Sri B.Kiran Teja

C.C.No.6852 of 20211 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- VI

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

Present : Banoth Kiran Teja VI Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.6852 of 2021

Chemangari Krishna Goud alias Ch. Krishna Goud, S/o.Sri Shankaraiah, Aged about 49 Years, Occ : Business, R/o.H.No. 10-115/50, Plot No.50, Old No.2-132, Nadergul Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State …Complainant AND

P.B.Raju Yadav, S/o. Sri Bala Swamy, Aged about: 43 Years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No.10-108/3, Nadergul Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Disť TS-501510.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 01.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Ram Reddy Dandem, learned counsel for complainant and Sri.Veera Babu Gandu , learned counsel for accused and having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.This private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has been filed by the complainant against the accused, for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act.

C.C.No.6852 of 20212 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

2.The brief allegations in the complainant are as follows :

i.The complainant submits that he is a resident of Nadergul village and is engaged in business including real estate. The accused is also a resident of the same village and is carrying on two-wheeler business in the name of

M/s. Apex Motors near Balapur ‘X’ Roads for the last six years. Both the complainant and the accused are well acquainted with each other for about ten years.

ii.The complainant submits that in the last week of May, 2017, the accused approached the complainant and requested for a hand loan of

Rs.25,00,000/- for expansion of his existing business and for establishing a new business, promising to repay the same within two years, with nominal interest. That, believing the representations of the accused, he initially arranged Rs.9,00,000/- by withdrawing amounts of Rs.4,00,000/-,

Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- on different dates from his bank account, but accused requested to provide total Rs.25,00,000/- at a time and complainant agreed to arranged possibly it about in week days, as he expecting funds from his relative-debtor. Thereafter, getting Rs.14,00,000/- from his near relative/borrower through bank transfer on 05.06.2017 and as obliged the complainant arranged Rs.15,00,000/- and transferred the same to the accused’s bank account on 08.06.2017. On the same day, the complainant also paid Rs.9,00,000/- in cash to the accused, thus the accused received a total hand loan of Rs.24,00,000/- and accused executed

C.C.No.6852 of 20213 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

a Debt Acknowledgement-cum-Undertaking dated 08.06.2017 agreeing to repay the said amount within two years with nominal interest.

iii.The complainant further submits that one P. Thirupathaiah, relative of the accused, stood as guarantor and attesting witness for the said transaction and also deposited his original property documents as collateral security towards repayment of the loan. That despite repeated requests, the accused failed to repay the loan amount within the agreed period and kept postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Further, in the last week of

June, 2019, the accused issued three post-dated cheques bearing Nos.

886576, 886577 and 886578, each for Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Balapur ‘X’ Roads Branch, towards discharge of the said liability.

iv.The complainant further submits that believing the assurances of the accused, he presented Cheque No. 886576 dated 05.09.2019 for

Rs.8,00,000/- on 05.09.2019, Cheque No. 886577 for Rs.8,00,000/- on 06.09.2019, and Cheque No. 886578 for Rs.8,00,000/- on 09.09.2019 through his banker, State Bank of India, Badangpet Branch, Hyderabad.

However, all the said cheques were returned unpaid with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient” vide return memos dated 05.09.2019, 06.09.2019 and 09.09.2019 respectively. Further, upon receipt of the dishonoured cheques, he approached the accused and informed about the same. The accused,

C.C.No.6852 of 20214 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

expressing financial difficulties, requested the complainant to re-present the cheques after 03.10.2019, assuring that sufficient funds would be arranged.

v.The complainant submits that, as per the request of the accused, he again presented Cheque Nos. 886576 and 886577 for Rs.8,00,000/- each on 04.10.2019 and Cheque No. 886578 for Rs.8,00,000/- on 10.10.2019 through the same bank. However, all the cheques were again dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient” vide return memos dated 04.10.2019 and 10.10.2019 respectively. Thereafter the complainant issued a statutory legal notice dated 02.11.2019 to the accused and the guarantor demanding payment of the cheque amounts within the stipulated period. Further, the legal notice issued to the accused was duly served on 05.11.2019 as evidenced by the postal acknowledgment card, and the notice sent to the guarantor was also delivered on 06.11.2019 as per the India Post tracking report. Despite receipt of notice, the accused failed to repay the amount and only sought time on one pretext or the other. The guarantor also failed to

honour his assurance. That despite service of notice and repeated demands,

the accused failed to discharge the legally enforceable debt and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. Hence, the complaint.

3.On considering the relevant material on record this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act against the accused.

C.C.No.6852 of 20215 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

4.On appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents was furnished to him in accordance with Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of the allegations in the complaint was explained to him. In response, he stated that though he had issued the cheques, he had already repaid the amount to the complainant by paying Rs.25,00,000/- in cash and by transferring a house property belonging to his mother, worth

Rs.20,00,000/-, in the name of one Sri Malla Reddy. Hence, he contended that he does not owe any amount to the complainant. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove his claim, the complainant got himself examined as PW1 by filing chief evidence affidavit and stated on oath the same facts as alleged in the complaint and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13.

7.After closure of the evidence on behalf of the complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of PW1 and stated that he had borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from Krishna Goud and

Rs.20,00,000/- from Malla Reddy. He further stated that as he did not pay

C.C.No.6852 of 20216 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

interest, a settlement was arrived at between them, wherein he agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.45,00,000/-. He further stated that he had already paid

Rs.25,00,000/- in cash and, in lieu of the remaining Rs.20,00,000/-, a house belonging to his mother was registered in the name of Malla Reddy. He also stated that the complainant still has several bonds and cheques in his possession.

8.Thereafter, the accused got into the witness box and got himself examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D5.

9.Both the learned counsels filed their written arguments. Heard arguments and perused the material available on record.

10.Now, the point that arose for consideration is – “Whether the Accused has committed an offence punishable Section 138 of N.I Act?”

POINT:

11.To prove his case, complainant examined himself as PW1 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Ex.P1 is Cheque bearing No.886576 dated 05.09.2019 issued by the accused on the State Bank of India, Meerpet

Balapur 'X' Road of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn in favour of the complainant. Ex.P2 is the Cheque Return Memo dated 04.10.2019 for last bounced Cheque

No.886576. Ex.P3 is the Cheque bearing No.886577 dated 05.09.2019 issued by the accused on the SBI, Meerpet Balapur 'X' Road Branch for

C.C.No.6852 of 20217 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

Rs.8,00,000/- drawn in favour of the complainant. Ex.P4 is the Cheque

Return Memo dated 04.10.2019 for last bounced Cheque No.886577. Ex.P5 is the Cheque bearing No.886578 dated 05.09.2019 issued by the accused on the State Bank of India, Meerpet Balapur X Road of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn in favour of the complainant. Ex.P6 is the Cheque Return Memo dated 10.10.2019 for last bounced Cheque No.886578. Ex.P7 is the Debt

Acknowledgment - Cum- Undertaking Document No.08.06.2017 containing 3-sheets of N.J.Stamps of Rs.100/- each for Total hand loan of

Rs.24,00,000/- obtained by the accused from the complainant. Ex.P8 is the

Office copy of Notice dated 02.11.2019 issued to the accused from the office of the complainant counsel by registered post acknowledgment-due. Ex.P9 is the Speed Post Receipt No EN978431827690 dated 02.11.2015 for the notice issued to the accused (in complaint, it was wrongly-typed as EN-431827680 by over-sight. Ex.P10 is the Postal Acknowledgment-Card for proof of delivery of speed post notice sent to accused bearing the delivering post office-Nadergul delivery, dated 05.11.2019. Ex.P11 is the Pattedar Pass-Book bearing No.102741 with Palta No.495 of P. Thirupataiah (Guarantor to the accused/borrower) as Collateral Security. Ex.P12 is the Registered sale-Deed bearing No.2087/2008 dated 19.03.2008 of Sri.P. Tirupataiah. Ex.P13 is the

Registered Sale-Deed bearing No.5709/2008 dated 23.07.2008.

C.C.No.6852 of 20218 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

12. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is necessary to consider the conditions stipulated under Section 142 N.I Act have to be fulfilled. It becomes imperative to mention that Section 139 of the N.I Act provides a statutory presumption in favour of the Drawee that the Cheque was issued to him in discharge of a debt or other liability of a legally enforceable nature.

Also, the said provision must be read along with Section 118 of N.I Act which states that every negotiable instrument is presumed to have been drawn and accepted for consideration. That said, what follows is that trial under section 138 N.I Act is structured on the premise of the reverse onus of proof theory since the offence is a document-based technical one. The journey of evidence begins not from the home of the Complainant story but from the point of the accused. The presumptions carved out in favour of the Complainant are those of law and not those of facts.

13.Further, it is settled legal position governing the field, in Rajesh Jain vs Ajay Singh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the execution of cheque and signature thereon are admitted, a statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises in favour of the holder that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. In P. Saiya vs Abdul Nazer, it was further held that the burden on the accused to rebut such presumption is not beyond reasonable doubt, but on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

C.C.No.6852 of 20219 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

However, in Shree Daneshwari Traders vs Sanjay Jain, the Apex Court has clarified that a mere denial or a bald plea is not sufficient and the accused must place cogent material to probabilize his defence.

14.Before moving forward, it is pertinent to discuss the relevant provisions of law which deal with legally enforceable debt or liability under the N.I Act which are Section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I Act. Section 118(a) of the NI Act deals with the presumption of consideration and Section 139 of

N.I Act deals with presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability and reads as follows :

118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments - Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:

(a) of consideration: that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

139. Presumption in favour of holder-

It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

15.It is further pertinent to mention the relevant judgments on the point of presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability. Reliance is placed by this court upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Rangappa v Sri mohan, (2010 11 SCC 441, Kumar Exports v Sharma

C.C.No.6852 of 202110 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, and Bir Singh v Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4

SCC 197, wherein it has held that the presumption under Section 139 N.I

Act is a presumption of law and not presumption of fact. It has further been held that it is not necessary that the cheque must have been filled by the accused himself and the accused may be liable even when the cheque has been filled by the complainant. The essential requirement is that the liability must exist on the date of the presentation of the cheque in question. It has been further held that once the signatures on the cheque are admitted then the court is bound to raise presumption under Section 118 r/w. 139 of N.I

Act regarding existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Further, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 N.I Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities". It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Rangappa v. Sri. Mohan , (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the N.I Act includes the presumption of the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 N.I Act, the standard of proof is that of the preponderance of probabilities, by which the accused is required to raise a probable defence. To rebut the presumption, it is open to the accused to rely on evidence led by him/her, or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the Complainant or the circumstances upon which the parties rely to raise a probable defence. It has been held by the

C.C.No.6852 of 202111 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC

418, that to rebut the presumption, the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the Complainant to raise a probable defence. The accused by cross-examining the Complainant can rebut the presumption of issuance of cheque in discharging of any debt or other liability. The inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the material brought on record but also by reference to the circumstances. The accused by cross-examining the Complainant can rebut the presumption of issuance of cheque in discharging of any debt or other liability. The accused can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defense and if the accused is proven to have discharged the onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was doubtful or improbable, the onus would shift on the Complainant who will be obligated to prove it as a matter of fact and upon his failure to prove would disentitle him for the grant of relief under

Section 138 of the N.I Act.

16.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Exports Private Limited v.

Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, held that to disprove the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence

C.C.No.6852 of 202112 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist.

17.Thus, as laid down in the catena of decisions it is an established law that the onus lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption and to establish that cheque in question was not given in respect of any debt or liability, with the standard of proof being the preponderance of probability.

Therefore, it becomes critical to examine whether the explanation of the accused coupled with the evidence on record is sufficient to dislodge the presumption envisaged by Sections 118 & 139 of N.I Act.

18.In the present case, the accused admitted the issuance of Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5. Further as per Ex.P2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P6, the cheques were returned for ‘Funds Insufficient’. The complainant issued statutory legal notice on 02.11.2019 i.e., Ex.P8 and Ex.P10 is the postal acknowledgment, as per Ex.P10. The notice was served on 05.11.2019, but no reply was issued to the said notice. Further, the complainant was filed on 19.12.2019 and the complaint was filed well within the prescribed period of limitation.

From the facts discussed under this para the statutory requirement to draw presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act, has been complied. Hence, it is made clear that the statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act, has been raised and Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 are issued by accused in favour of complainant for discharge of legally enforceable liability debt.

C.C.No.6852 of 202113 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

19.Apart from the above statutory presumptions, to prove the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant relied upon Ex.P7, Ex.P11 to

Ex.P13. The accused thoroughly cross-examined PW1. During the cross- examination of PW1 the accused took the following defence, through suggestions and that :

a)The accused never filled up the date and amount in Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5, though he admitted that the signatures appearing on Ex.P1,

Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 belong to him. That PW1 introduced accused to one B.

Malla Reddy, who allegedly advanced a hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to him in the year 2014, in the presence of PW1 and one Eilesh Yadav.

b)That he had received only Rs.15,00,000/- from PW1 and that the blank signed papers, namely Ex.P7, were misused by PW1 by filling up contents showing an amount of Rs.24,00,000/-, with Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 being used as collateral security documents.

c)The accused further took a stand that disputes arose between himself, PW1 and Malla Reddy regarding payment of interest, and that elders intervened and settled the matter. According to the accused, in the said settlement he was liable to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to Malla Reddy and Rs.15,00,000/- to PW1, totalling Rs.35,00,000/-, and with interest the total amount came to Rs.45,00,000/-, and the said settlement took place on 20.03.2019.

d)The accused further suggested that pursuant to the said settlement dated 20.03.2019, he paid Rs.25,00,000/- to PW1 and Malla

Reddy after selling the house standing in the name of his wife, and that the said amount was arranged through one Srinivas Reddy. He further suggested that after paying Rs.25,00,000/-, the remaining amount of

C.C.No.6852 of 202114 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

Rs.20,00,000/- was agreed to be paid within four months, failing which he will register the house of his mother in favour of Malla Reddy.

e)The accused also suggested that after registration of the sale deed in favour of Malla Reddy on 06.07.2019, PW1 and Malla Reddy declared that the original sale deed, promissory note and documents marked as

Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 were misplaced, and executed a document agreeing that if the said documents were traced out, they would return the same to the accused and would not file any case based on those surety documents.

f)Lastly, the accused took a defence that he is in no way connected with the alleged liability and that taking advantage of the blank signed papers, cheques and surety documents in their possession, PW1 filed the present false case against him.

20.During the cross-examination of PW1, the accused took the above- mentioned defence and put several suggestions to PW1 in support of the same. However, PW1 denied all the suggestions made by the accused. Except for making suggestions, the accused could not elicit anything substantial from PW1 during the course of cross-examination.

21. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence placed against him by PW1. In order to disprove the case of the complainant, the accused adduced defence evidence.

The accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D5.

C.C.No.6852 of 202115 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

Ex.D1 is the Electricity bill, dated 05.05.2023. Ex.D2 is the Property tax demand notice, dated 16.05.2023. Ex.D3 is the Certified Copy of sale deed bearing Doc.No.10432/2019, dated 24.05.2019. Ex.D4 is the Settlement deed, dated 20.03.2019. Ex.D5 is the Attested copy of registered sale deed in favour of one Malla Reddy, dated 06.07.2019. In support of his defence, the accused specifically relied upon Ex.D4 and Ex.D5.

22.During his chief-examination before the Court, DW1 stated that he had given eight blank signed cheques and blank Rs.100/- non-judicial bond papers to PW1. He further stated that PW1 arranged Rs.20,00,000/- from one Malla Reddy and also personally paid him Rs.15,00,000/-, thereby advancing a total amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. DW1 further deposed that he used to pay monthly interest to PW1 and Malla Reddy and that the total interest paid by him was Rs.1,35,000/- per month to both of them together.

He further stated that, as he could not repay the amount, on 20.03.2019 he entered into an agreement of sale in respect of his house and from out of the sale proceeds he paid Rs.25,00,000/- in cash to PW1 and Malla Reddy.

According to DW1, the total amount due from him, including principal and interest, was settled at Rs.45,00,000/-, out of which he paid Rs.25,00,000/- and sought four months' time to pay the remaining Rs.20,00,000/-. DW1 further deposed that he executed a written undertaking in favour of PW1 and Malla Reddy stating that if he failed to pay the remaining amount within

C.C.No.6852 of 202116 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

four months, he would get his mother's house registered in the name of any person suggested by them. Since he could not arrange the remaining amount within the stipulated period, he got the house of his mother registered in favour of Malla Reddy.

23.DW1 further stated that the complainant's brother-in-law and another friend were present at the time of registration of the sale deed and acted as witnesses. After the registration, DW1 demanded return of his blank signed cheques and bond papers from PW1 and Malla Reddy, but they informed him that the same were misplaced and assured him that they would return them if traced out. According to DW1, the said assurance was also reduced into writing on a white paper. Lastly, DW1 stated that thereafter PW1 misused the blank signed cheques issued by him and filed a false case against him.

24.During the cross-examination of DW1 : -

a)DW1 admitted his signatures on all the three pages of Ex.P7 and also identified the signatures of Attestor No.1, namely P. Thirupathaiah, who is his paternal uncle. However, DW1 stated that Ex.P7 was signed by him when he borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant, but according to him, it was signed on blank papers. DW1 further admitted that along with Ex.P7, he had also handed over the original documents marked as Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 to the complainant as collateral security for the hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/-.

C.C.No.6852 of 202117 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

b)DW1 also admitted his signatures on Ex.P10, the postal acknowledgment, and further admitted his signatures on Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5, which are the cheques involved in the present case. DW1 further admitted that he did not issue any reply notice to Ex.P8 i.e., legal notice issued by the complainant. He stated that after receipt of the legal notice, he personally met the complainant and questioned him as to why the case was filed despite payment of the entire amount.

According to DW1, the complainant then took him to the office of his advocate and the advocate advised them to settle the matter among themselves. DW1 further added that his brother-in-law and another friend accompanied him.

c)DW1 admitted that after the alleged payment of Rs.25,00,000/- on 20.03.2019, he did not issue any legal notice or demand notice to the complainant seeking return of the original documents which were allegedly stated to be missing. He also admitted that he did not lodge any complaint before the police or any Court for return of those documents. However, he stated that he informed the village elders about the same.

d)DW1 further admitted that Ex.D4 was prepared through his friend Ailesh at L.B. Nagar and that it was written on a non-judicial stamp paper. He admitted that Ex.D4 bears his signature and is dated 23.03.2019.

e)DW1 also admitted that even after filing of the present case by

PW1, he did not issue any notice to PW1 seeking return of the original documents, though he claimed that he demanded the same through phone calls. DW1 further admitted that Ex.D4 does not specify how much amount was paid separately to PW1 and how much amount was

C.C.No.6852 of 202118 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

paid to Malla Reddy. He also admitted that he did not mention the numbers of the blank signed cheques allegedly handed over to PW1 in

Ex.D4.

f)DW1 further admitted that PW1 neither signed as a witness nor participated in the execution of the sale deed in favour of Srinivas

Reddy. He also admitted that he did not make any payment to PW1 through bank except the admitted transfer of Rs.15,00,000/- made by

PW1 directly into his account in Bhagyanagar Co-operative Bank. DW1 further admitted that he did not file any document to show that he paid

Rs.1,35,000/- to PW1 and Malla Reddy as alleged in his chief- examination.

g)DW1 also admitted that his mother did not issue any notice or file any complaint against Malla Reddy seeking return of the original documents after registration of the house in favour of Malla Reddy. He further admitted that his paternal uncle, P. Thirupathaiah, who signed

Ex.P7, is still alive and that neither he nor his uncle issued any notice or filed any case seeking return of the original documents marked as

Ex.P11 to Ex.P13.

25.Further, complainant denied the execution of Ex.D4 and also denied his alleged signatures on the same. Complainant further denied having received Rs.25,00,000/- from the accused as alleged under Ex.D4.

26.From the material available on record, this Court observes that the accused has taken a specific defence that he had borrowed only

Rs.15,00,000/- from complainant and Rs.20,00,000/- from Malla Reddy,

C.C.No.6852 of 202119 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

totalling Rs.35,00,000/-. According to the accused, he was paying interest on the said amount, but as he failed to repay the same, a settlement was arrived at between himself, complainant and Malla Reddy, wherein the total amount payable by him, including principal and interest, was fixed at

Rs.45,00,000/-. According to him, he paid Rs.25,00,000/- to complainant and Malla Reddy under Ex.D4 and thereafter the remaining amount was adjusted by execution of Ex.D5 in favour of Malla Reddy. However, it is pertinent to note that the accused has admitted the execution of Ex.P1,

Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 cheques and also admitted execution of Ex.P7 and handing over of Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 as collateral security documents belonging to his paternal uncle, namely P. Thirupathaiah.

27.In order to dispute the case of the complainant, the accused mainly relied upon Ex.D4 and Ex.D5. According to the accused, Ex.D4 was a settlement deed executed between himself, complainant and Malla Reddy and Ex.D5 was executed in favour of Malla Reddy towards discharge of the remaining liability. However, complainant specifically denied the allegations contained in Ex.D4 and also denied his signatures appearing on Ex.D4.

Though the accused contended that Ex.D4 was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper, a perusal of Ex.D4 discloses that it was written on white papers and was notarized by a Notary Advocate by name Umapathi Rao on 23.03.2019. The accused stated that Ex.D4 was prepared at L.B. Nagar

C.C.No.6852 of 202120 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

through his friend Ailesh. However, there is no mention in Ex.D4 regarding the presence of all the parties at the time of notarization. Though there are attesting witnesses to Ex.D4, despite specific denial by complainant, the accused did not examine any of the attesting witnesses, Malla Reddy or the

Notary Advocate to prove the execution of Ex.D4 or the alleged signatures of complainant appearing thereon.

28.Further, though the accused claimed that he had paid a sum of

Rs.25,00,000/- to complainant and Malla Reddy, he did not file any documentary evidence to substantiate such payment. Except the self-serving recital in Ex.D4, there is absolutely no material to show payment of the said amount. Another defence taken by the accused is that he had issued blank signed cheques and had signed blank bond papers under Ex.P7, and that the complainant subsequently filled up the same and misused them for filing the present case. However, it is a settled principle of law that once the execution and signature on a document are admitted, the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the presumption arising therefrom. But accused failed to prove that he issued blank signed documents and the same were misused by the complainant.

29.In the present case, the accused admitted his signatures on Ex.P1,

Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and Ex.P7. He also admitted that Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 were

C.C.No.6852 of 202121 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

handed over as collateral security. However, except making bald allegations that the documents were blank at the time of execution, the accused did not produce any documentary evidence nor examine any independent witness to substantiate such contention. From Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and from the admissions made by the accused regarding issuance of Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and

Ex.P5 cheques, execution of Ex.P7 and handing over of Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 as security, this Court is of the opinion that complainant has successfully proved the statutory presumption available under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, apart from proving the allegations made in the complaint, legal notice and chief-examination affidavit.

30.On the other hand, though the accused has taken a specific defence and relied upon Ex.D4 and Ex.D5, he failed to prove the execution and genuineness of Ex.D4 by examining the attesting witnesses, Malla Reddy or the Notary Advocate. He also failed to establish that Ex.D5 was executed towards discharge of the alleged remaining liability under Ex.D4.

31.Accordingly, this Court holds that the complainant has successfully proved that the Ex.P1, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 in question were issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt and that the same were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and that despite receipt of statutory notice, the accused failed to make payment within the stipulated time Hence, in view of

C.C.No.6852 of 202122 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumption available in favour of the complainant under Section and 139 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and consequently he is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of April 2026.

VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

i.Accused present and heard the accused on the quantum of sentence that may be imposed on him. The accused submitted that he is doing small business, has family members depending on him and he is the sole bread earner of the family, and prayed this Court to take a lenient view.

ii. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused, who also reiterated the same and prayed to impose lesser punishment.

iii. The Court is conscious that the Legislature has incorporated Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to curb the practice of issuing

C.C.No.6852 of 202123 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

cheques without sufficient funds and to ensure credibility in commercial and monetary transactions. The nature of the offence and the manner in which it has been committed do not warrant extending the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.

iv. At the same time, considering the submissions made by the accused and his counsel, and having regard to the fact that the dispute is essentially of a financial nature between parties known to each other, this Court is inclined to take a moderate view while ensuring that the complainant is adequately compensated. Accordingly, the accused is convicted.

v. In R. Mohan v. A.K. Vijaya Kumar [(2012) 8 SCC 721], the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that the Court may impose a default sentence in case of non-payment of compensation.

vi. In Suganti Suresh Kumar v. Jagadeeshan [AIR 2002 SC 681], the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court may grant time or permit

payment of fine/compensation in installments.

vii. I n the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.34,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs only), which includes the cheque amount of Rs.24,00,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of this judgment. In default of payment of the said fine amount, the accused shall undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE (01) year. Out of the total fine amount of Rs.34,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs only), a

C.C.No.6852 of 202124 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) shall be remitted to the State under Section 357(1)(a) Cr.P.C., and the remaining amount of

Rs.33,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to pay the entire fine amount within four (4) months from the date of this judgment.

viii.The accused is appraised of his right of appeal and of free Legal Aid

Counsel. The accused stated that he has means to engage counsel on his behalf to prefer an appeal.

ix. Office is directed to furnish a free copy of this Judgment to the

Accused forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of April 2026.

VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT : FOR ACCUSED :

PW1 : Ch. Krishna Goud DW1 : P.B.Raju Yadav

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT :

Ex.P1 :Cheque bearing No.886576 dated 05.09.2019 issued by the accused on the State Bank of India, Meerpet Balapur 'X' Road of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn in favour of the complainant

Ex.P2 :Cheque Return Memo dated 04.10.2019 for last bounced Cheque No.886576

C.C.No.6852 of 202125 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

Ex.P3 :Cheque bearing No.886577 dated 05.09.2019 issued by the accused on the SBI, Meerpet Balapur 'X' Road Branch for Rs.8,00,000/- drawn in favour of the complainant

Ex.P4 :Cheque Return Memo dated 04.10.2019 for last bounced Cheque No.886577

Ex.P5 :Cheque bearing No.886578 dated 05.09.2019 issued by the accused on the State Bank of India, Meerpet Balapur X Road of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn in favour of the complainant

Ex.P6 :Cheque Return Memo dated 10.10.2019 for last bounced Cheque No.886578

Ex.P7 :Debt Acknowledgment - Cum- Undertaking Document No.08.06.2017 containing 3-sheets of N.J.Stamps of Rs.100/- each for Total hand loan of Rs.24,00,000/- obtained by the accused from the complainant

Ex.P8 :Office copy of Notice dated 02.11.2019 issued to the accused from the office of the complainant counsel by registered post acknowledgment-due

Ex.P9 :Speed Post Receipt No EN978431827690 dated 02.11.2015 for the notice issued to the accused (in complaint, it was wrongly- typed as EN-431827680 by over-sight

Ex.P10 :Postal Acknowledgment-Card for proof of delivery of speed post notice sent to accused bearing the delivering post office- Nadergul delivery, dated 05.11.2019

Ex.P11 : Pattedar Pass-Book bearing No.102741 with Palta No.495 of P. Thirupataiah (Guarantor to the accused/borrower) as Collateral Security

Ex.P12 :Registered sale-Deed bearing No.2087/2008 dated 19.03.2008 of Sri.P. Tirupataiah.

Ex.P13 : Registered Sale-Deed bearing No.5709/2008 dated 23.07.2008

FOR ACCUSED :

Ex.D1 :Electricity bill, dated 05.05.2023

Ex.D2 :Property tax demand notice, dated 16.05.2023

Ex.D3 :Certified Copy of sale deed bearing Doc.No.10432/2019, dated 24.05.2019

Ex.D4 :Settlement deed, dated 2003.2019

C.C.No.6852 of 202126 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

Ex.D5 : Attested copy of registered sale deed in favour of one Malla Reddy, dated 06.07.2019

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

- Nil -

VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

Present : Banoth Kiran Teja FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026

C.C.N.I. No. 53 of 2024

BETWEEN:- Arasani Paramesh, S/o. Narsimhulu, Aged 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.1, Yellareddy Colony, Opp. Apple House, Bagh Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District. … Complainant AND

Pasupuleti Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. P. Venkaiah, Aged: 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.57, Flat No.103, Sairam Colony, Gopanpally Road, Nallagandla, Ranga Reddy District. Or Kothavaddipalem, Chamadala village, Jaladanki Mandal, Nellore District – 524142. … Accused

This Calendar case is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. S. Shekar Reddy for the complainant, and of Sri. D. Gowri Shankar, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is filed by the complainant against accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, seeking to take cognizance of the offence, issue summons to the accused, 2 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 punish accused in accordance with law, and award compensation in the interest of justice.

2.The brief averments in the complaint are as follows :

i.The complainant submitted that the accused came in acquaintance with the complainant since two years through B. Narsimha, on such acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant on 09-02-2022 for hand loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) for his personal and family necessities, accordingly the complainant had arranged the aid amount of Rs.8,00,000/- through his known sources and paid cash to the accused on 09-02-2022 and after receiving the amount, the accused had executed a promissory note on 09-02-2022 in favour of the complainant in the presence of witnesses and further agreed to repay the aid amount within a short period.

ii.The complainant further submits that the accused did not repay the above said amount as agreed and failed to keep up his promise to the complainant. On repeated demands of the complainant, the accused had issued an account payee cheque bearing No. 000023, dated: 10-04-2022 for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Gachibowli

Branch in favour of the complainant towards discharge of the above said hand loan amount.

iii.The complainant further submitted that he had presented the said 3 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 cheque in his bank i.e., YES Bank Ltd., L.B.Nagar Branch, but surprisingly the cheque was returned unpaid for the reason ‘Funds Insufficient’ vide cheque return memo, dated: 16-04-2022. Immediately the complainant tried to contact the accused but accused evaded the complainant and failed to pay the said amount.

iv.The complainant further submitted that a legal notice dated 27.04.2022 was issued to the accused and the said notice was refused by the accused to receive the legal notice and returned on 28-04-2022 and another copy of notice sent to his other home town was also returned as Left on 04-05-2022.

Further, that the accused, with dishonest intention, issued the cheque without maintaining sufficient funds and stopped payment, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainants. Hence, the complaint.

3.On considering the relevant material on record this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act against the accused.

4.Upon service of summons, accused appeared before this Court. Copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and accused denied the allegations in the complaint, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove his case, complainant examined himself as PW1 got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Further the complainant got examined PW2 on his behalf.

4 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

6.After closure of the evidence on behalf of complainant, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of PW1 and stated that he has defence evidence. The accused himself was examined as DW1. Hence, the matter was posted for arguments.

7. Heard and perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point that arose for consideration is –

(i) Whether there existed a legally enforceable liability and if

so, the accused issued Ex. P1 cheque in discharge of such

liability?

(ii) Whether accused has successfully rebutted the presumption raised under Section 139 of N.I Act?

(iii) Whether the accused is liable for punishment under Section- 138 of NI Act beyond reasonable doubt?

9.In order to avoid repetition, point no. (i) and (ii) are discussed together.

POINT Nos.(i) and (ii) – (i) Whether there existed a legally enforceable liability and if so, the accused issued Ex. P1 cheque in discharge of such liability? & (ii) Whether accused has successfully rebutted the presumption raised under Section 139 of N.I Act?

10.However, before proceeding to the merits of the case, it is important to lay down the basic requirements of Section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881. In

Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi, (2009) 14 SCC 683, the Hon’ble 5 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

Supreme Court has culled out the essential ingredients in order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of N.I Act as highlighted below:

(i) A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;

(ii) The cheque should have been issued for discharge, in whole or in part, of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;

(iii) That cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;

(iv) The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;

(v) A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information by him of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;

(vi) The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

11.In addition to the above, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 N.I

Act have to be fulfilled. It becomes imperative to mention that Section 139 of the N.I Act provides a statutory presumption in favour of the Drawee that the

Cheque was issued to him in discharge of a debt or other liability of a legally 6 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 enforceable nature. Also, the said provision must be read along with Section 118 of N.I Act which states that every negotiable instrument is presumed to have been drawn and accepted for consideration. That said, what follows is that trial under section 138 N.I Act is structured on the premise of the reverse onus of proof theory since the offence is a document-based technical one. The journey of evidence begins not from the home of the Complainant story but from the point of the accused. The presumptions carved out in favour of the

Complainant are those of law and not those of facts.

12.Before moving forward, it is pertinent to discuss the relevant provisions of law which deal with legally enforceable debt or liability under the N.I Act which are Section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I Act. Section 118(a) of the NI Act deals with the presumption of consideration and Section 138 of NI Act deals with presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability and reads as follows :

118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments - Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:

(a) of consideration: that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

139. Presumption in favour of holder-

It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

7 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

13.It is further pertinent to mention the relevant judgments on the point of presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability. Reliance is placed by this court upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa v

Sri mohan, (2010 11 SCC 441, Kumar Exports v Sharma Carpets, (2009)

2 SCC 513, and Bir Singh v Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, wherein it has held that the presumption under Section 139 N.I Act is a presumption of law and not presumption of fact. It has further been held that it is not necessary that the cheque must have been filled by the accused himself and the accused may be liable even when the cheque has been filled by the complainant. The essential requirement is that the liability must exist on the date of the presentation of the cheque in question. It has been further held that once the signatures on the cheque are admitted then the court is bound to raise presumption under Section 118 r/w. 139 N.I Act regarding existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Further, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 N.I Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities". It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri. Mohan , (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the N.I

Act includes the presumption of the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 N.I Act, the standard of proof is that of the preponderance of probabilities, by which the accused is required to raise a probable defence. To rebut the presumption, it 8 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 is open to the accused to rely on evidence led by him/her, or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the Complainant or the circumstances upon which the parties rely to raise a probable defence. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, that to rebut the presumption, the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the Complainant to raise a probable defence. The accused by cross-examining the Complainant can rebut the presumption of issuance of cheque in discharging of any debt or other liability. The inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the material brought on record but also by reference to the circumstances. The accused by cross-examining the Complainant can rebut the presumption of issuance of cheque in discharging of any debt or other liability. The accused can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defense and if the accused is proven to have discharged the onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was doubtful or improbable, the onus would shift on the Complainant who will be obligated to prove it as a matter of fact and upon his failure to prove would disentitle him for the grant of relief under

Section 138 of the N.I Act.

14.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Exports Private Limited v.

Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, held that to disprove the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, the accused should bring on record such facts 9 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist.

15.Thus, as laid down in the catena of decisions it is an established law that the onus lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption and to establish that cheque in question was not given in respect of any debt or liability, with the standard of proof being the preponderance of probability. Therefore, it becomes critical to examine whether the explanation of the accused coupled with the evidence on record is sufficient to dislodge the presumption envisaged by Sections 118 & 139 of N.I Act.

16.Being cumulative, it goes without saying that it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 N.I

Act. This criminal liability can be attached by proving each of the elements of the section under which the liability is sought to be enforced. Now, it is upon the court to appreciate the evidence, documentary or oral, in the light of how compellingly it satisfies each of such ingredients.

17.As seen from the facts of the case the Ex.P1 was issued on 10-04-2022 and the same was returned on 16-01-2022 vide Ex.P2. After return of the 10 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

Ex.P2 the complainant issued statutory legal notice, dated: 27-04-2022 i.e.,

Ex.P3 to the said extent, the complainant filed Ex.P4, i.e, postal receipt dated:

27-04-2022. The the Ex.P3 was sent to two addresses of the accused wherein one address was sent through RPAD to the accused and same was returned on 28-04-2022 and the returned envelop which was received by the complainant on 02-05-2022 i.e., Ex.P5 and another postal cover was returned to the complainant on 04-05-2022. In the present case the legal notice was issued within a period and the notices were sent to two addresses. The first notice was returned on 28-04-2022, but it was received by the complainant on 02-05-2022. The complainant has to be filed within 45 days out of 15 days is for reply to the notice or making payment of cheque amount and another 30 days period is for filing for complaint, whereas the present case was filed on 16-02-2022 i.e., within the date of limitation. Hence this Court found that the complaint was done requirements U/Sec. 138 N.I.Act which is fulfill. Hence it is made clear that the presumption U/Sec. 139 N.I.Act raised. Now the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption.

18.Apart from the statutory presumptions available under law, in order to prove his allegations, the complainant has relied upon Ex.P7, i.e., the promissory note dated 09-02-2022 allegedly executed by the accused. The learned counsel for the accused has thoroughly cross-examined PW1. During the course of cross-examination, certain admissions were elicited from PW1.

11 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

19.PW1 deposed that he, along with another person, started from

Hyderabad at about 03:00 AM and reached Nellore at about 10:00 AM on 09- 02-2022, and that the promissory note (Ex.P7) was purchased and executed at the house of the accused at Nellore. PW1 further admitted that no interest was stipulated for the alleged hand loan amount.

20.During the cross-examination of PW1, the accused set up a defence that complainant had never visited Nellore. It was suggested that Ex.P1 cheque and

Ex.P7 promissory note were not issued towards any hand loan, but were connected to certain business transactions between the parties. It was further suggested that the complainant was in possession of six blank signed cheques belonging to the accused and his wife. The learned counsel for the accused also suggested that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to lend an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.

21.However, all the suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the accused were categorically denied by PW1. Nothing substantial was elicited during the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of PW1.

22.Further, the complainant examined PW2, who is stated to be a witness to the loan transaction. PW2 deposed that he acted as the scribe for Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P7 promissory note. He stated that the contents such as the name, date, and other particulars were written by him, whereas the amount of 12 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

Rs.8,00,000/- and the signature were filled in by the accused. PW2 further deposed that Ex.P1 was scribed by him on 06-04-2022. All other suggestions put forth during his cross-examination were denied, and nothing material could be elicited to discredit his testimony.

23.In order to rebut the statutory presumption, the accused examined himself as DW1; however, no documents were marked on his behalf. In his chief examination recorded in open court, DW1 stated that he had never met either PW1 or B. Narsimha at any point of time. He further stated that he had only spoken to the complainant over the phone regarding the supply of sand.

According to DW1, the complainant had promised to supply good quality sand for construction purposes and had obtained a blank signed cheque from him in that context. DW1 further stated that after supply of sand, he used to make payments regularly for each transaction without any delay.

24.DW1 further deposed that after some time, the complainant started supplying low quality sand and failed to maintain the agreed standard.

Consequently, DW1 stopped procuring sand from the complainant and approached another supplier. It is further stated by DW1 that he requested the complainant to return his cheque; however, the complainant did not return the same on the pretext that he would supply good quality sand in future. Despite repeated requests made by DW1, the complainant failed to return the cheque.

13 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

25.DW1 was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the complainant. During the course of cross-examination, DW1 admitted his signatures on Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P7 promissory note. He further admitted that he had not filed any document to show that he made payments to PW1 towards the alleged supply of sand. DW1 also admitted that after a few transactions, he met PW1 personally and handed over Ex.P1 cheque to him.

DW1 further admitted that he did not take any legal action against PW1 for the alleged non-return of the cheque and had not issued any legal notice in that regard. He also admitted that he had not produced any document to establish that there were sand supply transactions between himself and PW1.

Further, all other suggestions put to DW1 were denied by him.

26.From the facts discussed hereinabove, this Court observes that, in order to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the accused has taken two principal defences. Firstly, that Ex.P1 i.e., cheque and

Ex.P7 i.e., promissory note were issued in the course of business transactions relating to supply of sand, and not towards any hand loan. Secondly, that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to lend an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused.

27.In support of the second defence regarding financial capacity, the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble 14 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418. This

Court has already discussed the principles laid down in the said judgment at paragraph No.13 of this judgment.

28. In order to substantiate his defence, the accused has primarily relied upon the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 by putting several suggestions.

However, PW1 has categorically denied all such suggestions. Nothing material could be elicited from PW1 to probabilise the defence of the accused. The admissions, if any, made by PW1 during cross-examination do not support the case of the accused. Similarly, the evidence of PW2 also does not lend any support to the defence version, and all suggestions put to PW2 were denied.

Therefore, from the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the accused has failed to probabilise his defence or to disprove the case of the complainant through the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2.

29. Further, the accused examined himself as DW1; however, no documentary evidence has been produced on his behalf, nor has he examined any independent witness to substantiate his defence. On the contrary, the admissions made by DW1 during cross-examination, particularly with regard to his signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P7 and the issuance of Ex.P1, strengthen the case of the complainant.

15 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

30.The documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 form the foundation of the complainant’s case. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption attached to these documents or to establish that they were issued in connection with any alleged business transactions. Accordingly, the defence taken by the accused remains unsubstantiated.

31.Further, in order to rebut the submissions made by the accused, the complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in Sanjay Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, decided on 25 September 2025 in

Criminal Appeal No.1755 of 2010, wherin it was held that : -

19. Recently, the Kerala High Court in P.C. Hari vs. Shine Varghese & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5535 has taken the view that a debt created by a cash transaction above Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) in violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘IT Act, 1961’) is not a ‘legally enforceable debt’ unless there is a valid explanation for the same, meaning thereby that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act will not be attracted in cash transactions above Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand).

20. However, this Court is of the view that any breach of Section 269SS of the IT Act, 1961 is subject to a penalty only under Section 271D of the IT Act, 1961. Further neither Section 269SS nor 271D of the IT Act, 1961 state that any transaction in breach thereof will be illegal, invalid or statutorily void. Therefore, any violation of Section 269SS would not render the transaction unenforceable under Section 138 of the NI Act or rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act because such a person, assuming him/her to be the payee/holder in due course, is liable to be visited by a penalty only as prescribed. Consequently, the view that any transaction above Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) is illegal and void and therefore does not fall within the definition of ‘legally enforceable debt’ cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the conclusion of law in P.C. Hari (supra) is set aside.

16 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

21. This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that some District Courts and some High Courts are not giving effect to the presumptions incorporated in Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act and are treating the proceedings under the NI Act as another civil recovery proceedings and are directing the complainant to prove the antecedent debt or liability. This Court is of the view that such an approach is not only prolonging the trial but is also contrary to the mandate of Parliament, namely, that the drawer and the bank must honour the cheque, otherwise, trust in cheques would be irreparably damaged.

26. The Sessions Court too specifically rejected the contention of the Respondent No.1-Accused that the Appellant-Complainant had no means to advance the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) to the Respondent No.1- Accused. The relevant portion of the Sessions Court’s judgment dated 17 th September 2008 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “15…The contention of the accused, now in appeal, that the complainant had no means to sustain himself and was in debt to various institutions is not borne out from the records. No doubt, no documentary evidence is produced by the complainant nor any witness is there to prove that he gave Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused. But the circumstances, discussed above are such that the testimony of PW1 is sufficient to prove the said friendly loan transaction…” IN

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION, HIGH COURT DOES NOT, IN

THE ABSENCE OF PERVERSITY, UPSET CONCURRENT

FACTUAL FINDINGS

29. Furthermore, the fact that the accused has failed to reply to the statutory notice under Section 138 of the NI Act leads to an inference that there is merit in the Appellant-Complainant’s version. This Court in Tedhi Singh vs. Narayan Dass Mahant, (2022) 6 SCC 735 has held that the accused has the initial burden to set up the defence in his reply to the demand notice that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to advance the loan. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “10. … The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity. To that extent, the courts in our view were right in holding on those lines. However, the accused has the right to 17 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents. It is also open to him to establish the very same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. He can further, more importantly, achieve this result through the cross-examination of the witnesses of the complainant. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence.” (emphasis supplied)

32.Further, the complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Ashok Singh vs State Of U.P, decided on 2 April, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.4171 of 2024, wherin it was held that : - ‘8. From the order impugned, it is clear that though the contention of the petitioners was that the said amounts were given for producing a film and were not by way of return of any loan taken, which may have been a probable defence for the petitioners in the case, but rightly, the High Court has taken the view that evidence had to be adduced on this point which has not been done by the petitioners. Pausing here, the Court would only comment that the reasoning of the High Court as well as the First Appellate Court and Trial Court on this issue is sound. Just by taking a counter-stand to raise a probable defence would not shift the onus on the complainant in such a case for the plea of defence has to be buttressed by evidence, either oral or documentary, which in the present cases, has not been done. Moreover, even if it is presumed that the complainant had not proved the source of the money given to the petitioners by way of loan by producing statement of accounts and/or Income Tax Returns, the same ipso facto, would not negate such claim for the reason that the cheques having being issued and signed by the petitioners has not been denied, and no evidence has been led to show that the respondent lacked capacity to provide the amount(s) in question. In this regard, we may make profitable reference to the decision in Tedhi Singh v Narayan Dass Mahant, (2022) 6 SCC 735:

18 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 ‘10. The trial court and the first appellate court have noted that in the case under Section 138 of the NI Act the complainant need not show in the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity. To that extent, the courts in our view were right in holding on those lines. However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents. It is also open to him to establish the very same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. He can further, more importantly, achieve this result through the crossexamination of the witnesses of the complainant. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence.’ (emphasis supplied)’ (underlining in original; emphasis supplied by us in bold).

33.Further, in contra to the submissions made by the complainant, the accused has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019, decided on 09th April 2019, wherin it was held that : -

23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in following manner:-

(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.

19 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.

(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.

(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.

(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.

34.From the suggestions put forth during the cross-examination, it is evident that Ex.P1 cheque was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. The accused has merely taken a defence by way of suggestions during cross-examination. However, on careful perusal of the cross- examination of PW1, it is clear that nothing material has been elicited by the accused which would discredit the version of the complainant or probabilise the defence taken by the accused either in the reply notice or during trial.

35. In the backdrop of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. On the other hand, the complainant has successfully established his case by proving that Ex.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of 20 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 a legally enforceable debt, which is duly supported by Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2.

36.The accused has failed to place any cogent evidence, either oral or documentary, to substantiate his defence. Mere suggestions in cross- examination, without any supporting material, are not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. The inconsistencies and admissions in the evidence of

DW1 further weaken the defence set up by the accused.

37.Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the accused has failed to raise a probable defence or rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the

N.I. Act. The defence taken by the accused remains unsubstantiated and does not inspire confidence.

38.Accordingly, this Court holds that the complainant has proved all the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

39. Hence, Point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in favour of the complainant and against accused No.1.

21 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

POINT No.iii – Whether the accused is liable for punishment under Section-138 of NI Act beyond reasonable doubt?

40.In view of the findings recorded on Point Nos. (i) and (ii), this Court answers Point No. (iii) as follows:

In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and consequently he is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

(i)Accused present. When questioned with regard to the sentence to be imposed against him, he submitted that he is innocent and prayed the Court to take a lenient view.

(ii) Having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit under the Probation of

Offenders Act. The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment.

(iii) Considering the nature of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, this Court deems it appropriate to impose a sentence of fine rather than imprisonment.

22 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

(iv) In R. Mohan v. A.K. Vijaya Kumar [(2012) 8 SCC 721], the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that the Court may impose a default sentence in case of non-payment of compensation.

(v) In Suganti Suresh Kumar v. Jagadeeshan [AIR 2002 SC 681], the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that the Court may grant time or permit payment of fine/compensation in installments.

(vi)I n the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.11,36,182/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty

Six Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Two Only), which includes the cheque amount of Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest at 10% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of this judgment. In default of payment of the said fine amount, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE (01) year. Out of the total fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) shall be remitted to the State under Section 357(1)(a) Cr.P.C., and the remaining amount of Rs.11,31,182/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty One Thousand One

Hundred and Eighty Two) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to pay the entire fine amount within Three (3) months from the date of this judgment.

(vii) The office is directed to furnish a free copy of this Judgment to Accused forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

23 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1 : P. AshokDW1 : P. Venkateshwar Rao PW2 : Suruguri Mallesham

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1 is the Cheque bearing No. 283452, dated: 15-04-2021 for Rs.8,00,000/-. Ex.P2 is the Cheque return memo, dated 17/04/2021. Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice, dated: 26-04-2021. Ex.P4 is the original Postal receipt, dated: 26-04-2021. Ex.P5 is the Postal tracking report, dated: 27-04-2021.

For ACCUSED:

Ex.D1 is the Bank statement

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

Present : Banoth Kiran Teja FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026

C.C.N.I. No. 53 of 2024

BETWEEN:- Arasani Paramesh, S/o. Narsimhulu, Aged 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.1, Yellareddy Colony, Opp. Apple House, Bagh Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District. … Complainant AND

Pasupuleti Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. P. Venkaiah, Aged: 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.57, Flat No.103, Sairam Colony, Gopanpally Road, Nallagandla, Ranga Reddy District. Or Kothavaddipalem, Chamadala village, Jaladanki Mandal, Nellore District – 524142. … Accused

This Calendar case is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. S. Shekar Reddy for the complainant, and of Sri. D. Gowri Shankar, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is filed by the complainant against accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, seeking to take cognizance of the offence, issue summons to the accused, 2 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 punish accused in accordance with law, and award compensation in the interest of justice.

2.The brief averments in the complaint are as follows :

i.The complainant submitted that the accused came in acquaintance with the complainant since two years through B. Narsimha, on such acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant on 09-02-2022 for hand loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) for his personal and family necessities, accordingly the complainant had arranged the aid amount of Rs.8,00,000/- through his known sources and paid cash to the accused on 09-02-2022 and after receiving the amount, the accused had executed a promissory note on 09-02-2022 in favour of the complainant in the presence of witnesses and further agreed to repay the aid amount within a short period.

ii.The complainant further submits that the accused did not repay the above said amount as agreed and failed to keep up his promise to the complainant. On repeated demands of the complainant, the accused had issued an account payee cheque bearing No. 000023, dated: 10-04-2022 for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Gachibowli

Branch in favour of the complainant towards discharge of the above said hand loan amount.

iii.The complainant further submitted that he had presented the said 3 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 cheque in his bank i.e., YES Bank Ltd., L.B.Nagar Branch, but surprisingly the cheque was returned unpaid for the reason ‘Funds Insufficient’ vide cheque return memo, dated: 16-04-2022. Immediately the complainant tried to contact the accused but accused evaded the complainant and failed to pay the said amount.

iv.The complainant further submitted that a legal notice dated 27.04.2022 was issued to the accused and the said notice was refused by the accused to receive the legal notice and returned on 28-04-2022 and another copy of notice sent to his other home town was also returned as Left on 04-05-2022.

Further, that the accused, with dishonest intention, issued the cheque without maintaining sufficient funds and stopped payment, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainants. Hence, the complaint.

3.On considering the relevant material on record this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act against the accused.

4.Upon service of summons, accused appeared before this Court. Copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and accused denied the allegations in the complaint, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove his case, complainant examined himself as PW1 got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Further the complainant got examined PW2 on his behalf.

4 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

6.After closure of the evidence on behalf of complainant, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of PW1 and stated that he has defence evidence. The accused himself was examined as DW1. Hence, the matter was posted for arguments.

7. Heard and perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point that arose for consideration is –

(i) Whether there existed a legally enforceable liability and if

so, the accused issued Ex. P1 cheque in discharge of such

liability?

(ii) Whether accused has successfully rebutted the presumption raised under Section 139 of N.I Act?

(iii) Whether the accused is liable for punishment under Section- 138 of NI Act beyond reasonable doubt?

9.In order to avoid repetition, point no. (i) and (ii) are discussed together.

POINT Nos.(i) and (ii) – (i) Whether there existed a legally enforceable liability and if so, the accused issued Ex. P1 cheque in discharge of such liability? & (ii) Whether accused has successfully rebutted the presumption raised under Section 139 of N.I Act?

10.However, before proceeding to the merits of the case, it is important to lay down the basic requirements of Section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881. In

Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi, (2009) 14 SCC 683, the Hon’ble 5 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

Supreme Court has culled out the essential ingredients in order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of N.I Act as highlighted below:

(i) A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;

(ii) The cheque should have been issued for discharge, in whole or in part, of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;

(iii) That cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;

(iv) The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank;

(v) A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information by him of the dishonour of cheque from the bank;

(vi) The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

11.In addition to the above, the conditions stipulated under Section 142 N.I

Act have to be fulfilled. It becomes imperative to mention that Section 139 of the N.I Act provides a statutory presumption in favour of the Drawee that the

Cheque was issued to him in discharge of a debt or other liability of a legally 6 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 enforceable nature. Also, the said provision must be read along with Section 118 of N.I Act which states that every negotiable instrument is presumed to have been drawn and accepted for consideration. That said, what follows is that trial under section 138 N.I Act is structured on the premise of the reverse onus of proof theory since the offence is a document-based technical one. The journey of evidence begins not from the home of the Complainant story but from the point of the accused. The presumptions carved out in favour of the

Complainant are those of law and not those of facts.

12.Before moving forward, it is pertinent to discuss the relevant provisions of law which deal with legally enforceable debt or liability under the N.I Act which are Section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I Act. Section 118(a) of the NI Act deals with the presumption of consideration and Section 138 of NI Act deals with presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability and reads as follows :

118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments - Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:

(a) of consideration: that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

139. Presumption in favour of holder-

It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

7 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

13.It is further pertinent to mention the relevant judgments on the point of presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability. Reliance is placed by this court upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa v

Sri mohan, (2010 11 SCC 441, Kumar Exports v Sharma Carpets, (2009)

2 SCC 513, and Bir Singh v Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, wherein it has held that the presumption under Section 139 N.I Act is a presumption of law and not presumption of fact. It has further been held that it is not necessary that the cheque must have been filled by the accused himself and the accused may be liable even when the cheque has been filled by the complainant. The essential requirement is that the liability must exist on the date of the presentation of the cheque in question. It has been further held that once the signatures on the cheque are admitted then the court is bound to raise presumption under Section 118 r/w. 139 N.I Act regarding existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Further, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 N.I Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of "preponderance of probabilities". It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri. Mohan , (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the N.I

Act includes the presumption of the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 N.I Act, the standard of proof is that of the preponderance of probabilities, by which the accused is required to raise a probable defence. To rebut the presumption, it 8 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 is open to the accused to rely on evidence led by him/her, or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the Complainant or the circumstances upon which the parties rely to raise a probable defence. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, that to rebut the presumption, the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the Complainant to raise a probable defence. The accused by cross-examining the Complainant can rebut the presumption of issuance of cheque in discharging of any debt or other liability. The inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the material brought on record but also by reference to the circumstances. The accused by cross-examining the Complainant can rebut the presumption of issuance of cheque in discharging of any debt or other liability. The accused can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defense and if the accused is proven to have discharged the onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was doubtful or improbable, the onus would shift on the Complainant who will be obligated to prove it as a matter of fact and upon his failure to prove would disentitle him for the grant of relief under

Section 138 of the N.I Act.

14.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Exports Private Limited v.

Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, held that to disprove the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, the accused should bring on record such facts 9 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist.

15.Thus, as laid down in the catena of decisions it is an established law that the onus lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption and to establish that cheque in question was not given in respect of any debt or liability, with the standard of proof being the preponderance of probability. Therefore, it becomes critical to examine whether the explanation of the accused coupled with the evidence on record is sufficient to dislodge the presumption envisaged by Sections 118 & 139 of N.I Act.

16.Being cumulative, it goes without saying that it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 N.I

Act. This criminal liability can be attached by proving each of the elements of the section under which the liability is sought to be enforced. Now, it is upon the court to appreciate the evidence, documentary or oral, in the light of how compellingly it satisfies each of such ingredients.

17.As seen from the facts of the case the Ex.P1 was issued on 10-04-2022 and the same was returned on 16-01-2022 vide Ex.P2. After return of the 10 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

Ex.P2 the complainant issued statutory legal notice, dated: 27-04-2022 i.e.,

Ex.P3 to the said extent, the complainant filed Ex.P4, i.e, postal receipt dated:

27-04-2022. The the Ex.P3 was sent to two addresses of the accused wherein one address was sent through RPAD to the accused and same was returned on 28-04-2022 and the returned envelop which was received by the complainant on 02-05-2022 i.e., Ex.P5 and another postal cover was returned to the complainant on 04-05-2022. In the present case the legal notice was issued within a period and the notices were sent to two addresses. The first notice was returned on 28-04-2022, but it was received by the complainant on 02-05-2022. The complainant has to be filed within 45 days out of 15 days is for reply to the notice or making payment of cheque amount and another 30 days period is for filing for complaint, whereas the present case was filed on 16-02-2022 i.e., within the date of limitation. Hence this Court found that the complaint was done requirements U/Sec. 138 N.I.Act which is fulfill. Hence it is made clear that the presumption U/Sec. 139 N.I.Act raised. Now the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption.

18.Apart from the statutory presumptions available under law, in order to prove his allegations, the complainant has relied upon Ex.P7, i.e., the promissory note dated 09-02-2022 allegedly executed by the accused. The learned counsel for the accused has thoroughly cross-examined PW1. During the course of cross-examination, certain admissions were elicited from PW1.

11 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

19.PW1 deposed that he, along with another person, started from

Hyderabad at about 03:00 AM and reached Nellore at about 10:00 AM on 09- 02-2022, and that the promissory note (Ex.P7) was purchased and executed at the house of the accused at Nellore. PW1 further admitted that no interest was stipulated for the alleged hand loan amount.

20.During the cross-examination of PW1, the accused set up a defence that complainant had never visited Nellore. It was suggested that Ex.P1 cheque and

Ex.P7 promissory note were not issued towards any hand loan, but were connected to certain business transactions between the parties. It was further suggested that the complainant was in possession of six blank signed cheques belonging to the accused and his wife. The learned counsel for the accused also suggested that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to lend an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.

21.However, all the suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the accused were categorically denied by PW1. Nothing substantial was elicited during the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of PW1.

22.Further, the complainant examined PW2, who is stated to be a witness to the loan transaction. PW2 deposed that he acted as the scribe for Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P7 promissory note. He stated that the contents such as the name, date, and other particulars were written by him, whereas the amount of 12 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

Rs.8,00,000/- and the signature were filled in by the accused. PW2 further deposed that Ex.P1 was scribed by him on 06-04-2022. All other suggestions put forth during his cross-examination were denied, and nothing material could be elicited to discredit his testimony.

23.In order to rebut the statutory presumption, the accused examined himself as DW1; however, no documents were marked on his behalf. In his chief examination recorded in open court, DW1 stated that he had never met either PW1 or B. Narsimha at any point of time. He further stated that he had only spoken to the complainant over the phone regarding the supply of sand.

According to DW1, the complainant had promised to supply good quality sand for construction purposes and had obtained a blank signed cheque from him in that context. DW1 further stated that after supply of sand, he used to make payments regularly for each transaction without any delay.

24.DW1 further deposed that after some time, the complainant started supplying low quality sand and failed to maintain the agreed standard.

Consequently, DW1 stopped procuring sand from the complainant and approached another supplier. It is further stated by DW1 that he requested the complainant to return his cheque; however, the complainant did not return the same on the pretext that he would supply good quality sand in future. Despite repeated requests made by DW1, the complainant failed to return the cheque.

13 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

25.DW1 was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the complainant. During the course of cross-examination, DW1 admitted his signatures on Ex.P1 cheque and Ex.P7 promissory note. He further admitted that he had not filed any document to show that he made payments to PW1 towards the alleged supply of sand. DW1 also admitted that after a few transactions, he met PW1 personally and handed over Ex.P1 cheque to him.

DW1 further admitted that he did not take any legal action against PW1 for the alleged non-return of the cheque and had not issued any legal notice in that regard. He also admitted that he had not produced any document to establish that there were sand supply transactions between himself and PW1.

Further, all other suggestions put to DW1 were denied by him.

26.From the facts discussed hereinabove, this Court observes that, in order to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the accused has taken two principal defences. Firstly, that Ex.P1 i.e., cheque and

Ex.P7 i.e., promissory note were issued in the course of business transactions relating to supply of sand, and not towards any hand loan. Secondly, that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to lend an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused.

27.In support of the second defence regarding financial capacity, the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble 14 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418. This

Court has already discussed the principles laid down in the said judgment at paragraph No.13 of this judgment.

28. In order to substantiate his defence, the accused has primarily relied upon the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 by putting several suggestions.

However, PW1 has categorically denied all such suggestions. Nothing material could be elicited from PW1 to probabilise the defence of the accused. The admissions, if any, made by PW1 during cross-examination do not support the case of the accused. Similarly, the evidence of PW2 also does not lend any support to the defence version, and all suggestions put to PW2 were denied.

Therefore, from the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the accused has failed to probabilise his defence or to disprove the case of the complainant through the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2.

29. Further, the accused examined himself as DW1; however, no documentary evidence has been produced on his behalf, nor has he examined any independent witness to substantiate his defence. On the contrary, the admissions made by DW1 during cross-examination, particularly with regard to his signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P7 and the issuance of Ex.P1, strengthen the case of the complainant.

15 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

30.The documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 form the foundation of the complainant’s case. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption attached to these documents or to establish that they were issued in connection with any alleged business transactions. Accordingly, the defence taken by the accused remains unsubstantiated.

31.Further, in order to rebut the submissions made by the accused, the complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in Sanjay Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, decided on 25 September 2025 in

Criminal Appeal No.1755 of 2010, wherin it was held that : -

19. Recently, the Kerala High Court in P.C. Hari vs. Shine Varghese & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5535 has taken the view that a debt created by a cash transaction above Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) in violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘IT Act, 1961’) is not a ‘legally enforceable debt’ unless there is a valid explanation for the same, meaning thereby that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act will not be attracted in cash transactions above Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand).

20. However, this Court is of the view that any breach of Section 269SS of the IT Act, 1961 is subject to a penalty only under Section 271D of the IT Act, 1961. Further neither Section 269SS nor 271D of the IT Act, 1961 state that any transaction in breach thereof will be illegal, invalid or statutorily void. Therefore, any violation of Section 269SS would not render the transaction unenforceable under Section 138 of the NI Act or rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act because such a person, assuming him/her to be the payee/holder in due course, is liable to be visited by a penalty only as prescribed. Consequently, the view that any transaction above Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) is illegal and void and therefore does not fall within the definition of ‘legally enforceable debt’ cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the conclusion of law in P.C. Hari (supra) is set aside.

16 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

21. This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that some District Courts and some High Courts are not giving effect to the presumptions incorporated in Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act and are treating the proceedings under the NI Act as another civil recovery proceedings and are directing the complainant to prove the antecedent debt or liability. This Court is of the view that such an approach is not only prolonging the trial but is also contrary to the mandate of Parliament, namely, that the drawer and the bank must honour the cheque, otherwise, trust in cheques would be irreparably damaged.

26. The Sessions Court too specifically rejected the contention of the Respondent No.1-Accused that the Appellant-Complainant had no means to advance the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) to the Respondent No.1- Accused. The relevant portion of the Sessions Court’s judgment dated 17 th September 2008 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “15…The contention of the accused, now in appeal, that the complainant had no means to sustain himself and was in debt to various institutions is not borne out from the records. No doubt, no documentary evidence is produced by the complainant nor any witness is there to prove that he gave Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused. But the circumstances, discussed above are such that the testimony of PW1 is sufficient to prove the said friendly loan transaction…” IN

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION, HIGH COURT DOES NOT, IN

THE ABSENCE OF PERVERSITY, UPSET CONCURRENT

FACTUAL FINDINGS

29. Furthermore, the fact that the accused has failed to reply to the statutory notice under Section 138 of the NI Act leads to an inference that there is merit in the Appellant-Complainant’s version. This Court in Tedhi Singh vs. Narayan Dass Mahant, (2022) 6 SCC 735 has held that the accused has the initial burden to set up the defence in his reply to the demand notice that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to advance the loan. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “10. … The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity. To that extent, the courts in our view were right in holding on those lines. However, the accused has the right to 17 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents. It is also open to him to establish the very same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. He can further, more importantly, achieve this result through the cross-examination of the witnesses of the complainant. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence.” (emphasis supplied)

32.Further, the complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Ashok Singh vs State Of U.P, decided on 2 April, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.4171 of 2024, wherin it was held that : - ‘8. From the order impugned, it is clear that though the contention of the petitioners was that the said amounts were given for producing a film and were not by way of return of any loan taken, which may have been a probable defence for the petitioners in the case, but rightly, the High Court has taken the view that evidence had to be adduced on this point which has not been done by the petitioners. Pausing here, the Court would only comment that the reasoning of the High Court as well as the First Appellate Court and Trial Court on this issue is sound. Just by taking a counter-stand to raise a probable defence would not shift the onus on the complainant in such a case for the plea of defence has to be buttressed by evidence, either oral or documentary, which in the present cases, has not been done. Moreover, even if it is presumed that the complainant had not proved the source of the money given to the petitioners by way of loan by producing statement of accounts and/or Income Tax Returns, the same ipso facto, would not negate such claim for the reason that the cheques having being issued and signed by the petitioners has not been denied, and no evidence has been led to show that the respondent lacked capacity to provide the amount(s) in question. In this regard, we may make profitable reference to the decision in Tedhi Singh v Narayan Dass Mahant, (2022) 6 SCC 735:

18 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 ‘10. The trial court and the first appellate court have noted that in the case under Section 138 of the NI Act the complainant need not show in the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity. To that extent, the courts in our view were right in holding on those lines. However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents. It is also open to him to establish the very same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. He can further, more importantly, achieve this result through the crossexamination of the witnesses of the complainant. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence.’ (emphasis supplied)’ (underlining in original; emphasis supplied by us in bold).

33.Further, in contra to the submissions made by the complainant, the accused has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019, decided on 09th April 2019, wherin it was held that : -

23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in following manner:-

(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.

19 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.

(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.

(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.

(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.

34.From the suggestions put forth during the cross-examination, it is evident that Ex.P1 cheque was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. The accused has merely taken a defence by way of suggestions during cross-examination. However, on careful perusal of the cross- examination of PW1, it is clear that nothing material has been elicited by the accused which would discredit the version of the complainant or probabilise the defence taken by the accused either in the reply notice or during trial.

35. In the backdrop of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. On the other hand, the complainant has successfully established his case by proving that Ex.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of 20 C.C. N.I. 53/2024 a legally enforceable debt, which is duly supported by Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2.

36.The accused has failed to place any cogent evidence, either oral or documentary, to substantiate his defence. Mere suggestions in cross- examination, without any supporting material, are not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. The inconsistencies and admissions in the evidence of

DW1 further weaken the defence set up by the accused.

37.Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the accused has failed to raise a probable defence or rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the

N.I. Act. The defence taken by the accused remains unsubstantiated and does not inspire confidence.

38.Accordingly, this Court holds that the complainant has proved all the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

39. Hence, Point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in favour of the complainant and against accused No.1.

21 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

POINT No.iii – Whether the accused is liable for punishment under Section-138 of NI Act beyond reasonable doubt?

40.In view of the findings recorded on Point Nos. (i) and (ii), this Court answers Point No. (iii) as follows:

In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and consequently he is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

(i)Accused present. When questioned with regard to the sentence to be imposed against him, he submitted that he is innocent and prayed the Court to take a lenient view.

(ii) Having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit under the Probation of

Offenders Act. The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment.

(iii) Considering the nature of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, this Court deems it appropriate to impose a sentence of fine rather than imprisonment.

22 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

(iv) In R. Mohan v. A.K. Vijaya Kumar [(2012) 8 SCC 721], the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that the Court may impose a default sentence in case of non-payment of compensation.

(v) In Suganti Suresh Kumar v. Jagadeeshan [AIR 2002 SC 681], the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that the Court may grant time or permit payment of fine/compensation in installments.

(vi)I n the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.11,36,182/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty

Six Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Two Only), which includes the cheque amount of Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest at 10% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of this judgment. In default of payment of the said fine amount, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE (01) year. Out of the total fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) shall be remitted to the State under Section 357(1)(a) Cr.P.C., and the remaining amount of Rs.11,31,182/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty One Thousand One

Hundred and Eighty Two) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to pay the entire fine amount within Three (3) months from the date of this judgment.

(vii) The office is directed to furnish a free copy of this Judgment to Accused forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

23 C.C. N.I. 53/2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1 : P. AshokDW1 : P. Venkateshwar Rao PW2 : Suruguri Mallesham

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1 is the Cheque bearing No. 283452, dated: 15-04-2021 for Rs.8,00,000/-. Ex.P2 is the Cheque return memo, dated 17/04/2021. Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice, dated: 26-04-2021. Ex.P4 is the original Postal receipt, dated: 26-04-2021. Ex.P5 is the Postal tracking report, dated: 27-04-2021.

For ACCUSED:

Ex.D1 is the Bank statement

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

OS.No.380 of 2018 1 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- VI

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

Present : Banoth Kiran Teja VI Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.380 of 2018

Between:-

Butti Laxmamma, W/o.B. Veera Swamy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-116, Nadergul Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Plaintiff

AND

1.Adi Murali, S/o.Saathyanarayana, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business,

2.A. Jyothi, W/o.A. Murali, Aged about 40 years, Occ: House wife, Defendant Nos.1 & 2 are R/o H.No.3-1-517, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

3. B. Venkatesh, S/o.Late B. Nagabhushanam, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.13-3-596/A/16, Sai Durga nagar, Jiyaguda, Asifnagar, Karwan Sahu, Hyderabad -006

4. G. Lakshmi Maduri, W/o.G. Chandra Shekar, Aged about 34 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No.4-8-603, Balaji Lodge, near CBS, Gowliguda, Hyderabad - 500012.

5. Podupati Vijayalaxmi, W/o.P. Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occ: House wife,

OS.No.380 of 2018 2 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

R/o.H.No.1-4-945 to 950, F-353, B-V, Janapirya Abodes Gandhinagar, Hyderabad.

6. V. Rajendra Prasad, S/o. V. Ram Narayana, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.16-11-16/V/17/A, Prashanth nagar, Near RTA Office, Malakpet, Hyderabad-036.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 21.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Srinath, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri.S.Mujib

Kumar, learned counsel for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their subordinates, agents, servants, nominees, assignees and men from causing any sort of interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land in survey No.713/A/AA/1/2, admeasuring Ac. 0.23 guntas, situated at Nadergul Village, Balapur Mandal, (earlier Saroornagar Mandal) Ranga Reddy District hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property, and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that :

i.The plaintiff submits that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. She acquired the same through a registered Gift

Deed bearing Doc.No.5527 of 2017, dated 17.04.2017, executed by her mother-in-law, Butti Pochamma, and since then she has been in peaceful

OS.No.380 of 2018 3 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. That originally one

Butti Pochaiah was the pattadar and possessor of agricultural land in

Sy.No.713/A, admeasuring Ac.1-17 guntas, situated at Nadergul Village,

Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. After his death on 03.12.2013, succession in respect of the said land was granted in favour of his wife,

Butti Pochamma, by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar

Mandal, vide proceedings No.B/3911/2014, dated 16.02.2016, and accordingly her name was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor.

ii.The plaintiff submits that thereafter Butti Pochamma, out of love and affection, gifted an extent of Ac.0-23 guntas in Sy.No.713/A, out of the total extent of Ac.1-17 guntas, in favour of the plaintiff through a registered Gift

Deed bearing Doc.No.5527 of 2017, dated 17-04-2017, and since then the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owner and possessor. After acquiring the suit schedule property, she made an application to the Tahsildar, Balapur Mandal, for mutation of her name in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor. Accordingly, after due enquiry, the Tahsildar, Balapur Mandal, mutated her name in the revenue records vide proceedings No.B/809/2017, dated 15.12.2017. The Telangana

Government has also issued a new Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in favour of the plaintiff vide Khata No.2621 in respect of the suit schedule property.

OS.No.380 of 2018 4 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

iii.The plaintiff further submits that on 15.06.2018, the defendants, without having any right, title or possession over the suit schedule property, came along with some antisocial elements and tried to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, but the plaintiff and her family members resisted the same. Again on 24.06.2018, the defendants along with their followers tried to occupy the suit schedule property by dispossessing the plaintiff, but they could not succeed due to the intervention of the plaintiff, her family members and well-wishers. While leaving, the defendants threatened to return and forcibly occupy the suit schedule property. Further, plaintiff approached the local police seeking protection against the illegal acts of the defendants, but the police expressed their inability stating that the matter is civil in nature and advised her to approach the civil court.

iv.The plaintiff further submits that unless the defendants are restrained by way of perpetual injunction from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, there is every likelihood of the defendants taking law into their own hands and causing irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in her favour. Hence, the suit for perpetual injunction.

3. On receipt of summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 appeared and filed their written statement by denying the contents in the plaint and further

OS.No.380 of 2018 5 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

contended that the suit is not maintainable either in law nor on facts and further contended that the the averments of the plaintiff regarding the title and possession of late Butti Pochaiah and Butti Pochamma over the suit schedule property are false and denied. The defendants submit that one

Butti Pentaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in

Sy.No.713/A, admeasuring Ac.1-21 guntas, situated at Nadergul Village,

Ranga Reddy District. That out of the said land, Butti Pentaiah sold an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas to E. Rajgopal, R. Chandrasekhar and B. Krishna through a registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.11958 of 2003, dated 29.09.2003, by receiving full sale consideration and delivering vacant possession to the purchasers.

4.The defendants submit that the purchasers under Sale Deed

No.11958 of 2003 subsequently sold the said land to defendant No.2 through registered Sale Deed No.872 of 2013 and delivered vacant physical possession to her. Thereafter, defendant No.2 sold Plot Nos.4, 5 and 6 to defendant Nos.3, 5 and 6 through registered sale deeds and delivered possession to them. Defendant Nos.3 to 6 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective plots purchased under the registered sale deeds.

5.The defendants submit that the vendees under Sale Deed No.11958 of 2003 also sold Plot Nos.1, 2 and 3, admeasuring 600 square yards, in

OS.No.380 of 2018 6 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

favour of defendant No.1 through a registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA bearing document No.871 of 2013 and delivered possession to him.

Thereafter, defendant No.1 sold the said plots to defendant No.4 through registered Sale Deed No.1718 of 2013 and delivered possession. Further defendant No.2 filed O.S.No.432 of 2013 before the Court of the Hon’ble V

Additional Junior Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar, seeking perpetual injunction

against Butti Pentalah and his son in respect of plot Nos.4 to 6. The said suit was decreed on 13.11.2013 in favour of defendant No.2, thereby recognizing her possession over the property. Further, the revenue entries relied upon by the plaintiff are not documents of title and cannot by themselves establish ownership over the suit property.

6.The defendants further submit that the plaintiff has failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that Butti Pochamma and her husband were pattadars and possessors of the land in Sy.No.713/A. The plaintiff has also failed to explain the sub-division of the survey number with proper evidence. That, defendant No.2 obtained permission from the Gram

Panchayat, Nadergul, on 16.03.2013 for construction in plot No.5 and commenced construction by laying basement and erecting pillars. However, the plaintiff and her associates illegally demolished the same. Further, the plaintiff is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendants by misusing the status quo order granted by this Hon’ble Court and by attempting to erect fencing around the property. The plaintiff has no

OS.No.380 of 2018 7 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

prima facie case, no balance of convenience and no irreparable loss in her favour. The defendants are in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of their respective properties from the date of purchase and the plaintiff has approached this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands. Further, the defendants submit that if the injunction is granted, the defendants will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, praying this Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

7.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. Further, the adjacent land owner of the suit schedule property was examined as PW2, i.e., M. Srinivas, and no documents were marked through him. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B13. Further, defendant

No.4 was examined as DW2. The husband of defendant No.5, i.e., P.

Venkateshwar Rao, was examined as DW3, and no documents were marked through them.

8. Heard arguments and perused the material available on record.

9.Now, basing on the plaint and written statement the following issues for settled for trial :-

i) Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? If so,

OS.No.380 of 2018 8 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

ii) Whether the defendant Nos.1 to 6 and their men caused

interference with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule

property?

iii) Whether the suit is liable to be decreed?

iv) To what relief?

10.To prove her case, the plaintiff is examined herself as PW1 by reiterating the averments in the plaint and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. Ex.A1 is the original registered gift deed bearing Doc.No.5527/2017 dated 17.04.2017 executed by Butti Pochamma in favour of Butti Laxmamma (plaintiff herein) in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.A2 is a mutation

Proc.No.B/809/2017, dated 15.12.2017 issued by the Tahsildar, Balapur

Mandal, in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.A3 is the Encumbrance certificate in respect of suit schedule property for the period from 01.10.2007 to 10.10.2016. Ex.A4 is the pahani and is ROR extract showing that Butti Pochamma was recorded as pattadar and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.713/A, admeasuring Ac.1-17 guntas, situated at Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as on 22.09.2016.

Ex.A5 is the pahani and ROR extract showing that Butti Pochamma was recorded as pattadar and possessor of land in Sy.No.713/A, admeasuring

Ac.1-17 guntas, in Balapur Mandal as on the 22.06.2018. Ex.A6 is an ROR extract showing that Butti Pochamma was recorded as pattadar of

Sy.No.713/A, Ac.1-17 guntas, and other lands, which she acquired through

OS.No.380 of 2018 9 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

succession. Ex.A7 is the photographs (3 in Nos.) along with one CD. Ex.A8 is the original pattedhar pass book of plaintiff vide katha No.2621.

11. Further, the adjacent land owner of the suit schedule property was examined as PW2, i.e., M. Srinivas, and no documents were marked through him. PW2 filed his chief evidence affidavit and stated that he is the adjacent land owner of the plaintiff. Further, PW2 and the plaintiff are relatives belonging to the same village, namely Nadergul Village, and that he knows that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

PW2 further deposed the same facts deposed by the PW1.

12.After completion of plaintiff’s evidence, to prove their case, the defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 by reiterating the averments in the written statement and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B13. Ex.B1 is the copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.11958/2003, dated 29.09.2003 executed by Butti Pentaiah in favour of E.Raja Gopal, R.Chandra Shekar and S.Krishna in respect of agricultural land in survey No.713/ఆ, admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas, situated at Nadergul Village, Sarrornagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Ex.B2 is the copy of agreement of sale cum general power of attorney with possession, dated 21.01.2013 executed by

E.Raja Gopal, R.Chandra Shekar and S.Krishna in favour of A. Murali (defendant No.1 herein) in respect of land bearing plot Nos.1 to 3, total admeasuring 600 square yards in survey No.713/A, situated at Nadergul

OS.No.380 of 2018 10 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

Village, Sarrornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Ex.B3 is the copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1718/2013, dated 05.02.2013 executed by E.Raja Gopal, R.Chandra Shekar and S.Krishna represented by defendant No.1 as their agreement of sale cum general power of attorney holder in favour of G.Lakshmi Madhuri (defendant No.4) herein in respect of land bearing plot Nos.1 to 3, total admeasuring 600 square yards in survey

No.713/A, situated at Nadergul Village, Sarrornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. Ex.B4 is the copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.872/2013,

dated 21.01.2013 executed by E.Raja Gopal, R.Chandra Shekar and

S.Krishna in favour of A.Jyothi (defendant No.2 herein) in respect of land bearing plot No.4, admeasuring 290 square yards, plot No.5, admeasuring 595.5 square yards, and plot No.6 admeasuring 569.5 square yards, total admeasuring 1379 square yards in survey No.713/A, situated at Nadergul

Village, Sarrornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Ex.B5 is the copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.12750/2015, dated 19.06.2015 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of Podupati Vijayalaxmi (defendant

No.5 herein) in respect of land bearing plot No.6 admeasuring 569.5 square yards in survey No.713/A, situated at Nadergul Village, Sarrornagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Ex.B6 is the copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.18761/2015, dated 02.09.2015 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of V.Rajendra Prasad (defendant No.6 herein) in respect of land bearing plot No.4 south part, admeasuring 145 square yards in survey

No.713/A, situated at Nadergul Village, Sarrornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

OS.No.380 of 2018 11 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

District.Ex.B7is the copy of registered sale deed bearing

Doc.No.18760/2016, dated 02.09.2015 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of B.Venkatesh (defendant No.3 herein) in respect of land bearing plot

No.4 north part, admeasuring 138 square yards in survey No.713/A, situated at Nadergul Village, Sarrornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Ex.B8 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.432 of 2013 passed by the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the suit filed by defendant No.2 against Butti Pentaiah and B. Veeraswamy was decreed with costs and the defendants therein were perpetually restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the land bearing plot No.4, admeasuring 290 square yards, plot No.5, admeasuring 595.5 square yards, and plot No.6 admeasuring 569.5 square yards, total admeasuring 1379 square yards in survey No.713/A, situated at

Nadergul Village, Sarrornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Ex.B9 is the certified copy of decree in O.S.No.432 of 2013 passed by the Hon’ble

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Ex.B10 is a

complaint/application of defendant No.2 to MRO stating that she purchased

Plot Nos.4, 5 and 6 in Sy.No.713/A and that after interference by Butti

Pentaiah and his family members, she filed O.S.No.432 of 2013 and obtained a decree in her favour, dated 19.12.2014. Ex.B11 is the representation by defendant No.4 requesting mutation of her name in the revenue records based on her sale deed and related documents. Ex.B12 is the request letter to MRO by defendant No.2 to mutate her name in the

OS.No.380 of 2018 12 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

revenue records and remove the old names. Ex.B13 is the photographs (8 in

Nos.)

13. Further, defendant No.4 was examined as DW2 and filed his chief affidavit and deposed similar to DW1.

14. The husband of defendant No.5, i.e., P. Venkateshwar Rao, was examined as DW3 and filed his chief affidavit and deposed as stated in written statement.

ISSUE NO.i & ii : -Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? If so, Whether the defendant Nos.1 to 6 and their men caused interference with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property?

15.This Court has carefully considered the pleadings of both parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced, and the arguments of both sides.

In order to obtain a decree of perpetual injunction, it is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff must establish her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The burden of proof lies entirely on the plaintiff. In the present case, the plaintiff claims exclusive possession over the suit schedule property based on Ex.A1 i.e., registered gift deed dated 17.04.2017, said to have been executed by her mother-in-law in her favour. As per the recitals in Ex.A1 and the pleadings in the plaint, the case of the plaintiff is that the property originally belonged to her father-

OS.No.380 of 2018 13 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

in-law, who owned agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1-17 guntas in

Sy.No.713/A of Nadergul Village. After his death on 13.12.2013, the said property devolved upon her mother-in-law through succession proceedings vide Proc.No.B/3911/2014 dated 16.02.2016 issued by the Deputy

Tahsildar, Saroornagar, and thereafter her name was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor.

16.To prove the above, the plaintiff relied upon Exs.A4 and A5 (pahani/adangal extracts) and Ex.A8 (pattadar passbook). However, it is important to note that the plaintiff has not filed the alleged succession proceedings nor the mutation proceedings said to have been issued in favour of her mother-in-law, who is the vendor under Ex.A1. Therefore, the very basis of the plaintiff’s claim regarding derivation of title and possession is not fully established. Further, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A3 i.e.,

Encumbrance Certificate, but the same covers only the period from 01.10.2007 to 10.10.2016, thereby not reflecting earlier transactions, if any.

Thus, the said document does not conclusively support the plaintiff’s claim of ownership. Further, PW2 also admitted he did not know the names of the persons who interfered with the plaintiff’s possession and that he did not know whether defendant No.2 had earlier filed any suit against

Veeraswamy and Pentaiah.

17.On the other hand, the defendants have specifically denied the title and possession of the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff’s father-in-

OS.No.380 of 2018 14 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

law, namely B. Pentaiah, had already sold the suit schedule property in favour of third parties under Ex.B1 i.e., registered Sale Deed dated 29.09.2003. It is their case that the purchasers under Ex.B1 became owners and possessors and subsequently executed Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA (Ex.B2) in favour of defendant No.1. Thereafter, the land was converted into house plots and sold to various purchasers. In continuation, defendant No.2 purchased plots under Ex.B4, and thereafter sold the same to defendant

Nos.3, 5 and 6 under Exs.B5, B6 and B7. Further, defendant No.1 sold plot

Nos.1 to 3 to defendant No.4 under Ex.B3. Thus, according to the defendants, they are in possession of their respective plots through a chain of registered documents. The defendants have also relied upon Exs.B8 and

B9, which are the judgment and decree in O.S.No.432 of 2013, wherein defendant No.2 obtained a decree of perpetual injunction against the plaintiff’s husband and her father-in-law, thereby recognizing her possession over part of the property. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff, by misusing the status quo order, illegally entered into the property and demolished compound walls, for which they filed Ex.B13 photographs.

18.Apart from documentary evidence, the admissions made by the plaintiff during cross-examination of PW1 :

a)The PW1 admitted that her father-in-law’s name is B. Pentaiah and not Pochaiah, and that no land stands in the name of Pochaiah, which creates inconsistency in her own case.

OS.No.380 of 2018 15 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

b)She admitted that, she do not know whether her father-in-law had sold the property to third parties during his lifetime.

c)She admitted that she did not file any documentary evidence such as crop details, seed bills or agricultural records to show cultivation.

d)A perusal of Exs.A4 and Ex.A5 Adangal pahanis at column

No.10 shows that the extent of cultivation is recorded as “zero”, which does not support her claim of possession through cultivation.

e)Ex.A7 photographs also indicate that the land is open and no agricultural activity is visible.

Thus, the plaintiff has failed to establish actual physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

19.On the other hand, the defendants have consistently disputed the title and possession of the plaintiff and claimed title and possession based on

Exs.B1 to B7, thereby creating a serious dispute regarding both title and possession. Further, as seen from the record this court observed that as per suit schedule property is an extent of 23 guntas and as per Ex.B1 the land is 20 guntas. Further, the eastern side and western side boundaries are same in both plaint, Ex.A1 and Ex.B1.

OS.No.380 of 2018 16 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

20.At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (2008), wherein it was held that:

17. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under :

(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.

But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use

OS.No.380 of 2018 17 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.

21.From the above discussion, this Court finds that there is a defect in the plaintiff’s claim of title and possession over the suit schedule property and at the same time, the defendants have shown a prima facie right of title and possession over the suit property through documentary evidence and oral testimony. It is also relevant to note that in a suit relating to agricultural land, the plaintiff is expected to establish possession by showing actual usage and cultivation. In the present case, no such evidence has been produced.

22.It is a settled principle of law that a person in lawful possession can seek protection by way of injunction, but a person who fails to establish possession or is in doubtful possession is not entitled to such equitable relief. Further, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (2008), where the title of the plaintiff is under serious dispute and possession is not established, the proper remedy is to file a suit for declaration and consequential relief, and not a bare suit for injunction.

23.In the present case, the plaintiff has sought only injunction without seeking declaration of title, despite serious disputes regarding ownership and possession. Therefore, the present suit for bare injunction is not

OS.No.380 of 2018 18 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

appropriate. Further, it is also to be noted that both the plaintiff and the defendants claim title through B. Pentaiah (father-in-law of the plaintiff).

However, during cross-examination, the plaintiff made contradictory statements regarding the ownership of her father-in-law stating that as on the date of execution of Ex.B1 the property was in the name of third parties, which weakens her case. When the plaintiff claims title through her father- in-law, and the defendants also trace their title to the same person through earlier transactions, the issue of title becomes highly disputed.

24.From the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, and therefore, she is not entitled to the equitable relief of perpetual injunction.

25.In the absence of proof of possession, the question of interference by the defendants does not arise. Accordingly, Issue Nos.i and ii are answered against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No. iii : -Whether the suit is liable to be decreed?

26.In view of the findings recorded under issue Nos.i and ii, this Court has already held that the plaintiff has failed to establish her lawful and exclusive possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing

OS.No.380 of 2018 19 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

of the suit. It is also held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction.

27.It is a settled principle that in a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of her own case and not on the weakness of the defendants’ case. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proving her possession. Further, there exists a serious dispute regarding title, for which the appropriate remedy is a comprehensive suit for declaration and consequential relief, but not a bare suit for injunction.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not liable to be decreed. Issue No.iii is answered accordingly.

ISSUE No. iv : -To what relief ?

28.In view of the findings recorded on Issue Nos.i to iii, this Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the suit is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

OS.No.380 of 2018 20 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW1 :Butti LaxmammaDW1 : Adi Murali PW2 :M.SrinivasDW2 : G. Lakshmi Maduri DW3 : P. Venkateshwar Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 :Original registered gift deed bearing Doc.No.5527/2017 dated 17.04.2017 Ex.A2 :Original Mutation Proc.No.B/809/2017, issued by the Tahsildar, Balapur Mandal Ex.A3 :Copy of encumbrance certificate issued by Sub-Registrar L.B.Nagar in respect of survey No.713/A at Nadergul Village, for the period from 01.10.2007 to 10.10.2016 Ex.A4 :Copy of Pahani for the fasli 1426 issued from Meeseva Ex.A5 :Copy of Pahani for the fasli 1427 issued from Meeseva Ex.A6 :Copy of 1 B namoona (ROR) issued from Meeseva Ex.A7 :Photographs (3 in Nos.) along with one CD Ex.A8 :Original pattedhar pass book of plaintiff vide katha No.2621 issued by Tahsildhar

FOR DEFENDANTS : Ex.B1 :Certifiedcopyofregisteredsaledeedbearing Doc.No.11958/2003, dated 29.09.2003 executed by Butti Pentaiah in favour of E.Raja Gopal, R.Chandra Shekar and S.Krishna Ex.B2 :Certified copy of agreement of sale cum general power of attorney with possession deed No.871/2013 dated 21.01.2013 executed by E.Raja Gopal, R.Chandra Shekar and S.Krishna in favour of defendant No.1 Ex.B3 :Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1718/2013,

dated 05.02.2013 executed by E.Raja Gopal, R.Chandra Shekar

and S.Krishna represented by defendant No.1 as their agreement of sale cum general power of attorney holder in favour of defendant No.4

OS.No.380 of 2018 21 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

Ex.B4 :Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.872/2013,

dated 21.01.2013 executed by E.Raja Gopal, R.Chandra Shekar

and S.Krishna in favour of defendant No.2 Ex.B5 :Certifiedcopyofregisteredsaledeedbearing Doc.No.12750/2015, dated 19.06.2015 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.5 Ex.B6 :Certifiedcopyofregisteredsaledeedbearing Doc.No.18761/2015, dated 02.09.2015 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.6 Ex.B7 :Certifiedcopyofregisteredsaledeedbearing Doc.No.18760/2016, dated 02.09.2015 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 Ex.B8 :Certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.432 of 2013 passed by the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District,

dated 30.04.2015

Ex.B9 :Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.432 of 2013 passed by the

Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District,

dated 30.04.2015

Ex.B10 :Application submitted by the defendant No.2 before the MRO regarding cancellation of pattadar pass book, dated 19.12.2014 Ex.B11 :Application submitted by the defendant No.4 husband on behalf of defendant No.4 before the MRO regarding cancellation of pattadar pass book of the plaintiff, dated 17.02.2018 Ex.B12 :Application submitted by the defendant No.4 husband on behalf of defendant No.1 before the MRO regarding cancellation of pattadar pass book of the plaintiff, dated 29.12.2019 Ex.B13 :Photographs (8 in Nos.)

VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

OS.No.404 of 2018 1 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- VI

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

Present : Banoth Kiran Teja VI Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.404 of 2018

Between:- Kallu Renuka, W/o.K.Janga Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o.H.No.18-267, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District presently residing at H.No.8-7-95/U/32, 33/A, Urmila Nagar, Sagar Road, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

...Plaintiff

AND K.Sugunamma, W/o.K.Janga Reddy, Aged about 64 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o.Nagilla Village, Madgul Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District

...Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 23.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri.K.Harish Reddy, learned counsel for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant or other servants, agents, workers or whosoever claiming through the defendant from interfering or entering on to the 2/3rd share of house bearing No.8-7-95/U/32, 33/A on plot Nos.32 and 33/A in survey Nos.

59/B new (old No.59 part) admeasuring 225 square yards having plinth area

OS.No.404 of 2018 2 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

of 1500 square feet in ground floor and 2300 square feet in first floor totally 3800 square feet with RCC roof under ward No.8, block No.7 adjacent to

Vishineshwara Engineers situated at Karmanghat village, Saroornagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under GHMC, L.B.Nagar circle, hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property, and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that :

i.The plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property, originally belonged to Miss Ayesha Fatima Razi, who purchased the same from her vendor N. Urmila Devi under a registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.10709 of 1990, dated 10.08.1990. Thereafter, the said Ayesha Fatima Razi sold the property to K. Sandhya Rani under a registered Sale Deed bearing

Doc.No.5569 of 1999, dated 16.10.1999, and since then, she was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. After the death of K.

Sandhya Rani on 20.01.2011, the property devolved upon her father K.

Janga Reddy and her sister Kallu Srilakshmi. Subsequently, K. Janga Reddy and Kallu Srilakshmi executed a registered Release Deed bearing

Doc.No.17802 of 2014, dated 03.12.2014, in favour of the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff has been in actual and physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owner.

ii.The plaintiff submits that the defendant, who is the first wife of K.

Janga Reddy, has been living separately for the past two decades and has

OS.No.404 of 2018 3 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

no manner of right over the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that the disputes between the defendant and K. Janga Reddy were settled long back, and the defendant received an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards full and final settlement under an agreement dated 24.02.2002. Despite the same, the defendant is now falsely claiming rights over the property and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being the second wife of K. Janga Reddy, is in lawful possession, whereas the defendant, having no subsisting right, is attempting to create obstruction with the help of anti-social elements.

iii.The plaintiff further submits that on 13.06.2018, when the plaintiff was away from the house, the defendant along with some anti-social elements attempted to break open the doors of the suit schedule house. On receiving information from the neighbours, the plaintiff rushed to the spot and questioned them, upon which they left the place after threatening to return and dispossess the plaintiff. Again, on a subsequent date, similar attempts were made by the defendant. The plaintiff approached the SHO,

Saroornagar Police Station, but was advised to seek relief before the civil court as the matter is civil in nature.

iv.The plaintiff further submits that she has a prima facie case and is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. The balance of convenience is also in her favour, and if she is dispossessed, she will suffer irreparable

OS.No.404 of 2018 4 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

loss and hardship which cannot be compensated in terms of money. On the other hand, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant, who has no right over the property. Thus, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit seeking relief of injunction. Hence, the suit.

3. On receipt of summons, the defendant filed written statement and contended that all the averments made in the plaint are denied as false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same and further contended that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction against the defendant, as the defendant has a lawful right over the suit schedule property. The property was purchased by the husband of the plaintiff out of the sale proceeds of the property belonging to the defendant under a settlement dated 17.02.1989. Hence, the plaintiff cannot seek injunction against the true owner or a person having lawful interest in the property. Further, the plaintiff has suppressed material facts. The suit schedule property originally stood in the name of K.

Sandhya Rani, minor daughter of K. Janga Reddy, but the same was in fact purchased by K. Janga Reddy in her name out of the sale proceeds of the property given to the defendant under the settlement dated 17.02.1989.

Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that the property was independently acquired is false.

OS.No.404 of 2018 5 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

4.The defendant further submits that she is the legally wedded first wife of K. Janga Reddy and their marriage took place in the year 1968. At the time of marriage, K. Janga Reddy had no independent income, and the defendant, with the help of her parents, supported him and enabled him to secure employment and acquire properties. Later, K. Janga Reddy married the plaintiff during the subsistence of the first marriage, after a settlement was arrived at in the year 1989, wherein he agreed to provide share and maintenance to the defendant. Further, that the said settlement dated 17.02.1989 was reduced into writing, and based on the same, the defendant permitted the second marriage. However, the plaintiff and her husband failed to honour the settlement and deprived the defendant of her rightful share and maintenance.

5.The defendant further submits that after the death of K. Sandhya

Rani, the property was transferred in favour of the plaintiff through a

Release Deed dated 03.12.2014, which is collusive and not binding on the defendant. The defendant has a rightful share in the property and is taking steps to question the same in appropriate proceedings. The allegations of interference made by the plaintiff are false and created for the purpose of filing the suit. The defendant has been residing separately for several years and is not interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the alleged incidents dated 13.06.2018 and subsequent dates are denied. Further, the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case and is not in lawful

OS.No.404 of 2018 6 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

possession as absolute owner. The balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff, and no irreparable loss would be caused to her. On the other hand, the defendant, being a person having lawful interest, would be prejudiced if injunction is granted.

6.The defendant further submits that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. The alleged cause of action is false and created only for the purpose of litigation. The defendant, being a person having interest in the property, cannot be restrained by way of injunction.

10. The defendant submits that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has failed to establish her exclusive right and possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, praying this court to dismiss the suit with costs.

7.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. Further, the husband of the plaintiff was examined as PW2 and no documents were marked through him. On the other hand, none examined on behalf of defendant and no documents were marked.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff flied written arguments on behalf of the plaintiff. Heard arguments and perused the material available on record.

OS.No.404 of 2018 7 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

9.Now, basing on the plaint and written statement the following issues for settled for trial :-

i) Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? If so,

ii) Whether the defendant tried to interfere with the possession and

enjoyment of the plaintiff as pleaded by her over the suit schedule

property?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction with

costs?

iv) To what relief?

10.To prove her case, the plaintiff was examined herself as PW1 by reiterating the averments in the plaint and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. Ex.A1 is the Copy of registered release deed bearing Doc.No.17802/2014, dated 03.12.2014 executed by Kallu Janga Reddy (plaintiff’s husband as PW2) and

Kallu Srilakshmi (plaintiff’s & PW2 daughter) in favour of Kallu Renuka (plaintiff herein) in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.A2 is the death certificate of K.Sandhya Rani, passed away on 20.01.2011 showing that

PW2 is the father of K.Sandhya Rani. Ex.A3 is the copy of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.6600/1999, dated 16.10.1999 executed by Ayesha

Fatima Razi in favour of K.Sandhya Rani in respect of suit schedule property.

OS.No.404 of 2018 8 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

11.After completion of plaintiff’s evidence, to prove her case, the defendant file her evidence affidavit, but failed to examine on oath and did not offered herself to be cross examined by other side. Due to which on 06.01.2026, the evidence of defendant was treated as nil.

ISSUE NO.i & ii : - i) Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? If so, & ii) Whether the defendant tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff as pleaded by her over the suit schedule property?

12.In a suit for perpetual injunction, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. In the present case, the plaintiff pleaded that her daughter, late K. Sandhya Rani, was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same from Ayesha Fatima Razi under a registered sale deed dated 16.10.1999, which is marked as Ex.A3.

The plaintiff further stated that her daughter died on 20.01.2011, leaving behind the plaintiff, her husband K. Janga Reddy (PW2), and her daughter

Srilakshmi as legal heirs. In support of this, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A2, which is the death certificate of K. Sandhya Rani.

13.It is the further case of the plaintiff that after the death of K. Sandhya

Rani, the suit schedule property devolved upon the plaintiff, her husband (PW2), and her daughter Srilakshmi. Subsequently, her husband and

OS.No.404 of 2018 9 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

daughter relinquished their rights over the suit schedule property by executing a registered Release Deed dated 03.12.2014, marked as Ex.A1, in favour of the plaintiff. By virtue of the said document, the plaintiff claims that she became the absolute owner and is in possession of the suit schedule property.

14.On the other hand, the defendant filed a written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant admitted the relationship between the parties and also admitted that late K. Sandhya Rani was the owner of the property. However, she contended that the property was actually purchased by her husband under settlement dated 17.02.1989. Therefore, she claims to have a right over the suit schedule property. The defendant also contended that there are matrimonial disputes between herself, the plaintiff, and her husband, and that other criminal cases are pending between them. However, it is important to note that the defendant did not enter into the witness box to prove her allegations on oath. Though the defendant’s counsel cross-examined PW1 and PW2, nothing material was elicited to discredit the testimony of PW1. All the suggestions put to PW1 and PW2 were denied.

15.From the above discussion, this Court observes that the plaintiff has proved her possession over the suit schedule property through Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3. These documents establish her lawful possession.

OS.No.404 of 2018 10 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

16.On the contrary, the defendant, who claimed rights over the suit schedule property, failed to step into the witness box and failed to adduce any evidence. Therefore, her contentions remain unproved. Mere denial in the written statement is not sufficient to establish her claim. Hence, the defence set up by the defendant cannot be accepted.

17.Further, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the defendant has been disputing the claim of the plaintiff and attempting to interfere with her peaceful possession. Therefore, this Court presumes that there is interference by the defendant. Accordingly, this

Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has successfully proved that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, Issue Nos. i and ii are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE No. iii : -Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction with costs?

18.In view of the findings on Issue Nos. i and ii, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction.

ISSUE No. iv : -To what relief ?

19.Accordingly, the suit is decreed with costs. The defendant, her agents, servants, or anybody claiming through her are hereby restrained by way of

OS.No.404 of 2018 11 VI Addl.Jr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

perpetual injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. The defendant is permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT :

PW1 :Kallu RenukaDW1 : K.Sugunamma PW2 :Kallu Janga Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 :Certified copy of registered release deed bearing Doc.No.17802/2014, dated 03.12.2014 Ex.A2 :Death certificate of Late K.Sandhya Rani, D/o.K.Janga Reddy passed away on 20.01.2011 Ex.A3 :Certified copy of registered sale deedbearing Doc.No.6600/1999, dated 16.10.1999

FOR DEFENDANT : - Nil -

VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT