executed promissory note in the presence of one G.Prabakar Rao,
N. Venkanna, Rayapu Reddy and wife PW1 at the house of PW1, that he had availed a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs Rupees) from
Page 24 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG the plaintiff and for the repayment of the amount he issued the cheque for Rs.4,00,000/-. He had received legal notice from the plaintiff seeking repayment of the loan amount. DW1 adds that he had not availed loan of Five Lakhs. That he did not get any reply notice issued stating he had availed only Two Lakhs Rupees Loan but not Five
Lakhs Rupees as claimed by the plaintiff in the legal notice. DW1 denied the suggestion that there are some civil and criminal cases filed against him. DW1 adds that there are some politically motivated cases filed against him. DW1 admitted that a cheque bounce case was filed against him and he knows that it is a criminal case. When DW1 confronted with the promissory note i.e. EX.A1 he admitted that the adhesive stamps of the promissory note and the receipt bear his signatures. DW1 admitted that in the column meant for surety on
Ex.A1 the defendant No.2 signed. DW1 denied the suggestion that on 10.10.2014 in the presence of defendant No.2 the plaintiff had delivered the loan amount and he had executed the demand promissory note after duly filling all the material columns for Rupees Five Lakhs as principle amount, chargeable with an interest of 24%. DW1 denied the suggestion that to evade payment of suit amount he is deposing falsely
Page 25 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG that he had not availed loan for Rupees Five Lakhs. DW1 denied the suggestion that to evade payment of the suit amount he took a defence that plaintiff is into money lending business without license and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to seek repayment of the loan amount. DW1 denied the suggestion that as the cheque bounce case mentioned above ended in acquittal, on the premise of his acquittal in the cheque bounce case he is trying to evade payment in the instant suit. That to evidence the fact that he repaid Rupees Two Lakhs he has not filed any documentary evidence. That as the plaintiff is his relative he did not insist issuance of any receipt after he repaid the amount under Promissory Note. DW1 denied the suggestion that after repaying the amount due under promissory note did not get any legal notice issued requesting the defendant not to lay any claim on the promissory note as he already repaid the entire amount. DW1 deposed that plaintiff is his relative and he hails from his community. DW1 deposed that he availed loan from plaintiff as he fell short of funds as he was into real estate business.
Page 26 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
17.Additional Issue:
“Whether the plaintiff is a professional money lender doing money lending business without valid license and thereby violated the provisions of Telangana Money Lenders Act”
18.The defendant in the instant case contends that the suit shall be dismissed as the plaintiff is the money lender who had lent the suit amount without a money lending licence. For better understanding, I deem it appropriate to reproduce the extract of the definition of money lender as defined under Section 2 (7) of Telangana
Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli. Money lender means “a person including pawn broker who within the meaning of this Act only advances loan in ordinary course of his business or does so along with other businesses and shall include the legal representative of such person and the person claiming to be his representative on the ground of succession or assignment or otherwise”.
19.The counsel for the defendant contended that the plaintiff should be non-suited for the reason that he had lent monies to several people without proper money lending licence. He further contended that the suit transaction is one among the several transactions which
Page 27 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG the plaintiff had transacted without having money lending licence. He also contended that the plaintiff is not a casual money lender, but he is a professional money lender who conducted slew of money transactions without having a valid licence.
20.Per contra the counsel for the plaintiff contends that a stray or an isolated money transaction will not make a person a money lender. He further contended that the plaintiff had acquaintance with the defendants and therefore, out of the acquaintance the plaintiff had lent money to the defendant and lending money to known people will not make a person a money lender and he cannot be construed as a money lender falling on all fours of the definition of money lender as defined under Section 2(7) of Telangana Money Lenders Act, 1349
Fasli.
21.To prove his contention, the defendant in the instant case relied on Exs.B1 to B15. Ex.B1 is admittedly the certified copy of examination in chief and cross examination of the witness examined as
PW1 in OS No.520 of 2006 and the suit is filed basing on a pronote chargeable with interest. Admittedly, the plaintiff herein had filed the suit against the defendant therein for recovery of money. PW1
Page 28 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG categorically admitted that he filed OS No.137/2011 against one
Mendu Mahipal Reddy and Ex.B2 is the certified copy of money decree in OS No.137 of 2011 and the suit was filed basing on a promissory note which levied interest. PW1 also admitted that he filed
OS No.100 of 2015 and OS 101 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge’s Court, Nalgonda against A. Krishnaiah and V. Anjali Devi
respectively for recovery of money. Ex.B3 is certified copy of plaint in
OS No.101 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda
against V. Anjali Devi and it was based on a promissory note stipulating interest. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.100 of 2015 filed against A. Krishnaiah on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s
Court, Nalgonda and the suit claim based on a promissory note stipulating interest. He further admitted that he filed OS No.458 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda against
V. Anjaneyulu for recovery of money basing on deed of simple mortgage. Ex.B5 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.458 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda. That PW1’s wife namely Vijayalaxmi filed OS No.414 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge’s Court, Nalgonda against V. Anjaneyulu for recovery of
Page 29 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
Rs.10,56,500/-. Ex.B6 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.414 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda. PW1 also admitted to have filed OS No.186 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge Court, Nalgonda against one Kema Ramya for Rs.15,00,000/-.
Ex.B9 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.186 of 2017 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda. He admitted that he filed OS
No.120 of 2013 on the file of Hon’ble Principal District Judge,
Nalgonda against one Shyam Sunder seeking recovery of money. He also admitted that he filed OS No.218 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil
Judge, Nalgonda against one Konda Saidulu for recovery of money
basing on promissory note. Admittedly, he filed OS No.120 of 2013 on the file of Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Nalognda against one
Shyam Sunder seeking recovery of money. Ex.B7 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.120 of 2013 on the file of Hon’ble Principal District
Judge, Nalgonda.
22.He admitted that he filed complaint alleging an offence under Section 138 of NI Act against one Venkata Ramulu vide CC
No.179 of 2016 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda. Ex.B8 is the certified copy of the complaint vide CC No.179 of 2016 on the file of
Page 30 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
Principal JMFC, Nalgonda. He admitted that he filed OS No.18 of 2018
on the file of Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Nalgonda against one
P. Ananda Reddy and others seeking the relief of recovery of money of
Rs.20,64,000/-. Ex.B10 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.18 of 2018 on the file of Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. He admitted that he filed complaint alleging an offence under Section 138 of NI Act against one D. Ashok Reddy vide CC No.165 of 2018. Ex.B11 is the certified copy of complaint along with certified copy of pronote vide CC No.165 of 2018 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda.
Ex.B12 is the certified copy of the judgment in CC No.165 of 2018.
23.He admitted that a case was registered against the plaintiff for running illegal chit business by Police Station Nalgonda I Town vide Crime No.3 of 2019 under Section 420 IPC and Sections 3, 5 and 10 (ib) and 13 of Telangana Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli. Ex.B13 is the certified copy of FIR along with certified copy of charge sheet in
Crime No.3 of 2019 registered with Nalgonda I Town Police Station.
He went on to admit that police had seized 14 blank promissory notes, signed blank cheques, 07 original sale deeds, original agreement of sale deeds (11 in number), and three dairies in connection with Crime No.3
Page 31 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG of 2019 vide CC No.848 of 2019 on the file of Prl. JMFC, Nalgonda.
Ex.B14 is the certified copy of the judgment in CC No.719 of 2017 on the file of Special JMFC (for Proh. & Excise offences), Nalgonda. Ex.B15 is the relevant portion marked in certified copy of the deposition of
PW1 in CC No.165 of 2018 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda. On perusal of Ex.B15, I find that PW1 in the cross-examination dated 30.12.2021 in CC No.165 of 2018 on the file of Principal JMFC,
Nalgonda testified that police had conducted raid against him and a news article had been published in Andhra Jyothi news paper on 11.01.2019 mentioning that PW1 was doing money lending business and some criminal cases are filed against him accusing him of harassing the people for money. The counsel for the defendant in this regard placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature, Hyderabad in Ramasalamma v. Potturi Venkata Srinivasa
Raju, 2012 (2) ALT 218 wherein the Hon’ble High Court in para No.29 in the given case held that; the excerpt of extract the para No.29 is reproduced as hereunder:
“the burden of proof is, of course, on the defendant, but it is well settled that when once the evidence of both the parties is placed
Page 32 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
before the Court, the question of burden of proof loses much of its
relevance, unless the evidence is evenly balanced. Even otherwise, the broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record as analysed above indicate Peda Basi Reddy being in the habit of advancing loans to persons as a matter of regular business indicating a certain degree of system and continuity about the transactions without any possibility of dismissing the transactions under Exs.A1 to A4 as four isolated transactions of money lending or casual transactions. Even if two transactions under Exs.B4 and
B9 did not stipulate in the promissory notes payment of any interest, and are therefore, capable of being construed to be not loans under the Act, the other evidence probablises Basi Reddy being a money lender within the meaning of Section 2 (7) of the
Act”.
24.I deem it pertinent to refer to the definition of loan as defined under Section 2(4) of the Act to mean a loan secured or unsecured advanced on interest in cash or in kind and shall include every transaction which is in substance a loan and shall not include transaction specified in the provision.
Page 33 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
25.The counsel for the defendant further relied on the judgment in V. Naga Vinay v. Ch. Sambasiva Rao and another, 2019 (2) ALD (Crl.) 256, wherein the Hon’ble High Court in para No.10 in the given case held that; the excerpt of extract the para No.10 is reproduced as hereunder:
“Thus the conjunctive study of Exs.D1 and D2 and also the deposition of PW1 would give an understanding that the complainant is a regular money lender, within the ambit of Section 2(7) of A.P. (T.A.) Money Lenders Act. Since Exs.D1 and D2 originated from civil suit between the same parties, those documents are relevant for the purpose of determining the fact about the status of the complainant”.
26.The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is not a money lender, but he was in the habit of lending money to the people who had acquaintance with the plaintiff. PW1 in his cross- examination admitted that he lends money to persons on interest and since the year 2014 he has been lending money to persons who are known to him, on interest. Adverting to Section 2 (7) and Section 2 (4) of Telangana Money Lenders Act, which defines money lender and
Page 34 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG loan, I am of the considered opinion, the sections does not distinguished monies that are lent to known people and monies that are lent to persons not known to the lender. The counsel for the plaintiff relied on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in K. Sudersanam v. S. Venkata Rao., AIR 1963 AP 442, wherein it was held that “in order to fall within the definition of “money- lender” it was not enough merely to show that a man had, on several occasions, lent money at remunerative rates of interest and there must be certain degree of system in continuity about the transactions and the definition of ‘money lender’ in the Act did not include those who advanced monies casually”. He also relied on the judgment in Somanath
Baraman and others v. Raja S.V. Jagannatha Rao., AIR 1973 A.P. 144, wherein it was held that “in order to attract provisions under Section 3 (5)
(a) of Money Lenders Act, plaintiff should be a money lender i.e., a person advancing monies in normal course of business, in a district without holding a licence. It does not prohibit and therefore, does not invalidate an isolated transaction of lending money”.
27.Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence, i.e., evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and DW1 coupled with the documentary
Page 35 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG evidence i.e., Exs.A1 and A2 juxtaposed with the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.B1 to B15, I am of the considered opinion that the contention of the plaintiff that a stray or isolated instance of money lending transaction will not make Pw1 a money lender is not tenable.
Pw1 himself categorically admitted that he had been lending monies to people known to him. Section 9 of Telangana Money Lenders Act stipulates that if it is proved that plaintiff is a money lender as defined under Sub-section (7) of Section 2, but does not hold a licence granted under Section 3 the court shall dismiss his suit. Having regard to
Exs.B1 to B15 it cannot be said that there was no continuity or the suit transaction was just a stray instance of money lending transaction.
Ex.B1 to B15 demonstrate systematic and a certain degree of system and continuity of transactions. The word business imports the notion of system, reputation and continuity and it must be shown that the plaintiff is in the habit of advancing loans to persons as a matter of regular business. The enactment of Telangana Money Lenders Act is enacted to curb mal practices of money lender in course of his business and to protect unwary debtors.
Page 36 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
28.Section 9 (1) of the Act casts an obligation on the court to frame and decide whether a person is registered as a money lender and whether he has complied with Sections 3 and 5. The effect of non registration of person as a money lender is stipulated in sub-sections (2), (2A) and (3) of Section 9 of the Act. As per Sub-Section (2) of
Section 9 of the Act, the suit by a person for recovery of money is liable to be dismissed. If such person does not hold a licence granted under
Section 3 (2) of the Act. In the light of foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the contention of the plaintiff that the suit transaction was an isolated instance of money lending is not tenable and it is vivid from Ex.B1 to B15 that plaintiff had been continuously lending huge amounts to several persons charging interest and the monies that were lent hitherto were not evidently paltry amounts, therefore, the plaintiff should be construed as money lender and debt covered by Exs.A1 and A2 cannot be regarded as legally enforceable debt and in view of Section 9 of Telangana Money Lenders Act, the court shall dismiss the suit on the ground that the suit transaction is hit by Section 9 (2) of Telangana Money Lenders Act. Further I find that from Ex.B1 to B15, admissions made by PW1 in his cross-examination,
Page 37 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG it can be safely inferred/deduced that the plaintiff is a money lender.
In the light of foregoing discussion the additional issue is answered against the plaintiff.
29.Issue No.1:
As the additional issue is answered in negative, the issue
No.1 if the suit promissory note, jameen and receipt are true, valid and binding is rendered irrelevant and academic in the given set of facts and it is of no consequence. Hence, the issue No.1 is answered in negative against the plaintiff.
30.Issue No.2:
In the light of findings given in the additional issue and issue No.1, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
31.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of March, 2025.
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nalgonda. FAC: Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.
Page 38 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
PW1: Lingampally Gopal
PW2: T. Rayapu Reddy
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT No.1:
DW1: Merugu Gopinath
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1 is the original Promissory Note, dt.10.10.2014.
Ex.A2 is the original jameen, dt.10.10.2014.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT No.1:
Ex.B1 is the CC of chief examination and cross-examination of the witness examined as PW1 in OS No.520 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda.
Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the decree in OS No.137 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda.
Ex.B3 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.101 of 2015 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda against V. Anjali Devi
and another.
Ex.B4 is the certified copy of the plaint in OS No.100 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda filed against A. Krishnaiah.
Ex.B5 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.458 of 2015 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda.
Page 39 of 39
Judgment dt.11.03.2025 in OS No.250 of 2017 of ADDL. SCJ, NLG
Ex.B6 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.414 of 2015 on the file on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda.
Ex.B7 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.120 of 2013 on the file of
Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Nalgonda.
Ex.B8 is the certified copy of complaint vide CC No.179 of 2016 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda.
Ex.B9 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.186 of 2017 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda.
Ex.B10 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.118 of 2018 on the file of
Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Nalgonda.
Ex.B11 is the certified copy of complaint along with certified copy of pronote vide CC No.165 of 2018 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda.
Ex.B12 is the certified copy of the judgment in CC No.165 of 2018.
Ex.B13 is the certified copy of FIR along with certified copy of charge sheet in Crime No.3 of 2019 registered with Nalgonda I Town Police Station.
Ex.B14 is the certified copy of Judgment in CC No.719 of 2017 on the file of Special JFCM (for Proh. & Excise offences), Nalgonda.
Ex.B15 is the relevant portion marked in certified copy of the deposition of PW1 in CC No.165 of 2018 on the file of Principal JMFC, Nalgonda.
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nalgonda. FAC: Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.
Page 1 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT : NALGONDA
Present: B. Deepthi Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nalgonda FAC: Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.
Tuesday, on this 07th day of January, 2025
O.S.No.127 of 2014
BETWEEN:
1.Pandula Srinivas S/o. Pallaiah, Aged: 39 years, Occ:Pvt.Employee.
2.P.Ravi Kumar S/o. Pallaiah, Aged: 36 years, Occ: Pvt.Employee.
Both are residence of H.No.6-3-121/B 89, Gandhinagar, Ramagiri, Nalgonda town and District.
… Plaintiffs
And
1. Pandula Pallaiah, S/o. Lingaiah, Aged: 60 years, Occ: Nil, R/o.H.No.6-3-121/B 89, Gandhinagar, Ramagiri, Nalgonda town and District.
2. Pasunuri Srinivas, S/o. Manoher, Aged: 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Chityal Village and Mandal and Nalgonda District.
… Defendants
This suit coming for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri.P. Shyam Sunder, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs; and Sri. Chokkalla Naga Raju, Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.2; and the defendant No.1 was set ex parte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:
Page 2 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs against the
Defendants for partition.
2.The brief facts which are necessary for
adjudicating the dispute involved in the instant suit, are
as follows:
i.The plaintiffs are own brothers and they are the sons of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 constitute
Hindu Joint Family members and the plaintiffs’ father namely
Pandula Pallaiah who is the defendant No.1 herein is the head of the family and Kartha of Undivided Hindu Family.
ii.Plaintiffs are having Joint Hindu Family property situated in Sy.No.572 ad-measuring Ac.1.05 guntas equivalent 45 hectare situated at Narketpally Village and Mandal of Nalgonda
District within the limits of Grampanchayat and Mandal Praja
Parishad Narketpally Zilla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda situated within the following boundaries:
North: Land of Manda Lingaiah and Others.
South: National High Way No.9
East: 10 feet wide road Cart way in Sy,No.572 situated behind Sy,.No.571.
West: The remaining land situated in Sy.No.572
Page 3 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG iii.It was further contended that the suit schedule land is an Inam land and Joint Hindu Family Property and the plaintiffs hail from Schedule caste community. It was contended that the plaintiffs have 2/3rd share and the defendant No.1 has only 1/3rd share. It was further contended that to the surprise of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had in the recent times learnt when they approached Tahasildar,Narketpally that the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of defendant No.2. As such the plaintiffs had been to registration office, Nalgonda and obtained the photostat copies of the purported registered sale deed vide document No.4016 of 1994, dated: 30-03-1994 registered with sub-registrar, Office, Nalgonda. It was contended that plaintiffs were not aware of the existence of the above mentioned sale deed which had been registered in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1. It was contended that the defendant No.1 had no exclusive saleable rights in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. ad-measuring Ac.1.05 guntas in Sy.No.572 situated at
Narketpally Village and Mandal. It was contended that the defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule land from the Hindu
Joint Family funds as such the land in Sy.No.572 ad-measuring
Ac.1.05 guntas is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and
Page 4 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG defendant No.1 and therefore it shall not be construed as self acquired property of defendant No.1. It was contended that plaintiffs have 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property.
iv.The defendant No.1 has been addicted to alcohol and bad habits and by taking advantage of the addiction of defendant
No.1 without giving consideration and without informing plaintiffs the defendant No.2 procured the sale deed from defendant No.1.
It was contended that though the defendant No.1 executed the sale deed, defendant No.2 cannot get the full title in respect of the property. It was contended that plaintiffs had no knowledge of the sale transaction transpired between the defendant No.1 and 2. Defendant No.2 colluding with the defendant No.1 and got executed the sale deed and the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed and therefore the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs and it is therefore liable to be cancelled.
v.After learning about the existence of the sale deed plaintiffs got issued legal notice to the defendants through their counsel namely P. Shyam Sunder, Advocate on 04-10-2013 through registered post acknowledgment due stating that the defendant No.1 should not interfere with the plaintiff possession of suit schedule land. It further contended that defendants
Page 5 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG hatched the plan to sell away the suit schedule property through third parties and having learnt the same the defendant got issued legal notice on 04-10-2013 through P. Sham Sunder, Advocate stating that the defendant No.1 did not have exclusive saleable rights in respect of suit schedule property. It was further contended that as the defendant did not come forward for partition the plaintiffs held panchayat with caste elders and the village elders of the Narketpally village on 01-12-2013 and in the said Panchayat the defendant agreed for partition but the defendant did not come forward to execute the partition deed and therefore the plaintiffs were constrained to file the instant suit. It was further contended that no partition by metes and bounds was effected between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 and the
Joint Hindu Family did not have any debts.
vi.The cause of action for the instant suit arose on 30-03- 1994 on which date sale deed No.4016 by 1994 was registered with SRO, Nalgonda and also on 04-11-2013 on which date plaintiff got issued legal notice through the defendants through their advocate stating that the defendant No.1 did not have exclusive saleable right in respect of the suit schedule property and on 01-12-2013 on which date plaintiffs had held Panchayat
Page 6 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG
before the caste elders and the elders of Narketpally Village.
Hence, the suit.
3.The plaint was presented in the court by the plaintiff on 31.12.2013 and the plaint was taken on file by the court. The plaint was registered as suit vide O.S No.127/2013 and summons were issued to the defendant. On receipt of the summons, the defendant No.1 remained absent and therefore my learned
Predecessor had set ex parte the defendant No.1 on 30-06-2014 and for defendant No.2 one Sri. K.V.S., Advocate filed vakalat and filed written statement.
4.The defendant in his written statement had denied the allegations made by the plaintiff in toto and further asserted that the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious and it is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. It further contended that the suit suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of proper and necessary parties to the suit. All the legal heirs are not made as parties to the suit and all the properties were not shown in the schedule. The boundaries of the suit schedule land are false. It was further contended neither defendant No.1 nor his family is concerned with suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 is neither owner nor possessor of the suit schedule land. The
Page 7 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG plaintiffs filed the suit with false claim. It was further contended that the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 did not have any joint family property. It was further contended that the defendant No.2 purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed bearing No.4016 of 1994 on the rolls of SRO, Nalgonda, dated 30- 03-1994 and since the date of purchase he has been in the possession and enjoyment over the property purchased to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 made an application through revenue authorities to mutate his name and after due inquiry the revenue authorities mutated his name and also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of defendant No.2. It was further contended that the government has also acquired land to the extent of Ac.0.8½ guntas for extension of National High Way and it had that also paid compensation to defendant No.2 and revenue authorities had deducted the said extent in the pattadar pass book and the title deed and presently only to an extent of
Ac0.36 ½ guntas is available. The defendant No.2 constructed a compound wall and a room and also taken electricity connection
No.2998 for the said room and he has been paying the electricity charges and the defendant No.2 had perfected his title by efflux
Page 8 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG of time due to his uninterrupted and continuous possession over the land within the view and to the knowledge of one and all. The plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 have been residing under one roof and they filed the suit with intention to harass and fleece money from the defendant No.2.
5.Basing on rival pleadings of the parties including the documents relied upon by the parties and on hearing the parties this court on 08.09.2014 framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property?
2. To what relief?
6.In course of trial to establish his case, the plaintiff No.2 himself got examined as PW1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A6 as documentary evidence. PW2’s was evidence eschewed on 8.6.2021 as despite availing sufficient opportunity. PW2 did not turn up for cross examination Ex.A1 is the certified copy of
Adangal Pahani for the year 1997-98 Ex.A2 is the certified copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2002-2003 Ex.A3 is the certified copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2003-04 Ex.A4 is the certified copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2009-10. Ex.A5
Valuation certificate issued by Sub-Registrar, Nalgonda. Ex.A6 is
Page 9 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG certified copy of Registered sale deed Document No.4016 of 1994, dated 30-03-1994.
7.In order to support their case, the plaintiffs got examined one P. Srinivas as PW.2. Though, PW2 had filed his chief affidavit, he did not turn up for cross examination despite availing sufficient opportunity.
Therefore, the chief affidavit of PW2 was eschewed on 24.09.2021.
8.The plaintiff/P.W.1 in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination had restated the contents as expressed in the plaint. Therefore, narrative of those facts over again will not serve any useful purpose.
9.In the cross-examination, PW1 testified that he studied upto Degree. He was working as an Attender in Private College. That one Pandula Lingaiah is his grandfather and his grandfather had four sons and two daughters. PW1 testified that his father Pandula
Malliaiah is second son of his grandfather Lingaiah. He testified that Plaintiff No.1 himself and two other daughters are the children of defendant No.1. That his native village is Bollapally Village of Kattangur
Page 10 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG Mandal. His grandfather Lingaiah had Ac.2.00 guntas of agriculture land at Bollapally village and the said land was partitioned by PW1’s father and his father’s brothers at about 30 years back after the death of their grandfather Lingaiah that except the land at
Bollapally they did not have any other properties. His brother i.e. Plaintiff No.1, himself and defendant No.1 have been living together jointly at Nalgonda. That the suit schedule property is located in Sy.No.572 of
Narketpally Village. He admitted that A1 to A4 pahanies filed by him did not disclose that either his father or their grandfather or his family members had any land in Sy.No.572 at Narketpally Village. He denied suggestion that the suit schedule property was not the property of the family and he filed the instant suit to grab the land of defendant No.2.
10.After the closure of the plaintiffs’ evidence on behalf of defendants was led. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW1. In his examination in chief
DW1 testified that the instant suit filed by plaintiff for partition and separate possession is not maintainable
Page 11 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG and therefore liable to dismissed. He further testified that the plaintiff No.1 and 2 filed the suit in collusion with his father defendant No.1. He testified that plaintiffs’ claim that they are entitled to 2/3rd share and the defendant No.1 is entitled only to 1/3rd share and the suit schedule property is in their joint possession is false contention. Plaintiffs and defendant
No.1 were never in possession of the suit schedule land. That he had purchased the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1.05 guntas in Sy.No.572 under registered sale deed No.4016 of 1994(Ex.A6),
dated: 30-03-1994 on rolls of SRO, Nalgonda for a
valuable consideration of Rs.56,300/- and since then he has been continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. In view of his purchase, clear title and lawful possession the suit schedule property was recorded in his name and all concerned revenue records and the Revenue Authorities issued him
Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed vide No.69549 with
Patta No.1002. For extension of National High Way
No.9 the Government acquired Ac.0.8 ½ guntas of
Page 12 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG land . The said acquisition was done much prior to the filing of the suit and the acquired extent was deducted in revenue records against his Khata.
11.That he had constructed compound wall around his land of Ac.0.36 ½ guntas and after taking necessary permission from Grampanchayat office,
Narketpally vide Proc. No. 239/2014/NKP, Dt.25-06- 2014. He had constructed a room in it and grampanchayat had allotted a door No.4-112 and he had been paying property Tax for the property regularly. He had also taken electricity connection for the said room vide Service No.2998 (New
No.4050102998) and he had been paying electricity bills for the service number. He further testified that the above facts show that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and either plaintiffs or the defendant No.1 did not have any right over the property. He further contended that fact of this possession, purchase and the facts that he constructed compound wall for the property were known to everyone and they are open to all the
Page 13 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG residents of Narketpally Village and to the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 also. Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 filed the instant suit with a false claim. The defendant
No.2/DW1 got marked Ex.B1 and B2. Ex.B1 is bunch of property Tax Receipts (03 Nos.,) in respect of House
No.4-112 issued by grampanchayat office, Narketpally.
Ex.B2 is the Electricity Bill in service No.405002998, dated17-04-2010.
12.In the cross examination, DW1 testified that the suit schedule land is the agricultural land. The witness further added that at the time of his giving testimony the suit schedule land is not an agricultural land. He admitted that the plaintiffs had filed suit claiming a share in Ac.1.05 guntas in Sy.No.572 situated in
Narketpally revenue village. He further testified that
Ex.B1 pertains to House No.4-112 and it is a property tax receipt. He denied suggestion that Ex.B1 is not issued in respect of suit property.
13.DW1 denied suggestion that the suit schedule property is an agricultural land and where as Ex.B1 belongs to residential house bearing grampanchayat
Page 14 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG door No.4-112 as such Ex.B1 is not related to suit schedule property. Witness further testified that the land and the house appurtenant to the land are part and parcel of the house vide Door No.4-112. He denied suggestion that there is no proof to show that
Ex.B1 pertains to the suit schedule property. He testified that he did not know whether plaintiff filed the suit on 31-12-2013 on the file of this court. He did not know whether suit was registered on 15-02-2014. He denied suggestion that he obtained house permission on 25-06-2014 having come to know that the plaintiffs had filed the present suit though he had purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1994. At the time of obtaining permission he had not disclosed to the grampanchayat authorities regarding the pendency of the instant suit. He admitted that he did not disclose from what date the property tax was paid for the property. He cannot say for what period the property tax, vide receipt, dated: 22-12-2023, is paid. He admitted that he had not file the record to show that he had paid the property tax since 2014. Witness
Page 15 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG further added that he also possessed the property receipt for a period prior to 2022-2023. He denied suggestion that since he had paid the property tax as such he could not filed the receipt for the tax before the court. He denied suggestion that as the house permission was obtained after filing of the instant suit the house permission is inadmissible in evidence. He did not remember the amount of compensation received by him from the government for the land acquired from him. He did not file any documents with regard to acquisition of his land. The government acquired land from him in the year 2009. He obtained
NALA Permission in respect of suit schedule land for the construction of house. He admitted that he did not file any documents with regard to NALA conversion.
He did not remember the date of NALA conversion. He did not remember if NALA permission was obtained prior to land acquisition or after land acquisition. After land acquisition an extent of Ac.0.36 ½ guntas of land is in his possession out of the suit schedule land. He denied suggestion that the when the land was
Page 16 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG converted from agricultural land to non-agricultural land the extent of land shall be mentioned as square yards and not as guntas. Witness adds that when there is more extent it can be mentioned in guntas also. He did not know if permission was obtained for guntas or square yards. He cannot say for what extent of land he had obtained the permission. He cannot say in what extent he constructed house and what extent of the land had been kept vacant by him. He denied suggestion that Ex.B2 is not related to suit schedule property. He denied that Ex.B2 did not contain any details with regard to suit schedule property. Ex.B2 is in the name of P.Srinivas, Chinthal. Witness adds that the name “Chinthal” seen on Ex.B2 is the name of locality situated near Hyderabad and not near
Narketpally. Witnessfurther adds that “Chintha” is the one of localities of the Narketpally Village. He denied suggestion that there is no locality named “Chinthal” in Narketpally Village. He denied suggestion that the
DW1 had never delivered the possession of suit schedule land to him at any point of time. He denied
Page 17 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG suggestion that his contention that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 were never in suit schedule property is false contention. He did not remember if there was an agreement of sale prior to sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. Witness adds that his father dealt with the purchase of land from the defendant
No.1.
14.He denied suggestion that his contention that he had purchased the suit schedule property is false contention. Witness adds that originally the property was purchased by his father. He denied suggestion that he was not aware if the sale consideration is paid as his father dealt with the purchase of the property from defendant No.1. He denied suggestion that his contention that he had purchased the suit schedule property is false contention. He denied suggestion that since his father had dealt with transaction he did not know how much consideration was paid. DW1 at that junction added that the sale consideration is
Rs.56,300/-. He did not know the particulars of the transaction between his father and the defendant No.1
Page 18 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG prior to the sale deed. He denied suggestion that the suit schedule property is not a joint family property of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. He denied suggestion that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are having shares and possession over suit schedule property. He denied suggestion by taking undue advantage of the bad habits and addictions of defendant No.1 they got executed registered sale deed from defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule property. He denied suggestion that for purpose of the instant case he had obtained Ex.B1 and B2. He denied suggestion that defendant No.1 does not have exclusive saleable right in respect of suit schedule land. He denied suggestion that plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are having 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule and he is trying to occupy suit schedule land pertaining to the plaintiff.
Issue No.1:
15.It has been the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule land is an Inam land and the Joint Hindu
Family Property. However, there is no documentary evidence to prove that the suit schedule land is Inam
Page 19 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG Land. The bone of contention of the plaintiffs' have been that the suit schedule property is a Joint Hindu
Family Property land therefore the defendant No.1 did not have any exclusive saleable right in respect of suit schedule property and therefore the sale deed purported to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiffs and therefore inoperative against the plaintiffs. To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff the plaintiff got exhibited A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the pahani for the year 1997-98 and on perusal of Ex.A1, I find that in column
No.12 and 13, the name of defendant No.2 is shown as
Kathadar and possessor of land an extent Ac.1.05 guntas in Sy.No.572 of Narketpally Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District. Ex.A2 is pahani for the year 2002- 2003 and on closer scrutiny of Ex.A2, I find that in column No.12 and 13 the name of defendant No.2 is shown as Kathadar and possessor. Ex.A3 which is pahani for the year 2003-2004 the name of defendant
No.2 is shown as kathadar and possessor. Ex.A4 is the pahani for the year 2009-10 and as per the pahani the
Page 20 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG entries in column No. 12 and 13, as against Sy.No.572 for an extent of Ac.0.36 ½ guntas, the name of the defendant No.2 i.e. Pasunuri Srinivas is shown as pattadar and possessor Ex.A5is the valuation certificate issued Sub-Registrar, Nalgonda. Ex.A6 is certified copy of sale deed vide doc.No.4016 of 1994 executed on 30-03-1994. Ex.A6 is the sale deed under which the defendant No.2 is claiming right and title in respect of the suit schedule property.
16.It is settled principle of law that the burden of proof existence of Joint Family Property lies on the person who asserts that the Joint Family has a Joint
Family Property. In this regard I relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.S.Laxmaiah and Ors,.
Vs. L.Balasubramanyam and Ors., (2003) 10 SCC, 310; “ The Legal Principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being Joint Family Property only on account of existence of Joint Family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a Joint Family Property. If, However, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which Joint Family
Page 21 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG Property could be acquired there would be a presumption of the property being Joint and the Onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of Joint Family nucleus that was available”.
17.The person claiming that the property to be a
Joint Hindu Family property would have to discharge the initial burden. I am of the considered opinion that detailed facts as required under order 6 Rule 4 of C.P.C as to when and how the HUF property have become the HUF property must be clearly and categorically averred. In this regard I relied on judgment of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi inS.H.Surender Kumar
Vs.Sh.Dharani Ram and Others A.I.R 2016,DELHI 120 where in it was held that detailed facts as required by Order 6 Rule 4 of C.P.C as to when and how
HUF properties have become HUF properties must be clearly and categorically averred. Such averments have to be made by factual references qua each property claimed to be HUF property and as to how the same is a HUF property, and, in Law generally bringing
Page 22 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG in any and every property as HUF is in correct as there is tendency of litigants to include unnecessarily many properties as HUF properties.
18.In the instant suit PW1 in his cross-examination testified that his father had purchased the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1.05 guntas in
Sy.No.572 from one person in the year 1985 under registered sale deed. PW1 admitted that he had not mentioned in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief that his father purchased the land in the year 1985. He further admitted that defendant
No.2 has been in the possession of suit schedule land since 1994 i.e. since the date of purchase under Ex.A6.
He further admitted that the National High Way
Authority had acquired a portion of suit schedule property after paying compensation to defendant No.2.
It is settled principle of law that a self acquired property is not amenable for partition during the life time of the person who had acquired the property out of his own earnings. In view of the categorically admission by PW1 in his cross examination and the
Page 23 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1 to A6 which stand in the name of D2, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit schedule property is Joint Hindu Family property. Property separate or self acquired of a member of Hindu Joint
Family may be impressed with character of Joint Family
Property if it is voluntarily thrown by the owner into common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim there in, but to establish such abandonment a clear intention to waive separate rights must be established.It is not the case of plaintiffs that they have acquired right in the suit schedule property as defendant No.1 had thrown the suit schedule property into Joint hotchpotch. The
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that Ex.A6 is sham document and it is evident from the testimony of DW1 where in DW1 testified that he did not know if he had purchased the suit schedule land in Square Yards or guntas and DW1 had also testified that he did not know if NALA proceedings were obtained for the suit schedule land and in the light of the testimony of DW1
Page 24 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG it is vividly clear that the Ex.A6 is the sham document.
However, I am the considered opinion that this argument of counsel for the plaintiff is not tenable as irrespective of the weaknesses and frailties in the case of defendant, the plaintiff has to establish his case on the strength of his case and cannot be permitted to take advantage of the weaknesses in the case of the defendant. During course of cross-examination PW1 testified that his grandfather had to Ac.2.00 guntas of land in Bollapally Village and the said land was partitioned between his father and his brothers at about 30 years back after death of his grandfather and except that land they had no other properties.
However, there is no pleading that plaintiffs grandfather had Ac.2.00 guntas of land in Bollapally
Village and out of that nucleus the suit schedule property has been purchased. It is not res integra that any amount of evidence without pleadings shall not be permitted. It has been settled principle of Law that there cannot be any presumption that a Joint Hindu
Family should have Joint family property. Therefore
Page 25 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG Issue No.1 is accordingly answered against the plaintiffs holding that the suit schedule property is not amenable for partition and separate possession by the plaintiff.
Issue No.2:-
19.In view of the finding in Issue No.1, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered. In view of relationship between the parties, no costs awarded.
20. In the result suit is dismissed.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07th day of
January, 2025.
SECRETARY,
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,
NALGONDA.
FAC: ADDL .SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
NALGONDA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1: Pandula Ravi Kumar
PW2: Pandula Srinivas (Eschewed)
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT No.2:
Page 26 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG DW1: Pasunuri Srinivas
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of Adangal pahani for the year 1997- 98
Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of Adangal pahani for the year 2002- 03
Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of Adangal pahani for the year 2003- 04.
Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of Adangal pahani for the year 2009- 10
Ex.A5 is Valuation certificate issued by the Sub registrar,
Nalgonda.
Ex.A6 is the certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed Doc No.4016/1994,
dated: 30-03-1994.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT No.2:
Ex.B1 is the bunch of property tax receipts (3 Nos.) in respect of House No.4-112 issued by Gram Panchayath Office, Narketpally.
Ex.B2 is the Electricity bill with Service No.4050102998, dt. 17.04.2010.
SECRETARY,
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,
NALGONDA.
FAC: ADDL .SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
NALGONDA
Page 27 of 27
Judgment dt.07.01.2025 in OS No.127 of 2014 of Addl.SCJ, NLG
Page 1 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT
NALGONDA
Present: Smt.B.Deepthi, Secretary DLSA, Nalgonda. FAC: Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
Thursday, on this 18th day of January, 2025
Sessions Case No.221 of 2022
1.Name of the ::The State through P.S. Chandur complainant
2.Name of the accused ::
A1: Pagadala Venkataiah S/o.Lingiah, age: 26 years, caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Toddy tapper, R/o.Chamaledu Village, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District.
A2: Katta Rambabu @ Ramu, S/o. Lingaiah, age: 26 years, caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o.Kattavarigudem H/o.Chamaledu (V), Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District.
A3: Bommakanti Venkatesham S/o.Mallaiah, age: 50 years, caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Lorry driver, R/o.H.No. 6-8-19 Chandur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
3.Section of Law::U/sec.120 (b), 341, 307 r/w 34 IPC
4.Cr.No., and P.S.::Cr.No.57of 2021 of P.S. Chandur
5.P.R.C. No.::29 of 2021
Page 2 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda
6.Name of the Court,::Judicial Magistrate of First which committed Class(Special Mobile) at Nalgonda the case 7Prosecution ::Sri Jayaram Nayak, Addl. P.P. conducted by
8.Defence ::Mereddy Narsimha Reddy, Counsel conducted by for the accused
9.Plea of the ::Not guilty accused 10Finding of Court::Not guilty .
11Result::In the result, the accused is found .not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted u/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled.Theunmarked properties i.e., Scissor and Shirt which were deposited in the committalcourtvideCPR No.05/2024 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period through committal court. The accused is set at liberty forthwith and the Superintendent, District Jail, Nalgonda is directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other case/cases.
This case is coming on this day before me for final
Page 3 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda disposal in the presence of Sri Jaya Ram Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution; and of Sri Mereddy Narsimha Reddy, Counsel forthe accused; and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The State represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Police Station, Kanagal laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution as stated as folows:- i.That on 08.11.2023 at about 9.30 p.m., while PW1 was sleeping inside her house on a bed, the accused who is her son in an inebrited state tried to smother her with a pillow inorder to inherit her properties. It was alleged that when accused tried to smother PW1 with pillow she woke up and she screamed for help and on herein her screams the people her neighbourhood and PW2 who is her brother-in-law came upto her and he had rescued her. In this regard there after PW1 lodged reported with police on 09.11.2023.
Page 4 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda ii.Basing on the contents of the report, LW10 N.Anthi
Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in
Cr.No.163/2023, U/Sec.307 IPC and issued FIR and took up investigation.
iii.In the course of investigation, LW10 N.Anithi Reddy,
Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of
PW.1 at police station later he visited scene of offence which is the dwelling house of PW1 situated at Talakantigudem Village of
Kanagal Mandal and discret enquiry about occurrence he recorded the statements of PW1 to PW4 and LW5
Smt.Madireddy Kalpana. Thereafter secured presence of PW5 and PW6 and conducted scene of offence panchanama from seziuer panchanama and had seizued cotton pillow after description viz.32 Inchas length and 12 Inchas width, allegedly used by the accused for commission of the offence and photographed the scene of offence under the cover of scene of offence panchanama. On 11.11.2023 the accused was allegedly was arrested and confession of the accused had been recorded by LW10 N.Anthi Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police in presence of
PW7 and PW8 and thereafter had sought the judicial custody of
Page 5 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda the accused.
iv.Thereafter, LW10 deposited the seized properties in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda vide CPR No.206/2023. That the investigation had revealed that
PW1 has a daughter and son i.e. the accused and she has been residing in Talakantigudem Village along with the accused after death of her husband who had in his life time worked as
Constable. That husband of PW1 reportedly died in an extremist attack on police station,Dindi. That Pw1 has been eking out her livelihood by cultivation her Ac.8.00 guntas of land. Accused who had discontinued pursuing his B.Tech got addicted to bad habits and lavish life style. Accused had been reprimanded by the elders and counselled also. But the accused did not mend his ways and continued to pester PW1 for money. PW1 reported refused to give money to the accused. Upon which the accused allegedly hatched a plan to do away with PW1. Allegedly on 08.11.2023 at about 9.00 P.M. while Pw1 was sleeping on her bed the accused took a pillow placed it on her face and tried to smother her to death. That on completion of investigation LW10
Page 6 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda
N.Anith Reddy laid charge sheet against the accused.
3.Upon considering the material placed before the
Court, the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code was taken against the accused as per
Section 190 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda and the case was registered as PRC 04/2024.
4.On appearance of the accused before the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda the copies of
documents were furnished to him as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the case was committed to Hon’ble
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda as per Sec.209
Cr.P.C.
5.On receipt of the case file, the Hon’ble Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda had taken cognizance for the offence U/Sec.307 of Indian Penal Code against the accused as per Sec.193 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was numbered as SC 64/2024 and it was made over to this court as per Sec.194 Cr.P.C. for trial and disposal as per law.
Page 7 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda
6.On appearance of the accused before this court, on hearing the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and upon considering the material, the accused was examined as per Section 228(2) Cr.P.C for the accusation for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for which he denied and the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against the accused was framed as per Section 228(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
and read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which the accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.
7.For bringing home the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 as Prosecution Witnesses and exhibited Exs.P1 to P11 as documentary evidence and no material object(s) was/were marked.
List of witnesses examined by the prosecution:
PW1 -Mamidi Shankar is the de facto complainant
PW2 – Mamidi Shekar is the Injured
PW3 – P.Alievalu is the Injured
PW4 – SK.Saidulu is the Investigation Officer.
Page 8 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda
The evidence of LW10/Anthi Reddy, Sub-Inspector police,
PS,Kanagal/ I.O. and Evidence of LW5/Madireddy Kalalpana circumstances witness were given up by learned APP as all the material witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
Documents exhibited on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the report exhibited though
PW1
Ex.P2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 exhibited through
PW1
Ex.P3 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 exhibited through
PW2
Ex.P4 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 exhibited through
PW3
Ex.P5 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 exhibited through
PW4
Ex.P6 is the signature of PW5 on the scene of offence panchanama exhibited through PW5.
Ex.P7 is the signature of PW5 on the rough sketch exhibited through PW5
Ex.P8 is the signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama exhibited through PW6
Ex.P9 is the signature of PW6 is the rough sketch exhibited through PW6.
Page 9 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda
Ex.P10 is the signature of PW7 on confession panchanama exhibited through PW7
Ex.P11 is the signature of PW8 on confession panchanama exhibited through PW8
8.After closure of the prosecution evidence the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed as there is no iota of incriminating evidence available on record against accused.
9.Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned legal aid counsel for the accused.
10.Now, the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
POINT:
11.The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8. PWs.1 to 8 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW1 in his evidence testified that she did not know any facts of this case.
She did not lodge any report with the police. Once police had obtained her signature on blank papers without informing the
Page 10 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda purpose for which her signatuer was obtained. PW2 testified that he did not know the facts of the case and police had not examined him. PW3 too had testified that she did not know the facts of the case and police not had a recorded her statement.
PW4 testified he did not know the facts of the case and police had not recorded his statement. PW5 and 6 denied do have witnessed scene of offence and rough sketch panchanama.
They testified that police had obtained their signature on blank papers. PW7 and 8 testified that police had obtained their signature on blank papers and they had not witnessed confession panchanama.
12.PWs.1 to 8 were declared antagonistic to the case of prosecution and when they were examined by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor as per Section 154 of Indian
Evidence Act r/w Sec.162 Proviso of Cr.P.C nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution.
13.In the instant case learned Additional Public
Prosecutor had given up the evidence of LW10 N.Anith Reddy investigating officer and evidence of LW5Madireddy Kalpana as
Page 11 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda all the material witnesses failed to support the case of prosecution.
14.Having regard to the facts and circumstances on record, the prosecution failed to bring the essentials of Section 307 IPC against the accused on record and there is no evidence to establish that the accused had committed the said offence.
15.There is no scintilla of evidence on record in establishing the charge against the accused that he was the offender. There is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence and the prosecution failed to established the commission of the offence alleged and that he was the perpetrator of the crime. The prosecution failed to bring home the accused had committed the act with such intention or knowledge or done under such circumstances that if death be caused by that act, the offence of murder would emerge. The star witness PW1 herself did not support the case of the prosecution. Absolutely there is no legal evidence on record against the accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
Page 12 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda
16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted u/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled. The unmarked properties i.e., Pillow which were deposited in the committal court vide CPR No.206/2023 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period through committal court.
Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of January, 2025.
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority Nalgonda FAC: ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
NALGONDA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1 -K. Johnson is the de facto complainant and injured
PW2 – M. Kishan is the eyewitness
PW3 – B. Ramesh is the eyewitness
PW4 – P. Siddu is the eyewitness
PW5 – A. Sravan Kumar is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch and seizure of shirt of PW1
Page 13 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda
PW6 – M. Naga Raju is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch and seizure of shirt of PW1
PW7 – G. Raja Reddy is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama of the accused
PW8 – Mohd. Latheef baba is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama of the accused
PW9 – G. Satyanarayana is the investigating officer
FOR DEFENCE:
- Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 in the report exhibited though
PW1
Ex.P2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 exhibited through
PW1
Ex.P3 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 exhibited through
PW2
Ex.P4 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 exhibited through
PW3
Ex.P5 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 exhibited through
PW4
Ex.P6 is the signature of PW5 in the scene of offence panchanama exhibited through PW5.
Page 14 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda
Ex.P7 is the signature of PW5 in the seizure of shirt panchanama exhibited through PW5
Ex.P8 is the signature of PW5 in the rough sketch exhibited through PW5
Ex.P9 is the signature of PW6 in the scene of offence panchanama exhibited through PW6.
Ex.P10 is the signature of PW6 in the seizure of shirt panchanama exhibited through PW6
Ex.P11 is the signature of PW6 in the rough sketch exhibited through PW6
Ex.P12 is the signature of PW7 in the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused exhibited through PW7
Ex.P13 is the signature of PW8 in the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused exhibited through PW8
Ex.P14 is the report lodged by PW1 exhibited through PW9
Ex.P15 is the FIR exhibited through PW9
Ex.P16 is the scene of offence panchanama exhibited through
Pw9
Ex.P17 is the rough sketch exhibited through PW9
Ex.P18 is the seizure of shirt panchanama exhibited through
PW9
Ex.P19 is the relevant portion pertaining to the seizure of scissor in confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused exhibited through PW9
Ex.P20 is the medical certificate of PW1 exhibited through PW9
Page 15 of 15Judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in Sessions Case No.221 of 2022 ASJ, Nalgonda
Ex.P21 is the FSL report exhibited through PW9
FOR DEFENCE:
- NIL -
MATERIAL OBJECTS:
- NIL -
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority Nalgonda FAC: ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
NALGONDA
Page 1 of 8dt.03.03.2025,Orders in HMOP No.2/2025 Addl.SCJ, NLG
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
NALGONDA
Present: Smt.B.Deepthi, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nalgonda. FAC: Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda
Monday, on this 03 rd day of March, 2025
H.M.O.P No. 2 of 2025
BETWEEN:
1. Konam Ramesh S/o.Pandu, Age: 31 years, Occ: Pvt.Employee, R/o.H.No.5-59, Akkenapally Village of Narketpally Mandal and Nalgonda District .… Petitioner.No.1
And
2.Konam @ Komati Sri Ramya, W/o.Ramesh, Age: 22 years, Occ: House hold, R/o.H.No.1-212, Main Road, Kattangur Mandal and Nalgonda District. … Petitioner.No.2.
The petition coming before me for final hearing and for disposal in the presence of Sri N.Prasanna Kumar, Learned Advocate for the Petitioners; and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:
O R D E R
1.This petition is filed jointly by the petitioner No.1 and 2 under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the
Page 2 of 8dt.03.03.2025,Orders in HMOP No.2/2025 Addl.SCJ, NLG relief of dissolution of their marriage by way of grant of divorce by mutual consent.
2.The case of the petitioners is briefly stated as follows:
i.The petitioners are the husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 31.03.2019 at Sathya Sai Function
Hall, Meersahab gudem Road, Kattangur Village and Mandal of
Nalgonda District. Immediately after marriage the petitioners resided together at Akkanapally Village and Narketpally Mandal of Nalgonda District. Later they shifted to L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad for their livelihood. Both the petitioners are Hindus and they are governed by Mithakashara School of Law. The marriage was solemenized in accordance with customs, rites and ceremonies of their community.
ii.After solemenization of the marriage the petitioner
No.2 joined the conjugal society of the petitioner No.1. The marriage between the petitioner was consumated and couple led happy marital life for period of two months. There after disputes arose between petitioner.No.1 and petitioner No.2.
Page 3 of 8dt.03.03.2025,Orders in HMOP No.2/2025 Addl.SCJ, NLG
The petitioner No.2 left the company of petitioner No.1 on 12.9.2022 and the petitioner No.2 started living with her parents at Kattangur and petitioner No.1 started living at
Akkanpally village of Narketpally village of Nalgonda District.
Sebsequently several mediations took place at the Instance of the common elders of both sides, but their efforts were not fruitful.
iii. The petitioner have mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved by a decree of divorce as there is absolutely no possibility of the parties living together. The petitioner No.2 agreed not to claim any maintance in future from petitioner No.1 and both parites exchanged their valubles and articles which they had hitherto given to each other. The petitioners have filed the petition for divorce and the consent of of both the parties was not obtained by force, fraud or undue influence. That more than one year had elapsed since the parties are living separately. Hence, the petition.
3.Having registered the case, it was taken on file and adjourned to 14.07.2025 for appearance of parties after
Page 4 of 8dt.03.03.2025,Orders in HMOP No.2/2025 Addl.SCJ, NLG compliance of statutory period of six months as envisaged under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Meanwhile, IA.No.16/2025 and IA.No.17/2025 seeking advancement of the original petition from 14.7.2025 to 11.2.2025 and the petitioners were heard and allowed for the reasons stated therein. The petitioners filed a petition
U/sec.13-B(2) seeking waiving of the cooling of period vide.IA.No.16 of 2025. IA.No.16 of 2025 was allowed vide order stated 18.2.2025 waiving of the cooling of the period for the reasons/ grounds stated therein.
4.After appearance of both the parties on 24.02.2025, this court tried its best for reconciliation and for the reunion of the petitioners in compliance to section 23(2) of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But the parties clinged to take divorce. Hence the efforts were not successful.
5. The petitioners themselves got examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got exhibited Ex.P1 i.e. wedding card and Ex.P2 marriage photos (3 in Nos.).
6. Heard and perused the record.
Page 5 of 8dt.03.03.2025,Orders in HMOP No.2/2025 Addl.SCJ, NLG
7. The point for consideration is:-
“Whether the Petitioners are entitled for
decree for dissolution of their marriage as per Sec.13
(B) of Hindu Marriage Act”?
8. Point:
The contention of Petitioners is that their marriage took place on 31.03.2019 and they could stay amicably only for two months and there after differences of opinion and disputes took place and then petitioner No.2 left the company of petitioner No.1 on 12.9.2022 and starting living with her parents at Kattangur and the petitioner No.1 has been residing at Akkanapally village of Narketpally Mandal. It was contended that though the elder had made efforts to resolve the disputes between the petitioners the petitioners could not reconcile and they have decided to part their ways.
9.The petitioners who got examined themselves as
P.Ws.1 and 2 in their affidavits filed in lieu of their respective chief examinations had restated their version as stated in the petition. In view of the document filed by the petitioners this court is satisfied with the identity of the parties.
Page 6 of 8dt.03.03.2025,Orders in HMOP No.2/2025 Addl.SCJ, NLG
10. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, would demonstrate that the parties agreed for mutual divorce voluntarily and that they have been living separately from 12.9.2022 i.e., at about two years and 3 months prior to filing of this petition (petition is filed on 4.01.2025) and as they could not live together, they have mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved. That the parties have submitted that there was no force, fraud or undue influence and they have mutually consented to take divorce in view of the differences between them and also due to irretrievably break down of the marriage. That this Court is satisfied about the free consent of the parties for obtaining the divorce.
11.Considering the above circumstances, this court is of the view that all the ingredients of Sec.13B of Hindu Marriage
Act have been made out and satisfied. That there are irreconcilable differences in the marriage between the petitioners and therefore this is a fit case to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent as prayed by the petitioners.
Accordingly, the point is answered.
Page 7 of 8dt.03.03.2025,Orders in HMOP No.2/2025 Addl.SCJ, NLG
12. In the result, the petition is allowed. The marriage of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 which was solemnized on 31.03.2019 in Sathya Sai Function Hall, Meersahab gudem
Kattangur village and Mandal of Nalgonda District is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce by mutual consent under
Hindu Marriage Act, with effect from 3.3.2025.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist and corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the day of November, 2023.
Secretary,
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, NALGONDA
FAC: ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NALGONDA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the Petitioners:
P.W.1: Konam Ramesh P.W.2: Konam @ Komati Sri Ramya
For the Respondent:
-Nil-
Page 8 of 8dt.03.03.2025,Orders in HMOP No.2/2025 Addl.SCJ, NLG
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the Petitioners:
Ex.P1: is the wedding card
Ex.P2: is the marriage photos ( 3 photos)
For the Respondent:
-Nil-
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nalgonda FAC: Addl.Senior Civil Judge,
NALGONDA
Page 1 of 7
Judgment dt.23.01.2025 in OS No.74 of 2016 of Addl.SCJ, NLG
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
NALGONDA
Present: Smt.B.Deepthi, Secretary DLSA,Nalgonda, FAC: Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda
Thursday, on this 23rd day of January, 2025
O.S No.74 of 2016
BETWEEN:
Thota Shekhar S/o.Muthaiah Aged: 41 years, Occ: Advocate & Agriculture R/o.Shanthi Nagar, Nalgonda Town and District.
… Plaintiff
And
Potharaju Narsimha S/o.Pullaiah age: 58 years, Occ: Business Prop. Sri Sai Steel Palace, Shop Nos.5-5-1/16 and 5-5-1/17 (New) Shop No. 5-5-9 (Old) Collectorate Road, Prakasham Bazar, Nalgonda Town and District. … Defendant
This suit is coming for final hearing1 before me in the presence of Sri T.Someshwar Rao, Learned Counsel for Plaintiff; and Defendat stood exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant for the relief of recovery of money of Rs.6,06,000/- basing on the promissory note, dt.12.03.2015 executed by defendant.
Page 2 of 7
Judgment dt.23.01.2025 in OS No.74 of 2016 of Addl.SCJ, NLG
2.The brief facts set out in the plaint are stated as follows:- i.The plaintiff contends that the plaintiff and the defendant are acquainted with each other since long time. It was contended that the defendant had approached the plaintiff on 12.03.2015 when the plaintiff was at his house at
Nalgonda and had borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to meet his personal, family and business necessities. It was further contended that after receiving the amount the defendant had executed a promissory note on 12.03.2015 in favour of plaintiff. It was further contended that the defendant had agreed to repay the loan with an interest @ 24% per anuum from the date of borrowing i.e. 12.03.2015 till the date of repayment. As and when demanded by the plaintiff or to his order. Defendant had himself scribe d the promissory note. The above transaction took place in the presence of one
K.Yadagiri and One Mani Kumar who had subscribed their signature to the promissory note. It was further contended that the plaintiff is not a money lender as such no license is required under A.P.(Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act.
Hence, the suit.
Page 3 of 7
Judgment dt.23.01.2025 in OS No.74 of 2016 of Addl.SCJ, NLG ii.The suit was registered on 5.2.2016 and the summons were issued through court and RPAD and the summons remained unserved thereafter, for long time.
Hence, summons were permitted to be affected by substitute service on application filed under order 5 Rule 20 permitting publication of summons in the News Daily namely “Nava
Telangana”, Nalgonda Edition vide publication, dated:
11.12.2024. Despite publication of summons in ‘Nava
Telangana’ News Daily the defendant failed to enter appearance and therefore the defendant was set exparte.
3.Now the point for consideration is
1. Whether the suit promissory note and receipt are true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2. To what relief?
4.In the course of trial to establish his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 and A2 as documentary evidence. Ex.A1 is the original Promissory
Page 4 of 7
Judgment dt.23.01.2025 in OS No.74 of 2016 of Addl.SCJ, NLG
Note, dt.12-03-2015, Ex.A2 is the original receipt, dated:
12–03-2015.
5.In order to support his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1.
6.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff.
7.The plaintiff/P.W.1 in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination had restated the contents as expressed in the plaint. Therefore, narrative of those facts over again will not serve any useful purpose.
8.It has been the claim of the plaintiff the defendant approached him on 12.03.2015 seeking loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to meet his personal and business necessities and had a executed a promissory note for Rs. 5,00,000/- chargeable with an interest 24% per anuum payable on demand or to the order of the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff has been evidenced by Ex.A1, which is the suit promissory note, dated:
12.03,.2015 Ex.A2 the receipt, dated: 12.03.2015. On perusal of the suit promissory note and the receipt and find that the defendant herein had executed the promissory note in favour
Page 5 of 7
Judgment dt.23.01.2025 in OS No.74 of 2016 of Addl.SCJ, NLG of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- agreeing to the repay with an interest of Rs.2/- per hundred and the promissory note and the receipt were attested by one
K.Yadagiri and Mani Kumar.
Further more PW2 also testified that when he was at the house of plaintiff the defendant came up to the plaintiff and sought a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to meet his necessities and the plaintiff had arranged the same and then the defendant had executed the promissory note agreeing to the repay the same along with an interest of 24% per annum. In the light of the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 coupled with the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 I am of the considered opinion that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 will give rise to presumption under
Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act that every Negotiable
Instrument is supported by consideration and the presumption in the instant case stood in tact. The evidence led by a plaintiff stood unrebutted and unchallenged giving rise to presumption under Sec.118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act.
In the light of foregoing discussion the suit is decreed.
Page 6 of 7
Judgment dt.23.01.2025 in OS No.74 of 2016 of Addl.SCJ, NLG
IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed with costs directing the defendant to repay Rs.6,06,660/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Six Thousand and Six Hundred and Sixty only) to the plaintiff with interest @ 6% per annum on principal sum adjudged i.e., Rs.6,06,660/- from the date of the suit till the date of realization.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23day of January, 2025
Secretary District Legal Services, Nalgonda FAC: ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
NALGONDA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : T.Shekhar
P.W.2: K.Yadagiri.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT :
Nil
Page 7 of 7
Judgment dt.23.01.2025 in OS No.74 of 2016 of Addl.SCJ, NLG
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1 Original Demand Promissory Note 12.3.2015 executed by the Defendant in my favour as Exs.A1.
Ex.A2 Original Receipt dated: 12-03-2015
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT :
Nil
Secretary District Legal Services, Nalgonda FAC: ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
NALGONDA
Order Record 6 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS/250/2017 | LINGAMPALLY GOPAL vs MERUGU GOPINATH | 11 Mar 2025 | Judgement | Acquitted |
| H.M.O.P/2/2025 | Konam Ramesh vs Vsx | 03 Mar 2025 | Judgement | — |
| SC/221/2022 | P.S. Chandur vs Pagadala Venkataiah | 18 Feb 2025 | Judgement | Acquitted |
| OS/74/2016 | Thota Shekhar vs Potharaju Narsimha | 23 Jan 2025 | Judgement | — |
| OS/127/2014 | Pandula Srinivas vs Pandula Pallaiah | 07 Jan 2025 | Judgement | — |
| SC/117/2021 | STATE OF TELANGANA THROUGH PS CHANDUR vs Domalapally Saidulu | 11 Dec 2024 | Judgement | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Smt. B Deepti handled?
Smt. B Deepti has handled 6 court orders since 2024 at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 1 orders per month.
What types of cases does Smt. B Deepti hear?
Based on available records, Smt. B Deepti primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is Smt. B Deepti currently posted?
Smt. B Deepti is posted as Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana.
Are judgments by Smt. B Deepti available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by Smt. B Deepti are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Smt. B Deepti dispose cases?
Smt. B Deepti disposes approximately 1 cases per month, based on 6 orders handled over their tenure at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex.
Since when is Smt. B Deepti serving?
Smt. B Deepti has been serving at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex since 2024.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Aug 2024 — Apr 2025Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda · 6 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court