Sri B. Srinivasu

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present : Sri B.Srinivasu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

Monday, this the 22nd day of June, 2020

Original Suit No. 308 of 2016

Between :

Byraboina Aseervada Kumar @ Gunteiagh, s/o Pullaiah, aged about 60 years, Hindu, yadava by caste, agriculture, r/o Nallaguntla village, Dornala mandal, Prakasam District, now temporarily residing at Dornala village and mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

And

1.Kataru Vijaya Bhaskar, s/o Ananthaiah, aged about 25 years, Hindu, business, r/o Nallaguntla village, Dornala mandal, Prakasam District.

2.Kataru Tirupathamma, w/o Ananthaiah, aged about 50 years, Hindu, business, r/o Nallaguntla village, Dornala mandal, Prakasam District.

3.Kataru Ananthaiah, s/o Polaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, business, r/o Nallaguntla village, Dornala mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 19.6.2020before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Velugondaiah, Advocate for Plaintiff; and of Sri R.Balu Naik, Advocate for 3rd defendant; the defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte; and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T // //

01.The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for declaring the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, and for mandatory injunction for the removal of the bunk which was erected by the defendants in BEFC site, and for costs.

2 O.S.308/16

02. The averments of the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the ABCD and BEFC sites as shown in plaint plan i.e., item No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property i.e., an extent of 160 sq. yards and 31.25 sq. yards within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule, the plaintiff purchased item No.1 of the plaint schedule property from one Devasottu Jawaharlal Naik under registered sale deed dt. 22.7.1993 accompanied by delivery of possession of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property with indefeasible rights, while so, there is an open place i.e., BEFC as shown in plaint plan i.e., item No.2 of the schedule property which is situated northern side to the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, on further to item No.2 of the plaint schedule property there is a road abetting to the BEFC i.e., to the east of ABCD and there is a road to the north east corner of ABCD schedule property, from the date of purchase of item No.1 of the schedule property he is enjoying the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property which is situated northern side to the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, subsequently on 22.2.2016 the plaintiff purchased item No.2 of the plaint schedule property from the same vendor under registered sale deed dt.

22.2.2016, the plaintiff is enjoying the same without any interruption from anybody to the knowledge of one and all in the village including the defendants, subsequently the defendants by taking advantage of his absence in the village without his knowledge and consent high handedly erected a bunk in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property i.e., in BEFC vacant site, the defendants have no manner of right or interest over the item No.2 of the schedule property to erect a bunk, with an evil intention to grab his property, the defendants trespassed into 3 O.S.308/16 the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property and erected bunk in BEFC site. The plaintiff constructed a house in two portions with bath room and toilet room towards east facing and kept BEFC site to the north of ABCD site as vacant, the plaintiff got issued a notice to the defendants on 8.7.2016 calling upon them to remove the bunk erected by them high handedly in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, the defendants also received the said notice, and issued reply notice dt. 14.7.16 with false contents by stating that they erected the bunk in gram kantam land of Nallaguntla village and the same is acquired by them about 30 years back, and failed to remove the bunk. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants declaring his right, title, interest and possession over the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property and for mandatory injunction for removal of the bunk in item No.2 of the schedule property.

03.The defendants 1 and 2 are set exparte. The 3rd defendant filed written statement denied the contents of the plaint and further contended that infact this defendant acquired the land 30 years back, since then the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the land, he erected the bunk and is paying cist to that land, the land in which the bunk is erected by this defendant is grama kantam, the plaintiff has no manner of right in the land of the defendant, the same is known to one and all including the plaintiff in the village, there are political rivalries in the village, the defendants are opposite group of the plaintiff, due to which the plaintiff boregrudge against the defendants high handedly trying to occupy the land of the defendant, the plaintiff has no right in the site, thus, this suit is liable to be dismissed.

4 O.S.308/16

04. Basing on the aforesaid averments, following issues were settled for trial :

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for ?

3. To What relief ?

05. On behalf of Plaintiff, Pw.1 wasexamined andEx.A.1 to A.7 were marked.

Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the 3rd defendant.

06. Heard on both sides.

07.Issue No.1 :

The learned counsel for both parties argued their respective contentions averred in plaint as well as in written statement and basing on the oral and documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial. I have considered the rival contention of learned counsel for both parties and perused record.

08.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff is examined as Pw.1, in his chief affidavit he recapitulated the contents of plaint and deposed that he is the plaintiff in the suit, he is the absolute owner of the ABCD and BEFC sites as shown in Ex.A.1 plaint plan i.e., item No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property i.e., an extent of 160 sq. yards and 31.25 sq. yards within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule, he purchased item No.1 of the plaint schedule property from one Devasottu Jawaharlal Naik under Ex.A.2 registered sale deed

dt. 22.7.1993 and also obtained possession of item No.1 of the plaint schedule

property, since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the item No.1 of 5 O.S.308/16 the schedule property by constructing a house i.e., two portioned house along with bath room and toilets in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, there is an open place i.e., BEFC as shown in Ex.A.1 plaint plan i.e., item No.2 of the schedule property which is situated northern side to the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, on further to the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property there is a road abetting to the BEFC i.e., to the east of ABCD and there is a road to the north east corner of ABCD schedule property, from the date of purchase of item No.1 of the schedule property he is enjoying the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property which is situated northern side to the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, subsequently on 22.2.2016 he purchased item No.2 of the plaint schedule property from the same vendor under Ex.A.3 registered sale deed

dt. 22.2.2016 within the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A.3 and the plaint schedule,

he is enjoying the same without any interruption from anybody to the knowledge of one and all in the village including the defendants, subsequently after he purchased the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property from his vendor, the defendants by taking advantage of his absence in the village without his knowledge and consent high handedly erected a bunk in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property i.e., in BEFC vacant site, but the defendants have no manner of right or interest over the item No.2 of the schedule property to erect a bunk, with an evil intention, to grab his property, the defendants trespassed into the item

No.2 of the plaint schedule property and erected bunk in BEFC site. He further deposed that he also got issued Ex.A.5 legal notice to the defendants on 8.7.2016 calling upon them to remove the bunk erected by them high handedly in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, the defendants also received the said notice, and issued Ex.A.6 reply notice dt. 14.7.16 with false contents by stating that they erected the bunk in gram kantam land of Nallaguntla village and the 6 O.S.308/16 same is acquired by them about 30 years back, and failed to remove the bunk.

He further deposed that Ex.A.7 photographs also shows that the defendants erected a bunk in the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, since the defendants failed to remove the bunk, hence, he filed the suit against the defendants declaring his right, title, interest and possession over the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. He further deposed that he also filed Ex.A.4 cist receipts issued by Panchayat Secretary, Nallaguntla village to show that he paid tax to the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, from the date of purchase of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property he has been enjoying the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property by constructing a house in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, item No.2 of the schedule property is vacant site which is situated on the northern side of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property abetting to item No.1 in which the defendants who have no manner of right, title or interest to erect a bunk in item No.2 of the schedule property.

9.The defendants 1 and 2 are set exparte. The 3rd defendant filed written statement. In his written statement he admitted that he erected a bunk in BEFC vacant site, but he pleaded that the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is a gram kantam land, he acquired the same nearly 30 years back, the plaintiff has no manner of right or interest in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.

10.Even though the 3rd defendant in his written statement he deposed that the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is a gram kantam land, he occupied the same nearly 30 years back, since then he is enjoying by paying cist, but the 3rd defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove their contention that item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is gram kantam land.

Even the 3rd defendant did not file any document to show that item No.2 is a gram 7 O.S.308/16 kantam land. Hence, it shows that the defendant utterly failed to prove his contention that item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is gram kantam land, he occupied the same nearly 30 years back, since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

11.On the other hand, as per the evidence of Pw.1, he purchased the item

No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.2 registered sale deeds respectively, he constructed a house in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is vacant site, he also paid cist to the gram panchayat, Nallaguntla village under Ex.A.4, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the item No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property from 22.7.93, but one week prior to issuing Ex.A.5 legal notice to the defendants i.e., in the year 2016, in his absence, the defendants high handedly constructed a bunk in BEFC vacant site, the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to erect a bunk, after receiving Ex.A.5 notice also the defendants failed to remove the bunk and issued Ex.A.6 reply notice with all false contents. Having no other go he filed this suit against the defendants for declaration of his right and title over the item No.2 of the schedule property and possession for item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. The 3rd defendant also did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove his contention except filing written statement.

12.Hence, the evidence of Pw.1 is clearly shows that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, he purchased the same from his vendor under Ex.A.3, but the defendants high handedly erected a bunk in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property without having any manner of 8 O.S.308/16 right or title over the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. Moreover, the defendants failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove their contention that the land in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is gram kantam land and they occupied the same nearly 30 years back. On the other hand, the plaintiff by adducing oral and documentary evidence proved his contention that he is the owner of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.

13.Even though the learned counsel for the 3rd defendant cross examined

Pw.1 but nothing is elicited to disprove the contention of the plaintiff about his right and title over the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. At the same time the defendants failed to adduce either oral or documentary evidence to prove their contention that the land in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is gram kantam land and they occupied the same nearly 30 years back. Thus, in view of my foregoing discussion supra I hold that plaintiff is entitled for declaration as well as possession as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

14.Issue No.2 :

As per the evidence of Pw.1, he purchased item No.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3, since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption from anybody, he constructed a house in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is vacant site. The defendants who have no manner of right or interest over the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, by taking advantage of his absence in the village, in the year 2016 the defendants high handedly erected a bunk in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property i.e., in BEFC 9 O.S.308/16 site, he also got issued Ex.A.5 legal notice to the defendants on 8.7.2016 calling upon them to remove the bunk erected by them high handedly in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, the defendants also received the said notice, and issued

Ex.A.6 reply notice dt. 14.7.16 with false contents by stating that they erected the bunk in gram kantam land of Nallaguntla village and the same is acquired by them about 30 years back, and failed to remove the bunk. Hence, he filed the suit against the defendants declaring his right, title, interest and possession over the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, and for mandatory injunction to remove the bunk in BEFC site i.e., in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.

15.The defendants 1 and 2 are exparte. Even though the 3rd defendant in his written statement he deposed that the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is a gram kantam land, he occupied the same nearly 30 years back, since then he is enjoying the same by paying cist, but he did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove his contention that item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is gram kantam land. Even the 3rd defendant did not file any document to show that item No.2 is a gram kantam land. Hence, it shows that the 3rd defendant utterly failed to prove his contention that item No.2 of the plaint schedule property is gram kantam land, he occupied the same nearly 30 years back, since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and his possession is adverse possession.

16.On the other hand, as per the contention of the Pw.1 he purchased the item

No.2 of the schedule property from his vendor under Ex.A.3, but the defendants high handedly erected a bunk in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property without having any manner of right or title over the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, hence he got issued Ex.A.5 legal notice to the defendants, after 10 O.S.308/16 receiving the notice also the defendants failed to remove the bunk from item No.2 of the plaint schedule property and issued Ex.A.6 reply notice with false contents.

Having no other go, he filed this suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to remove the bunk which was erected in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property i.e., BEFC land.

Considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and in view of my foregoing discussion supra, I hold that except to accept and consider the unchallenged evidence of Pw.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.7, this court is left with no option to grant mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

17.Issue No.3 :

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is entitled for possession of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.

The defendants are directed to remove the bunk in BEFC site i.e., item No.2 of the plaint schedule property which was erected by defendants, by way of

Mandatory Injunction within one month from the date of this judgment.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 22 nd day of June, 2020

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MARKAPUR

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff :

Pw.1 : Byraboina Aseervada Kumar @ Gunteiagh 11 O.S.308/16

For Defendants :

- None -

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1 : Plaint plan

Ex.A.2 : Registered sale deed dt. 22.7.1993 executed by Devasottu

Jawaharlal Naik in favour of Pw.1

Ex.A.3 : Registered sale deed dt. 22.2.2016 executed by Devasottu

Jawaharlal Naik in favour of Pw.1

Ex.A.4 : Two house tax receipts dt.23.4.2016 & 31.10.2014 issued by

Panchayat Secretary, Nallaguntla

Ex.A.5 : Legal notice dt. 8.7.2016 issued by plaintiff counsel to the defendants

Ex.A.6 : Reply notice dt. 14.7.2016 issued by counsel for 3rd defendant

Ex.A.7 : Four photographs along with CD.

For Defendants:

- Nil -

Prl. J. C. J.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present : Sri B.Srinivasu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

Tuesday, this the 24th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No. 247 of 2018

Between :

Jagarlamudi Chinna Thimmaiah, s/o Pedda Ramaiah, aged about 55 years, cultivation, r/o Amanigudipadu village, Yerragondapalem mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

And

Manda Pedda Nagaiah, s/o Venkataiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years, cultivation, r/o Amanigudipadu village, Yerragondapalem mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 23.3.2020before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri K.L.Raju,

Advocate for Defendant; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T // //

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to pass a Judgment and decree for the suit amount of Rs.2,71,159/- with costs and subsequent interest under suit promissory notes.

2. The averments of the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.8.2017 and

Rs.1,21,000/- on 29.8.2017 from plaintiff for his family necessities and executed ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand, when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the suit promissory notes debt due 2 O.S.247/18 amount for several times, but the defendant did not choose to discharge the suit debt amount, hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 3.6.2018 demanding to discharge the suit promissory notes debt, but even after issuance of notice the defendant did not pay the suit promissory notes debt to the plaintiff, having no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations mentioned in plaint and further submitted that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed promissory notes in favour of plaintiff, the thumb impressions on the suit promissory notes are not belonged to the defendant, the plaintiff forged the thumb impressions of the defendant and prepared ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes to obtain unlawful gain from the defendant, due to the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory notes with the help of his henchmen, the defendant belongs to SC community, the defendant is living by doing coolie works, this defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff, thus, this suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing on the aforesaid averments, following issues were settled for trial:-

1.Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendant, plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for ?

2.To what relief?

5. During the trial, on behalf of Plaintiff, Pw.1 to 3 areexamined andEx.A.1 to A.4 are marked. On behalf of defendant, Dw.1 is examined and no document is let in.

6. Heard on both sides.

3 O.S.247/18

7.Issue No.1 :

The learned counsel for both parties argued their respective contentions averred in plaint as well as in written statement and basing on the oral and documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial. I have considered the rival contention of learned counsel for both parties and perused record.

To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined as Pw.1, he filed his chief affidavit, in his chief examination he recapitulated the entire contents of the plaint, and deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.8.2017 and Rs.1,21,000/- on 29.8.2017 from him for his family necessities and executed Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to him or to his order on demand, when he demanded the defendant to pay the debt several times, but the defendant used to postpone the same on one pretext or other, finally, on 3.6.2018 he got issued Ex.A.3 legal notice to the defendant, but thereafter also the defendant did not pay the debt amount, hence, he filed the suit against the defendant for realization of the suit amount.

8.Pw.2 is the attestor of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes, he also supported the evidence of Pw.1. In his evidence he deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.8.2017 and Rs.1,21,000/- on 29.8.2017 from the plaintiff by executing Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes in favour of plaintiff in his presence, he is acted as attestor of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes, Pw.3 is acted as scribe of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes, in their presence the defendant received money from the plaintiff and executed

Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes.

4 O.S.247/18

9.Pw.3 is the scribe of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes, he also supported the evidence of Pw.1 and 2. In his evidence he deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.8.2017 and Rs.1,21,000/- on 29.8.2017 from the plaintiff by executing Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes in favour of plaintiff in his presence and in the presence of Pw.2, he is acted as scribe of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes, Pw.2 is acted as attestor of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes.

Thus, the evidence of Pw.1 to 3 clearly shows that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.8.2017 and Rs.1,21,000/- on 29.8.2017 from plaintiff by executing Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes, since the defendant failed to pay the debt amount, he filed the suit.

Even though the counsel for defendant cross examined Pw.1 to 3, but nothing was elicited to disprove the contention of the plaintiff except mere suggestions.

10.The defendant filed his written statement, in his written statement he took a plea by stating that he never borrowed any amount from Pw.1 and never executed Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes, Pw.1 fabricated Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes by forging his thumb impressions with a view to get unlawful gain. To prove his contention, defendant is examined as Dw.1. Even though in his chief examination he deposed that he never borrowed any amount from plaintiff and never executed Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 in favour of Pw.1, Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are fabricated by Pw.1 by forging his thumb impressions, but he did not take any steps to send Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 to expert to prove that the thumb impressions in

Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are not belongs to him.

5 O.S.247/18

11.Though Dw.1 completely denied about execution of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes but he did not adduce any evidence on his behalf in support of his case that he never borrowed amount from Pw.1 and never executed promissory notes in favour of Pw.1. Even though Dw.1 simply deposed that

Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are forged by Pw.1, but he did not take any steps to send

Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 to the expert, if really the thumb impressions in Ex.A.1 and

Ex.A.2 does not belong to defendant, what prevented him to send the same to the expert, but he did not do so. Though the defendant argued that Pw.1 forged/fabricated Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes with the help of his henchmen to get wrongful gain, but the defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in order to prove the same. Once the plaintiff established his case that the defendant executed Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove his case that he did not execute the promissory notes in favour of Pw.1. Hence, it is clear from the evidence of Dw.1 that the defendant completely failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf in support of his case. On the other hand, the plaintiff successfully established his case. Hence, in such circumstances I hold that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.8.2017 and Rs.1,21,000/- on 29.8.2017 from plaintiff and executed Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 promissory notes in favour of plaintiff and also hold that Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are true, valid and binding on the defendant, moreover, the defendant failed to place any contra evidence to prove that Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are forged/fabricated by Pw.1 by forging his thumb impressions in

Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, I find that the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

6 O.S.247/18

12.Issue No.2:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.2,71,159/- with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,21,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 24th day of March, 2020

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MARKAPUR

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

Pw.1 : Jagarlamudi Chinna Thimmaiah Dw.1 : Manda Pedda Nagaiah

Pw.2 : Veginati Yallaiah

Pw.3 : Malipeddi Venkateswarlu

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1 :Suit promissory note dt. 28.8.2017 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2 :Suit promissory note dt. 29.8.2017 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.3:Office copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff to the defendant dt. 3.6.2018

Ex.A.4:Postal receipt.

For Defendant:

NIL

Prl. J. C. J.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present : Sri B.Srinivasu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

Tuesday, this the 24th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No. 353 of 2018

Between :

Pulagorla Chinna Venkaiah, s/o Ramaiah, aged 50 years, Hindu, MPTC, r/o Ganapavaram village, Thripuranthakam mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

And

Munukuri Venkata Bhaskar Reddy, s/o Venkateswara Reddy, aged 28 years, Hindu, business,r/oGanapavaramvillage, Thripuranthakam mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 23.3.2020before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt E.Saradha, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri G.L.Kumar Reddy, Advocate for Defendant; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T // //

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to pass a Judgment and decree for the suit amount of Rs.1,72,000/- with costs and subsequent interest under suit promissory note.

2. The averments of the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from plaintiff for his family necessities and executed a promissory note on 30.9.2015 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand at Ganapavaram village, when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the suit promissory note debt due amount for several times, but the defendant did not choose to discharge the suit debt amount, hence, the plaintiff 2 O.S.353/18 got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 29.8.2018 demanding to discharge the suit promissory note debt, the defendant received the said notice and gave reply notice dt.10.9.2018 with all false allegations, and failed to discharge the debt under the above said promissory note, having no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations mentioned in plaint and further submitted that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff, previously the plaintiff stood as surety to the loan taken by the father of the defendant from

SBI, Thripuranthakam branch to construct a rice mill, subsequently the bank authorities filed suit against the father of the defendant and plaintiff, thereafter the father of the defendant paid loan amount to the bank, six months prior to filing of the suit the plaintiff made a gallata with the father of the defendant for return of his documents, the father of the defendant approached the bank authorities and handed over the documents to the plaintiff, keeping the same in mind to take revenge against the family of the defendant the plaintiff created the suit promissory note with the help of his henchmen by forging the signatures of the defendant, the suit promissory note is forged one, the defendant never signed on the stamped portion in the promissory note, the defendant has no need to pay the amount to the plaintiff, thus, this suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing on the aforesaid averments, following issues were settled for trial:-

1.Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant, plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for ?

2.To what relief?

3 O.S.353/18

5. During the trial, on behalf of Plaintiff, Pw.1 isexamined andEx.A.1 to A.3 are marked. On behalf of defendant, Dw.1 is examined and no document is let in.

6. Heard on both sides.

7.Issue No.1 :

The learned counsel for both parties argued their respective contentions averred in plaint as well as in written statement and basing on the oral and documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial. I have considered the rival contention of learned counsel for both parties and perused record.

To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined as Pw.1, he filed his chief affidavit, in his chief examination he recapitulated the entire contents of the plaint, and deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.9.2015 from him for his family necessities and executed Ex.A.1 in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to him or to his order on demand, when he demanded the defendant to pay the debt several times, but the defendant used to postpone the same on one pretext or other, finally, on 29.8.2018 he got issued Ex.A.2 legal notice to the defendant, the defendant also received the same and issued Ex.A.3 reply notice with false allegations, hence, he filed the suit against the defendant for realization of the suit amount.

Thus, the evidence of Pw.1 clearly shows that on 30.9.2015 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from plaintiff by executing Ex.A.1 promissory note, since the defendant failed to pay the debt amount, he filed the suit.

4 O.S.353/18

Even though the counsel for defendant cross examined Pw.1, but nothing was elicited to disprove the contention of the plaintiff except mere suggestions.

8.The defendant filed his written statement, in his written statement he took a plea by stating that he never borrowed any amount from Pw.1 and never executed Ex.A.1 promissory note, Pw.1 fabricated Ex.A.1 promissory note by forging his signature with a view to get unlawful gain. To prove his contention, defendant is examined as Dw.1. Even though in his chief examination he deposed that he never borrowed any amount from plaintiff and never executed

Ex.A.1 in favour of Pw.1, previously the plaintiff stood as surety to the loan taken by his father from SBI, Thripuranthakam branch to construct a rice mill, subsequently the bank authorities filed suit against his father and plaintiff, thereafter his father paid loan amount to the bank, six months prior to filing of the suit the plaintiff made a gallata with his father for return of his documents, his father approached the bank authorities and handed over the documents to the plaintiff, due to grudges the plaintiff created the suit promissory note with the help of his henchmen by forging the signatures of the defendant, but in his cross examination he clearly admitted that he does not know who stood as surety to the loan obtained by his father from the bank, he is ready to take steps to send

Ex.A.1 to the expert to prove that the signature in Ex.A.1 is not belongs to him.

9.Though Dw.1 completely denied about execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note but he did not adduce any evidence on his behalf in support of his case that he never borrowed amount from Pw.1 and never executed promissory note in favour of Pw.1. Even though Dw.1 simply deposed that Ex.A.1 is forged by Pw.1, but he did not take any steps to send Ex.A.1 to the expert, if really the signature in 5 O.S.353/18

Ex.A.1 does not belong to defendant, what prevented him to send the same to the expert, but he did not do so. Though the defendant argued that Pw.1 forged/fabricated Ex.A.1 promissory note with the help of his henchmen to get wrongful gain, but the defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in order to prove the same. Once the plaintiff established his case that the defendant executed Ex.A.1, then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove his case that he did not execute the promissory note in favour of Pw.1. Hence, it is clear from the evidence of Dw.1 that the defendant completely failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf in support of his case. On the other hand, the plaintiff successfully established his case. Hence, in such circumstances I hold that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from plaintiff and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of plaintiff and also hold that Ex.A.1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant, moreover, the defendant failed to place any contra evidence to prove that Ex.A.1 is forged/fabricated by Pw.1 by forging his signature in Ex.A.1, I find that the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

10.Issue No.2:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 24th day of March, 2020

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MARKAPUR

6 O.S.353/18

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

Pw.1 : Pulagorla Chinna Venkaiah Dw.1 : Munukuri Venkata Bhaskar Reddy

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1 :Suit promissory note dt. 30.9.2015 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2:Office copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff to the defendant dt. 29.8.2018

Ex.A.3:Reply notice issued by the defendant to the plaintiff dt. 10.9.2018

For Defendant:

NIL

Prl. J. C. J.

1O.S.451/19

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present: Sri B.Srinivasu Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

Tuesday, this the 24th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No. 451 of 2019

Between :

Kasukurthi Srinivas, s/o Sambasiva Rao, aged 53 years, advocate, r/o Vidya Nagar, Markapur town and mandal, Prakasam District.

... Plaintiff

And

Udayagiri Bala Krishna, s/o Bakkaiah, aged 51 years, Hindu, process server in Jr. Civil Judge’s Court, Kanigiri, permanent r/o Markapur town and mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendant

This suit coming on 23.3.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt

K.Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri M.Sriramireddy, Advocate for

Defendant; subsequently the defendant called absent and set exparte; and upon perusing the evidence available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

01. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass a Judgment and decree for the suit amount of Rs.1,81,026/- with subsequent interest basing on promissory note and for costs.

02.The averments of the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.95,000/- on 15.9.2016 from plaintiff for his family necessities and executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with compound interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand at Markapur town, when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the debt under promissory note, the defendant did not pay the amount and postponing the payment on some pretext or other, having no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

2O.S.451/19

03. On 10.3.2020 defendant called absent and set ex-parte. On 23.3.2020 the plaintiff filed his chief affidavit.

04. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined as Pw.1 and Ex.A.1 is marked.

05. Heard the counsel for Plaintiff.

06. Now the point for determination is “whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit promissory note debt as prayed for?”

07. Point :

To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined as Pw.1, and in his evidence clearly supported the averments of the plaint and deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.95,000/- on 15.9.2016 from him for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with compound interest at 24% p.a. and executed a promissory note/Ex.A.1 in his favour, when he demanded the defendant to discharge the debt under promissory note/Ex.A.1, the defendant did not pay and postponing the payment on some pretext or other, hence, he urged to decree the suit.

08.The oral evidence of Pw.1 and Ex.A.1 clearly shows that the defendant has received the entire consideration amount then only he executed Ex.A.1 on 15.9.2016 for

Rs.95,000/- and subsequently the defendant did not pay the amount due under the suit promissory note/Ex.A.1. Once the plaintiff proved his case by adducing his oral and documentary evidence, then the burden shifts on the shoulders of the defendant to disprove the case of Plaintiff, but the defendant did not appear before the Court and thereby this Court was constrained to set him ex-parte. Hence, this Court felt that it is a fit case to pass decree in favour of Plaintiff. Accordingly, this Point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

3O.S.451/19

09.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.1,81,026/- with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.95,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to the stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 24th day of March, 2020

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

Pw.1 : Kasukurthi SrinivasEx-parte

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1:Promissory note executed by the Defendant in favour of Pw.1 dt. 15.9.2016

For Defendant :

NIL

Prl. J.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present: Sri B.Srinivasu Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

Monday, this the 22nd day of June, 2020

Original Suit No. 531 of 2019

Between:

Anna Subba Rao, s/o Kotaiah, aged about 38 years, Hindu, hotel business, r/o main bazaar, bus stand center, Pullalacheruvu village and mandal, Prakasam District.

... Plaintiff

And

1.Anna Kotaiah, s/o Chinna Kotaiah, aged about 68 years, Hindu, r/o main bazaar, bus stand center, Pullalacheruvu village and mandal, Prakasam District.

2.Anna Chinna Subba Rao, s/o Kotaiah, aged about 34 years, Hindu, business, r/o main bazaar, bus stand center, Pullalacheruvu village and mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendants

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for partition of the plaint schedule property into 3 equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such share to the plaintiff and one such share to each of the defendants, with reference to good and bad qualities and to deliver separate possession of such allotted share to the plaintiff and defendants through process of the court, and to grant mesne profits and for costs.

This suit coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

K.Srinivas, Advocate for Plaintiff; and of Smt A.Ushasri, Advocate for Defendants; basing on the memo filed by the counsel for plaintiff and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

This suit is advanced to this day from 25.6.2020 as per the orders passed by this

Hon’ble court in I.A. 666/2020 dt. 22.6.2020.

Counsel for the plaintiff filed memo by stating that as per the advice of the elders, both parties settled the matter outside the court and prayed this Hon’ble court to dismiss 2O.S.531/19 this suit as settled outside the court. Hence memo is recorded, and this suit is dismissed as settled outside the court.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 22nd day of June, 2020

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

- Nil -

Prl. J.C.J.