Sri. B. Srinivas Rao

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR

(Dated, this, the 24th day of October, 2019)

PRESENT: Smt. B. SRIDEVI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR.

O.S.NO. 22 OF 2017

Between:

Smt. Payili Jyothi W/o Koteswar Rao, aged: about 39 years, Occu: Anganwadi Teacher & Agriculture, R/o Ramapuram (Katakamgudem) village, Chilkur Mandal, Suryapet District.

… PLAINTIFF. AND

Smt. Kothamasu Padma W/o Bhaskar Rao, aged: about 48 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o Opp: Indane Gas Office, Srinivas Nagar, Katakamgudem Road, Kodad Town and Mandal, Suryapet District.

… DEFENDANT.

This suit coming before me on 17-10-2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M. Raja Ram, Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri U. Ravi Kumar, Counsel for the defendant and after having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of money basing upon two demand promissory notes.

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

(a)The plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other.

Due to such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One lakh and eighty thousand only) from the plaintiff on 01-02-2014 at Ramapuram (Katakamgudem) village for her family expenses and executed demand promissory note in favour of the

Page 2 of 9 plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand.

(b)Again, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and five thousand only) from the plaintiff on 05-02-2014 at Ramapuram (Katakamgudem) village for her family expenses and executed demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand.

(c)It is further submitted that after availing the loan amounts, the defendant failed to repay the same in spite of several requests and demands made by the plaintiff. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.6,61,517/- (Rupees Six lakhs sixty one thousand five hundred and seventeen only) together with future interest.

3.The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

(a)The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto. The defendant categorically denied about borrowing of amount and execution of two demand promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff has forged the signature of the defendant and fabricated the suit promissory notes in collusion with the alleged scribe, attestor and her husband and the signature that appears on the suit promissory notes does not belong to her. The suit promissory notes are created and brought into existence for the purpose of the suit with malafide intention to extract amounts from the defendant.

O.S.No. 22 OF 2017

Page 3 of 9

(b)It is further submitted that the numbers i.e., “02” in the alleged promissory note No.2 are different in year, date portion and scribe underneath signature, it is sufficient that the scribe is planted witness for the purpose of the creation of the alleged promissory notes. It is further submitted that the numbers i.e., “02” and “05” in the alleged promissory note No.1 are different in interest portion and scribe underneath signature, it is sufficient that the scribe is planted witness for the purpose of the creation of the alleged promissory notes.

(c)It is further submitted that the plaintiff is a money-lender doing the business without valid license and the attestors and scribe of the suit promissory notes also henchmen of the plaintiff permanently in all suit transactions. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Upon perusal of rival pleadings, my learned Predecessor in office, on 18-01-2018, framed the following issues for the purpose of trial:-

1. Whether the suit pronotes dated 01-02-2014 and 05-02-2014 are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the suit pronote dated 05-02-2014 is materially altered as contended in written statement?

3. Whether the plaintiff is a money-lender without having valid license?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount as prayed for?

5. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and got exhibited Exs.A-1 and A-2. The defendant herself examined as DW-1 and no documents marked on her behalf.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

O.S.No. 22 OF 2017

Page 4 of 9

7. ISSUES No.1 to 3:

1. Whether the suit pronotes dated 01-02-2014 and 05-02-2014 are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the suit pronote dated 05-02-2014 is materially altered as contended in written statement?

3. Whether the plaintiff is a money-lender without having valid license?

In order to avoid the repetition, the above issues are answered at a stretch since the points involved in the above issues are substantially inter-related to each other.

8.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount basing on two promissory notes. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant on two occasions, that is, on 01-02-2014 and 05-02-2014, borrowed amounts from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 suit pronotes respectively, but subsequently, did not repay the amount in spite of repeated requests by the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff filed the present suit. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendant that the suit pronotes under Exs.A-1 and A-2 are false and fabricated for the purpose of present suit and that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and that the attestors and scribe are the henchmen of the plaintiff. As seen from the record, in order to substantiate the contentions of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW-1 and also got examined PWs.2 to 5 on her behalf and got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2, which are two pronotes in this suit.

9.PW-1 in her chief-examination reiterated the contents on par with the plaint. In the cross-examination, PW-1 categorically denied the suggestions put-forth by the learned counsel for the defendant and asserted about the execution of suit pronotes under Ex.A-1 and A-2.

O.S.No. 22 OF 2017

Page 5 of 9

During the cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that her husband attested the suit pronotes as witness. PW-1 further stated that prior to filing of this suit, she did not issue any legal notice to the defendant. Hence, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that as one of the attestors is the husband of plaintiff i.e.,

PW-1 and as the plaintiff did not issue legal notice prior to filing of this suit, hence, this suit is not maintainable. However, as seen from the record, this is a suit for recovery of money basing on suit promissory notes under Exs.A-1 and A-2 and as per the provisions of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, the promissory note is due for payable whenever the demand for re-payment is made by the person in favour of whom the said promissory notes are executed. As per the contents of Ex.A-1 and

Ex.A-2, they categorically revealed that the amount due is payable by the borrower upon the order or demand by the plaintiff. Therefore, the non-issuance of legal notice prior to filing of this suit does not effect adversely the suit of the plaintiff. Furthermore, as seen from the entire evidence of PW-1, she categorically stood consistent with her evidence, even during the course of her cross-examination. Therefore, there is consistency in her evidence.

10.Now coming to the evidence of PW-2, who is one of the attestors to the suit pronote under Ex.A-1, he categorically deposed in his chief- examination that the suit transaction took place in his presence and that he is one of the attestor to the suit pronote under Ex.A-1. Even during the course of cross-examination, PW-2 categorically denied the suggestions put-forth by the learned counsel for the defendant and categorically stated about the execution of suit pronote under Ex.A-1 and that he attested Ex.A-1 pronote.

O.S.No. 22 OF 2017

Page 6 of 9

11.As seen from the evidence of PW-3, he is another attestor to the suit pronotes under Exs.A-1 and A-2 and in his chief-examination he categorically deposed about the execution of suit pronotes under Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 and that he attested the pronotes under Exs.A-1 and A-2.

Even in the cross-examination of PW-3, he stood consistent with his evidence. During the course of cross-examination of PW-3, he categorically denied the adverse suggestions and he categorically asserted about the attestation of suit pronote by him. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that PW- 3 is the husband of PW-1 and hence, his evidence is not tenable.

However, as seen from the point of view of an ordinary prudent man when the transaction said to have taken place in the house, it is quite natural that one of the spouse may attest the pronote. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is not sustainable.

12.Now coming to the evidence of PW-4, who is one of the attestor to suit pronote under Ex.A-2. He categorically deposed about the execution of suit pronote under Ex.A-2 and the borrowing of amount by the defendant and that he attested the suit pronote under Ex.A-2. During the course of cross-examination, PW-4 categorically denied the suggestions put-forth by the learned counsel for the defendant and stood consistent with his evidence.

13.Now coming to the evidence of PW-5, who is the scribe of suit pronotes under Exs.A-1 and A-2. He categorically deposed about the execution of suit pronotes under Exs.A-1 and A-2 and the borrowing of amounts by the defendant and that he scribed the suit pronotes under

Exs.A-1 and A-2. During cross-examination, PW-5 deposed that he do not know with which pen, the defendant put her signature on Exs.A-1 and

O.S.No. 22 OF 2017

Page 7 of 9

A-2 and he cannot say whether he scribed Exs.A-1 and A-2 with one and the same pen. However as seen from the record, the mere usage of different pens on two pronotes is not fatal to the case of plaintiff because the suit pronotes under Exs.A-1 and A-2 were said to have been executed on different dates and Exs.A-1 and A-2 contain different dates.

During the course of cross-examination, PW-5 categorically denied the suggestions put-forth by the learned counsel for the defendant and stood consistent with his evidence.

14.As per the contentions of the defendant, she contended that the suit pronotes under Exs.A-1 and A-2 are false and fabricated documents.

The defendant was examined as DW-1 and in the chief-examination she reiterated the contents on par with the written statement. Whereas in the cross-examination, she categorically stated that she knows who filed this suit and why it was filed. Still further, DW-1 deposed that she can identify her signature on her vakalatnama and at that juncture during cross-examination, DW-1 was confronted with her signatures on written statement and she did not identify her signatures. Thus, as seen from the entire evidence of DW-1, during the course of cross-examination, it is made out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that DW-1 is bent upon denying her signatures on the suit pronotes and in the course of the same, she categorically stated that she did not identify her own signatures on written statement. Furthermore, a suggestion was put to

PW-1 during the course of her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defendant that whether PW-1 has got any objection to send the suit pronotes for expert opinion and for this suggestion PW-1 reported no objection. But as seen from the entire record, the defendant did not take any steps pertaining to sending the documents to expert for opinion.

O.S.No. 22 OF 2017

Page 8 of 9

Therefore, the vague denial of the signature by the defendant and suit pronotes cannot be accepted when plaintiff categorically established the execution of suit pronotes and passing of consideration under Exs.A-1 and

A-2 with the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 and Exs.A-1 and A-2. Here the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant and the defendant did not establish that the plaintiff is a money-lender without valid license and the defendant also failed to establish that the suit pronotes were materially altered. Thus, these issues are answered accordingly.

15.ISSUE No.4:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount as prayed for?

In view of the findings on issues Nos.1 to 3, when the plaintiff successfully established the suit transactions under Exs.A-1 and A-2, hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for.

Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.

16.ISSUE No.5

To what relief?

In view of my findings on Issues No.1 and 4, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed.

17.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.6,61,517/- (Rupees

Six lakhs sixty one thousand five hundred and seventeen only) with further interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till

O.S.No. 22 OF 2017

Page 9 of 9 realization on principal sum of Rs.3,85,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and eighty five thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.II), transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of October, 2019.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW-1: Smt. Payili Jyothi (Plaintiff)

PW-2: Sri. Payili Venkatnarayana (Attestor of Ex.A-1)

PW-3: Sri. Payili Koteswar Rao (Attestor of Exs.A-1 and A-2)

PW-4: Sri. T. Veeraiah (Attestor of Ex.A-2)

PW-5: Sri. N. Venkateshwar Rao (Scribe of Exs.A-1 and A-2)

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT::

DW-1: Smt. Kothamasu Padma (Defendant) :: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

Ex.A-1: Original promissory note, dated 01-02-2014

Ex.A-2: Original promissory note, dated 05-02-2014

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: - NIL -

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

O.S.No. 22 OF 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR

(Thursday, the 24th day of October, 2019)

PRESENT: Smt. B. Sridevi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda

FAC: Assistant Sessions Judge

Huzurnagar

SESSIONS CASE No. 466 of 2013

(P.R.C. No.40/2013 on the file of the J.M.F.C. Kodad in Crime No.149/2013 of P.S. Kodad Rural)

COMPLAINANT:The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Kodad Rural ACCUSED:

Karne Naresh S/o Venkanna, age: 20 years, Caste: Dakkali, Occu: Driver, R/o Vasthakondur village of Gundala Mandal.

Offences Charged :U/Sec.366 IPC

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and hence he is hereby acquitted under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and surety bonds are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri N. Satyanarayana, Addl. P.P.

Accused is defended by:Sri D. Narayana Reddy, Advocate.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 17-10-2019 in the presence of Sri N. Satyanarayana, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri D. Narayana Reddy, Learned counsel

for accused and having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits

marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T:

1.The accused arraigned before this court for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC of Kodad Rural Police Station in

Crime No.149/2013.

Assistant Sessions Judge Huzurnagar

Page 2 of 9

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodad Rural Police Station filed charge sheet under Section 173 of Code of Criminal

Procedure with the following averments, in brief:-

(a)On dated 02-07-2013 at 12.00 hours, the complainant LW-1

Gourarapu Ravi lodged report stating that his relative Karne

Naresh staying in his house for 10 days and induced his wife

Gourarapu Laxmi and on 18-06-2013 kidnapped his wife with an intention to fulfill his desires and went away somewhere.

Meanwhile, his villagers Gourarapu Rama Rao and Karenekanti

Nagesh witnessed the incident. He searched at the homes of his relatives about them, but could not trace. Since his wife did not turn up to the village, finally he requested to take legal action against him as per law.

(b)Basing on the report, LW-5 G. Rajashekar, Sub-Inspector of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.149/2013 under Section 366 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation,

LW-5 examined LW-1 Gourarapu Ravi and recorded his statement.

Subsequently, he visited Gondriyala village, examined LW-2

Gourarapou Rama Rao and LW-3 Karnekanti Nagesh @ Nagaiah and recorded their statements. On 03-07-2013, LW-5 apprehended the accused and victim/LW-4 Gourarapu Laxmi and examined

LW-4. Thereafter, LW-5 took the accused into custody and accused was produced before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand on the same day. After completion of the investigation,

LW-5 G. Rajashekar, Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 366 IPC.

S.C.No.466 of 2013

Page 3 of 9

3.The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC vide

P.R.C.No.40/2013 and committed the above case to the Hon’ble

Court of Sessions, Nalgonda under Section 209(a) of Code of

Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions

Judge's Court made over the case to the Assistant Sessions Court,

Suryapet for disposal according to law. As per the Proceedings vide Dis.No.1085/2016/A.1, dated 22.02.2016 of the Hon'ble

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, the case is

transferred to the Hon’ble Special Sessions Court, for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against Women,

Nalgonda. As per the Proceedings vide Dis.No.4954/2016/A.1,

dated 20.09.2016 of the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Nalgonda, the case is transferred from Hon’ble Special

Sessions Court, for fast tracking the cases relating to the

atrocities against Women, Nalgonda to this court.

4.On appearance of the accused, he is examined under

Section 228(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and same was read over and explained in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution

PWs.1 to 4 are examined and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-4. PW-1 is the complainant and husband of victim, PWs.2 and 3 are eyewitnesses and PW-4 is the investigating officer.

S.C.No.466 of 2013

Page 4 of 9

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he was explaining the contents of incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution witnesses, which he again denied.

7.This court heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire record.

8.Now the point for determination is;

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT:

Shortly stated the allegations leveled against the accused are that about one year ago, the marriage of elder daughter of

PW-1 and LW-4 Gourarapu Laxmi was settled with the accused, but they did not perform the marriage, as their daughter is minor.

Since then accused used to visit their house frequently and stayed for few days. Accordingly, about 15 days back, accused visited the house of PW-1 and stayed in their house. On 18-06-2013, at 8.00 a.m., in the absence of PW-1, accused induced LW-4

Gourarapu Laxmi with an intention to fulfill his sexual desires, kidnapped LW-4 and took her away to Janagoan and took a rented room and stayed there for about 15 days.

10.As seen from the evidence of PW-1, he deposed in his chief- examination that in the year 2013 on 13th day of June, a proposal was made for giving his daughter to accused and he used to come to meet and speak with his daughter. One day, he went to

S.C.No.466 of 2013

Page 5 of 9

Warangal. On that day, accused induced his wife and he took away his wife from home. After coming home, he was intimated that accused took away LW-4 Gourarapu Laxmi under the pretext that he called her. Though, he searched for them, he could not find. After one week, she came to home and on enquiry, she told that she came home by escaping from the accused. Then they went and lodged complaint under Ex.P-1. Police examined him.

Whereas in the cross-examination, he categorically stated that it is true that he did not state before police that accused was said to have taken away LW-4 Gourarapu Laxmi under the pretext that he was calling her. PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that he lodged the complaint only after LW-4 Gourarapu Laxmi came back on 02-07-2013. Still further PW-1 admitted that he is not an eyewitness to the incident and his entire knowledge is based on facts narrated by LW-4 Gourarapu Laxmi. Thus, as seen from the cross-examination of Pw-1, it is categorically established by the learned counsel for the defence that the evidence of PW-1 is nothing but the evidence of hearsay witness, because PW-1 admitted that he is not an eyewitness to the incident and that his entire knowledge is based on facts narrated by LW-4 Gourarapu

Laxmi. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence

Act, the evidence of hearsay witness is inadmissible as per law.

Thus, Pw-1 evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

11.Now coming to the evidence of PW-2, he categorically stated that he do not know anything about the case facts and

PW-2 turned hostile.

S.C.No.466 of 2013

Page 6 of 9

12.PW-3 deposed in his evidence that he do not know anything about the case facts and he did not see anything. Even PW-3 turned hostile. During the cross-examination of PW-3, nothing worthwhile was elicited in his evidence to support the case of prosecution. Therefore, PW-3 evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

13.Now coming to the evidence of PW-4, who is the investigating officer in this case, he categorically deposed in his chief-examination that on 02-07-2013 at 1200 hours, he received a complaint from PW-1. Basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.149/2013 under Section 366 IPC and issued Ex.P-4 First

Information Report and recorded the statement of PW-1 at police station. Thereafter, he visited Gundriyala village, examined

PWs.2 and 3 and recorded their statements. On 03-07-2013, they came to know that victim is at Janagaon village of Warangal

District and accordingly they went there and she was brought to police station and recorded her statement. He apprehended the accused on the same day and produced him before the court and send to judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet. Whereas in the cross-examination, he categorically deposed that he did not examine any of the relatives of the victim and he also admitted that he did not mention as to the source of identification of victim by his constables. PW-4 further admitted that he did not examine any neighbours of the victim and also admitted that no panchanama was conducted in this case. Thus, as seen from the evidence of

PW-4, it categorically depicts the defective investigation under

S.C.No.466 of 2013

Page 7 of 9 taken by the investigating officer in this case. The non- examination of neighbours and the relatives of the alleged victim is fatal to the case of prosecution.

14.Still further, as seen from the entire record, the alleged victim by name Gourarapu Laxmi (i.e., LW-4) was not examined by the prosecution, which goes to the root of the case, since the victim is not examined by the prosecution to prove its allegations made against the accused. Therefore, as seen from the entire evidence of the prosecution, the prosecution utterly failed to proof the ingredients as contemplated under Section 366 IPC, because PW-1 is the hearsay witness and his evidence is not admissible as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act and PWs.2 and 3 evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution, because they turned hostile and did not depose anything against the accused.

15.Now coming to the evidence of PW-4, who is the investigating officer in this case, his evidence becomes the evidence of interested witness, because he is the investigating officer in this case and hence his evidence cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from independent witness evidence. As per Ex.P-1, the names of PWs.2 and 3 are mentioned as alleged eyewitnesses, but PWs.2 and 3 turned hostile and did not depose anything as mentioned in Ex.P-1 complaint.

16.Now coming to Exs.P-2 and P-3, they are the 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of PWs.2 and 3 and Ex.P-4 is the First Information

Report. However, mere marking of Exs.P-2 to P-4 does not

S.C.No.466 of 2013

Page 8 of 9 establish positively the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused, because there is no evidence of independent witnesses and the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the ingredients as mentioned under Section 366 IPC in order to prove the case against the accused. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt in his favour and thereby acquittal. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

17.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and hence he is hereby acquitted under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and surety bonds are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.II), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of October, 2019.

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: ASSISTANT SSESSIONS JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW-1: (LW-1):Gourarapu Ravi: Complainantand husband of victim

PW-2:(LW-2):Gourarapu Rama Rao: Eyewitness

PW-3:(LW-3):K. Nagesh @ Nagaiah: Eyewtness

PW-4:(LW-5):G. Rajashekar, S.I. of: Investigating officer Police,

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL -

S.C.No.466 of 2013

Page 9 of 9 : EXHIBITS MARKED : FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1Dt.02-07-2013… Complaint given by Pw-1

Ex.P-2 Dt.02-07-2013… 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2

Ex.P-3Dt.02-07-2013… 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3

Ex.P-4Dt.02-07-2013… First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - NIL –

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: ASSISTANT SSESSIONS JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

S.C.No.466 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR

(Dated, this, the 24th day of October, 2019)

PRESENT: Smt. B. SRIDEVI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR.

O.S.NO. 128 OF 2018

Between:

M/s. State Bank of India, Kodad Branch, Rep. by its’ Chief Manager Sri P. Anand Prasad, S/o Narayana, age: 52 years, R/o Kodad Town and Mandal, Suryapet District.

… PLAINTIFF AND

1. Banothu Venkatesh S/o Lakupathi, age: 25 years, Occu: CRPF Constable,

2. Banothu Lakupathi S/o Suguni, age: 54 years, Occu: Agriculture,

Both are R/o Yathavakilla village, Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District.

… DEFENDANT

This suit coming before me on 17-10-2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri N. Krishna Murthy, Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants remained set exparte and after having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of money from the defendants.

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

(a)On 02-02-2016, the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff bank for Xpress Credit Scheme Loan, accordingly, the plaintiff bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) vide loan A/c.No.35755511315. The defendant No.2 stood as guarantor to defendant No.1. The defendants have executed necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. The defendants agreed to

Page 2 of 5 repay the loan amount within 60 months together with interest at the rate of 12.55% per annum.

(b)That since beginning the defendants committed default in repayment of amount due to the plaintiff bank. That in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendants failed to repay the amount due on one pretext or other. The plaintiff bank got issued notice to the defendants on 22-05-2018. In spite of receiving the same, the defendants neither repaid the due amount nor gave reply to the plaintiff bank.

(c) As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendants No.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,12,273=42 paise (Rupees Three lakhs twelve thousand two hundred and seventy three and forty two paise only) together with future interest.

3.After serving of notices, the defendants did not appear before this court. As such, the defendants were remained set exparte.

4.To substantiate the suit claim, on behalf of the plaintiff bank, the authorized signatory is examined as PW-1 and got exhibited

Exs.A-1 to A-13.

5.This court heard the arguments on behalf of plaintiff bank and perused the entire record.

6. Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

O.S.No.128 OF 2018

Page 3 of 5

7.POINT:

It is the brief facts of the plaintiff bank that on 02-02-2016, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned Xpress Credit Scheme Loan for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four lakhs only) to the defendant No.1.

Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor to defendant No.1. Defendants

No.1 and 2 have executed necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank as per the terms and conditions of loan agreement. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendants No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,12,273=42 paise (Rupees Three lakhs twelve thousand two hundred and seventy three and forty two paise only) together with future interest.

8.In order to prove the said allegations, the authorized signatory on behalf of the plaintiff bank examined as PW-1 and reiterated almost all the averments of plaint in his affidavit in lieu of chief- examination. PW-1 categorically stated about obtaining loan amount from the bank and execution of necessary documents by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank. PW-1 relied upon the documentary evidence that is marked as Exs.A-1 to A-13 in support of the claim of the plaintiff bank. Ex.A-1 is the loan application,

Ex.A-2 is the pre-sanction inspection sheet, Ex.A-3 is the personal loan agreement, Ex.A-4 is the guarantee agreement, Ex.A-5 is the arrangement letter, Ex.A-6 is the Annexure-I, Ex.A-7 is the Standing

Instructions (S.I.) Report, Ex.A-8 is the Applicant details print out,

Ex.A-9 is the office copy of legal notice, Ex.A-10 is the another copy of legal notice, Exs.A-11 and A-12 are postal acknowledgment cards and Ex.A-13 is the statement of account. The oral evidence of

PW-1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

O.S.No.128 OF 2018

Page 4 of 5

9.In view of oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-13, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants. Hence, the point in question is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff bank.

10.IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff bank by passing decree holding that the defendants No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of

Rs.3,12,273/- (Rupees Three lakhs twelve thousand two hundred and seventy three only) (i.e., the amount of Rs.3,12,273-42 paise and rounded off to Rs.3,12,273/-) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum until realization.

Typed to my dictation, directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of October,

2019.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW-1: Sri. Kandarpa Suryanarayana (Authorized signatory of plaintiff bank)

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:: - NIL - :: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

Ex.A-1: Loan Application,

Ex.A-2: Pre-sanction inspection sheet,

Ex.A-3: Personal loan agreement,

Ex.A-4: Guarantee agreement,

O.S.No.128 OF 2018

Page 5 of 5

Ex.A-5: Arrangement letter,

Ex.A-6: Annexure-I,

Ex.A-7: Standing Instructions (S.I.), Report,

Ex.A-8: Applicant details print out,

Ex.A-9: Office copy of legal notice,

Ex.A-10: Office copy of Legal notice,

Exs.A-11 and A-12: Postal acknowledgment cards (two in number)

Ex.A-13: Statement of account.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:: - NIL –

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

O.S.No.128 OF 2018

OP 26 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT HUZURNAGAR

(On this the 24th day of October, 2019)

PRESENT: Smt. B. SRIDEVI,

Senior Civil Judge

Miryalaguda FAC: Senior Civil Judge Huzurnagar

O.P.No. 26 of 2019

BETWEEN:

Sri. Palla Mattaiah @ Madhu S/o Seetaramaiah, aged: 32 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Gudibanda village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District.

…Petitioner No.1. A n d

Smt. Palla Sunanda W/o Mattaiah @ Madhu D/o Linganaboina Satyanarayana, aged: 33 years, Occu: Nil, R/o Gudibanda village, Kodad Mandal, now residing at her parents’ house situated at Huzurnagar (near Gas office) Town and Mandal, Suryapet District.

… Petitioner No.2.

This Petition having come before me for final hearing on dt.17-10-2019 in the presence of Sri. K. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate on behalf of Petitioners, upon hearing arguments on behalf of Petitioners, upon perusing the entire material on record and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1. This is a Petition filed by the Petitioners 1 and 2 under Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying this Court to grant Divorce on

Mutual Consent, by dissolving the marriage in between the Petitioners, which was held on dated 24-11-2017.

2. The brief facts of the Petition are as follows:-

On dated 24-11-2017, at Sri Sitharamanjaneya Temple situated at

Gudibanda village of Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District, the marriage in

1 Of 3 Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

OP 26 of 2019

between the Petitioners was performed according to Hindu rites and customs, governed under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thereafter, they lived happily only for two (02) months from the date of marriage. Out of wedlock, they did not bless with any children. Since the marriage, the petitioners are not happy and could not adjust towards each other and differences arose between them. Due to differences the marital tie between them disturbed, which leads to permanent separation. Since February, 2018 the Petitioners have been residing separately. The elders tried to convene the disputes in between the

Petitioners, but in vain. Since there is no chance of reunion, the

Petitioners decided to take divorce on mutual consent. The Petitioner

No.1 has agreed and paid an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs twenty five thousand only) to the petitioner No.2 and the petitioner No.2 has received the said amount from the petitioner No.1 towards her permanent alimony. Hence, this Petition for Divorce on mutual consent.

3. After registering the OP, statutory period of six months was given to the

Petitioners with the fond hope that there might be chance for reunion.

4. During the course of evidence, the Petitioners 1 and 2 have been examined as Pws.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P-4.

5. This Court heard the arguments on behalf of the Petitioners and perused the entire record.

6. NOW THE POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE

PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF OF

DIVORCE ON MUTUAL CONSENT U/S 13-B of HINDU

MARRIAGE Act AS PRAYED FOR?

7. The Petitioners No.1 and 2 are examined as Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P-4. Ex.P.1 is wedding card, Ex.P-2 is marriage photograph, Ex.P-3 is attested Photostat copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.1 and Ex.P-4 is attested Photostat copy of Aadhaar Card

2 Of 3 Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

OP 26 of 2019

of petitioner No.2. Pws.1 and 2 have reiterated almost all the averments of the Petition about their marriage, misunderstandings cropped up in between them and their desire to take divorce on mutual consent. It is their specific evidence that their marital tie is irretrievably broken and there is no chance of reunion. In these compelled circumstances, this

Court has no option except to grant divorce to the Petitioners.

Accordingly, the Point in question is answered in favour of the

Petitioners.

8. IN THE RESULT, this petition is allowed by granting divorce to the

Petitioners by dissolving their marriage, dated 24-11-2017 with effect from 24-10-2019. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on

this the 24 th day of October, 2019.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

(On behalf of Petitioners)

PW.1 Sri. Palla Mattaiah alias Madhu (Petitioner No.1) PW.2Smt. Palla Sunanda (Petitioner No.2)

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of Petitioners)

Ex.P.1Wedding card Ex.P.2Marriage photograph Ex.P.3Attested photostat copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P.4Attested photostat copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.2

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

3 Of 3 Senior Civil Judge

Huzurnagar

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR

(Dated, this, the 24 th day of October, 2019)

PRESENT: Smt. B. SRIDEVI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR.

O.S. No. 46 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

Sanagani Sreenu

...PLAINTIFF

And

Gouripeddi Kanakadurga

....DEFENDANT

: DOCKET ORDER, DATED 24-10-2019 :

Plaintiff and Defendant and their respective counsels are present before Lok-

Adalath. Both parties filed terms of compromise. The settled read over, explained in Telugu to both parties for which they admitted that the terms are true and correct. In view of compromise between parties, the suit is settled in Lok-Adalath

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR