1 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MIRYALAGUDA
Dated, this the 6th day of November, 2025
PRESENT: SRI B. SUJAY
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MIRYALAGUDA
OS.No. 123 OF 2016
Between:
Tedla Laxmaiah, S/o Seethaiah, Age: 66 Years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.11-38, Seetharampuram, Miryalaguda town and municipality, Nalgonda District. … Plaintiff
AND
Gouru Venkateshwarlu, S/o Vishwanadham, Age: 54 Years, Occu: Business, R/o No.5-86, Shabu Nagar, Miryalaguda – 508207, Nalgonda District. … Defendant
This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri Ch. K. Nageshwar Rao,counsel for the Defendant; upon hearing from both sides and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court pronounced the following:- :: J U D G M E N T::
1.This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,84,500/- with pendentelite and post decreetal interest at contractual rate from the date of suit till realization on the principal amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from the person and property of defendant, basing on two demand promissory notes, and to award costs of the suit.
2 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
2.The plaintiff’s case in brief is as follows:
The defendant is a sole proprietor of Vijayadurga
Vastralayam, a wholesale and retail fancy cloth showroom, situated at
Sagar Road, Miryalaguda town. Out of acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.09.2013 in the morning hours to meet his business needs of said showroom by executing a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff by agreeing to repay the said amount to the plaintiff or on his order with interest @ Rs.1.50 Ps., per hundred per annum one E. Praveen Kumar stood as an attestor to the said promissory note and the same was scribed by defendant himself. Further, on 09.09.2015, again the defendant borrowed an amount Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff to meet his business necessities by executing a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same to the plaintiff or to his order with interest @ Rs.1.50 Ps. Per 100 per month in the presence of said
E. Praveen Kumar and the defendant himself scribed the said pronote.
Later, the defendant failed to repay the said amount even after persistent demands by plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice,dt.04.07.2016 for repayment of said loan amount, but the said notice was returned unserved with an endorsement “Refused”.
As such the plaintiff is entitled Rs.4,00,000/- towards principal amount and interest @ RS.1.50 Ps. 100 per month from 10.09.2013 to 3 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
10.08.2016 (35 months), which comes to Rs.2,10,000/-, totally
Rs. 6,10,000/- and further Rs. 1,50,000/- towards principal amount with interest @ Rs. 1.50 Ps. Per 100 per month from 09.09.2015 to 09.08.2016 (11 months), which comes to Rs.24,750/- totally
Rs.1,74,750/- and the grand total comes to Rs.7,84,750/-. Hence, the suit.
3.Defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further contended that there is a correction in the date portion of first promissory note, dt.10.09.2013 i.e., in the month portion, and it was written at first as 10.01.2013 and it was corrected in the month portion of the said promissory note i.e., 1 (one) was corrected as 9 (nine) and it was made for the purpose of limitation for filing the present suit. Further, in the second promissory note also there is correction in the date portion and at first it was written as 01.01.2013 and then scrubbed in the year portion and written as 5 (Five) in place 3 (Three) i.e., at first it was written as 2013 and then it was corrected as 2015. He further contended that the plaintiff is doing money lending business for 30 years without having valid license and previously he ran private chit fund without having valid license. He further submitted that he has no knowledge about issuing of legal notice by plaintiff and the plaintiff might have colluded with the concerned Postman and managed him to get it returned with an 4 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
endorsement “refused” by defendant. The suit amount is wrong and the calculation and figures mentioned in the plaint are only imagination and created by plaintiff. There is no cause of action to file the suit. The suit is hit by Section 87 of the NI Act. The defendant also submitted the
additional grounds, as follows:
(a)The plaintiff demanded the defendant to sell his commercial shop with cheaper rate, but the defendant denied to sell his commercial shop which costs about
Rs.80,00,000/- and then the plaintiff developed mala fide intention against the defendant and created false and fabricated demanded promissory notes with the collusion of his yes men and filed this false suit and other false suits.
(b)It is further submitted that the defendant is a tenant to the plaintiff and the defendant has taken the shop of the plaintiff about 12 years back on lease basis for the purpose of running cloth shop under name style of Vijaya Durga
Vasthralayam and paying the rents regularly to the plaintiff and after receiving the rents, the plaintiff also passing receipts in favor of the defendant. The defendant has developed his business day by day and seeing this, the plaintiff developed eye sore against the defendant and 5 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
causing and creating troubles to the defendant and his business and all of sudden the plaintiff demanded the defendant to increase shop rent from Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.20,000/- per month and the defendant denied the same and also the requested the plaintiff not to increase the rent from Rs.5,000/- to 20,000/- which is very abnormal and against the terms and conditions of lease agreement, but the plaintiff is very adamant in nature and is trying to take law into his hands, as such, the defendant filed suit
O.S.No.130 of 2016 and filed petition and obtained
temporary injunction order against the plaintiff from this
Court and same is pending before this Court.
(c)It is further submitted that the defendant paid entire amount to the plaintiff under this suit promissory note and also other promissory notes and in this regard, the plaintiff and his wife by name Tedla Sunanda filed suits O.S.No.144 of 2016 and O.S.No.129 of 2016 respectively and the plaintiff also passed receipt on 22-03-2016 in favour the defendant stating that he received an amount of
Rs11,00,000/- from the defendant towards total due amount and there are some dues towards the interest portion to the plaintiff by this defendant and with regard 6 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
to the said interest portion, this defendant also paid entire interest up to 09-08-2016 along with shop rent of
Rs.5,000/- per month and the plaintiff also passed receipts to that effect and the said receipts are filed in OS.No.130 of 2016.
4.The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendant denying the averments made therein and further contended that there is no alteration made by plaintiff in the promissory notes and he never did money lending business and further denied that he previously run private chit fund business. The defendant took his shop on lease and running his business since 2014 and the same is mentioned in the suit filed by defendant against the plaintiff in
OS.No. 130 of 2016 and as such, the contention of defendant that he
does not know the plaintiff does not arise at all. Plaintiff never demanded the defendant to sell away his shop to him but the plaintiff only demanded the defendant to vacate the shop as he is shifting his fertilizer shop from old market yard to main road and also he is in need of establishment of new shop and the defendant himself offered to sell away his shop situated backside to KR estate to the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not accept the same. Further, the alleged receipts dated 01.11.2013 with regard to Rs.30,000/-, dated 10.11.2013, 10.11.2013 and 10.12.2013 are scribed by the plaintiff and with regard to Telugu 7 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
words, “2 nelala, Vaddi, kiraee muttinadi“ are not scribed by the plaintiff and they are forged one and further, the receipt dated 22.12.2019 for
Rs.50,000/- was scribed and signed by defendant. Further, all the remaining entries of account sheets, receipts are forged and created by the defendant for the purpose of this case and except the above hand writings, the remaining alleged documents are forged. The alleged receipt dated 22.03.2016 said to have been executed by defendant is false and he never received such amount of Rs.11,00,000/- from the defendant. In order to escape/avoid the liability of the plaintiff, the defendant created all the false, forged, fabricated documents and plaintiff is reserving his right to send the alleged documents to expert for opinion. The defendant has to pay arrears of shop rent @
Rs.25,000/- per month from 01.09.2015 to 01.01.2016 to a tune of
Rs.4,00,000/- and without paying the said amount and the suit amount, the defendant filed his written statement and other cases with a dishonest intention. Further, the alleged rent of Rs.5,000/- is false and the written statement is devoid of merits, hence prayed to decree the suit.
5.Basing on above pleadings and the material on record, the following issues were framed:
1.Whether two suit promissory notes are true, valid, genuine and binding on defendant?
8 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
2. Whether suit promissory notes are materially altered?
3. Whether suit promissory notes are fabricated and not supported by consideration?
4. To what relief ?
6.After closing the evidence from both sides and during the course of arguments, in view of allowing the I.As No.398/2023 and 399/2023, the following additional issue was framed on 19.12.2023, but no further evidence adduced:
“Whether the plaintiff is doing money lending business without a valid license?”
7.In order to prove his case, plaintiff was examined himself as
PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. He also examined the attestor of demand promissory notes (Exs.A1 and A2) by name Edukulla Praveen
Kumar as PW.2. The Defendant, in order to prove his case, himself was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B6 and during cross- examination of PW1, he got marked Ex.B7.
8.Heard the arguments of plaintiff counsel. Inspite of giving ample opportunities the defendant counsel failed to put forth his arguments. Hence, the arguments of the defendant are treated as heard. Perused the material available on record.
9 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
Issues No.1 to 3:
9.It is the simple case of plaintiff that on 10.09.2013, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from him by himself executing Ex.A1-demand promissory note in the presence of PW.2 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ Rs.1.50 paise per hundred per month. Further, on 09.09.2015, again the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff by himself executing Ex.A2- demand promissory note in the presence of PW.2 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ Rs.1.50 paise per hundred per month. Later, the defendant failed to repay the above loan amounts even after several demands and issuing legal notice.
10.Per contra, it is the main contention of defendant that in the suit documents/Exs.A1 and A2, there are material alterations in the date and month of the suit promissory notes and in collusion of PW.2, plaintiff concocted the story and filed the present suit and the defendant already repaid the entire amounts under Exs.A1 and A2 and also other promissory notes and the calculations made in the plaint are wrong, hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
11.To establish his case, the plaintiff as PW.1 in his chief examination reiterated the averments made in the plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.
10 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
i.Ex.A1 is the Original demand promissory note, dated 10.09.2013, executed on the letter-pad of Vijayadurga
Vastralayam, which belongs to defendant, and it shows that the defendant executed the same in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ Rs.1.50 Ps. Per hundred per month and one
E.Praveen Kumar i.e., PW.2, stood as a witness for the said document.
ii.Ex.A2 is the another original demand promissory note, dated 09.09.2015 which shows that the defendant executed the same in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ Rs.1.50 Ps., per hundred per month and PW.2 stood as a witness for the said document.
iii. Ex.A3 is the Office copy of legal notice, dated 04.07.2016, which shows that it was issued to the defendant by the counsel for plaintiff under his instructions demanding the defendant to discharge the loan amounts borrowed by him under Exs.A1 and A2 i.e., total Rs.8,50,000/- along with agreed rate of interest, within two days from the date of receipt of this notice.
iv. Ex.A4 is the unserved returned legal notice, dt.5.7.2016 (envelope cover), which shows that it was refused by the defendant on 5.7.2016.
v.Ex.A5 is the EC, dt.18.08.2016, which shows that there are no encumbrances with regard to H.No.5-86, Block-5, Miryalaguda village i.e., the house of defendant.
11 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
12.During cross examination of PW1 by learned counsel for defendant, PW1 stated that in the present case he has given loan of
Rs.4,00,000/-, that he knows the defendant for about 10-12 years prior to giving the loan. He admitted that defendant filed suit in OS.No.135 of 2016 for injunction and obtained interim order in his favor in IA.No.
502 of 2016. PW.1 further stated that himself along with his wife gave
Rs.10,00,000/- towards loan to the defendant on the same day and when confronted with the xerox copy of receipt and questioned whether it bears his signature, he answered no. He denied that he received Rs.11,00,000/- on 22.03.2016 from the defendant and executed receipt acknowledging the same before the witnesses. PW.1 stated that he has no objection for sending the receipt to an expert for opinion. PW.1 denied that from 01.11.2013 to 09.08.2016 he received interest amount from the defendant and when confronted with xerox copies of receipts from 01.11.2013 to 09.08.2016 and questioned whether they bear his signature, PW.1 answered no. PW.1 was confronted with Ex.A1 and questioned whether the month column in
Ex.A1 is altered from 1 to 9, PW.1 denied the same and further denied that by altering the month from 1 to 9, got limitation and filed false suit against the defendant. PW.1 further stated that PW.2 is his close friend, that he called for PW.2, that he gave Rs.4,00,000/- amount to the defendant on 09.11.2013 in the afternoon hours at the shop of the 12 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
defendant, that he has not drawn the said amount from the bank and he was having the same with him as he closed his business, that he has not deposited the sale proceeds in the bank on daily basis and that he had current account at Andhra Bank in the name of his shop i.e., Tedla
Laxmaiah Fertilizers. PW.1 denied the suggestion that PW.2 was not present at the time of transaction, but he took his signature at a later date before filing this suit. PW.1 admitted that the ink on Ex.A1 is appearing different and further added that the defendant and the attestor put their signatures with their own pens. He denied that the signature of Praveen Kumar/PW.2 on Ex.A1 appears to be newly written compared to other handwriting on Ex.A1. PW.1 denied that he got managed the postal department for not serving the legal notice to the defendant so that the true facts come out. PW.1 denied that in spite of receipt of entire amount from defendant, he is deposing false that he did not receive any amount with an intention to get rid of defendant from his shop. PW.1 further stated that at the time of lending the money to defendant, he had savings account with the Andhra Bank and at that time, he made transactions with the bank. He denied that he did money lending business without having license, that since the date of lending loan till date, he is filing income tax returns. PW.1 in his further cross examination denied that Ex.A1 and A2 were tampered and 13 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
manipulated for the purpose of filing the present suit, otherwise the suit claim is time barred.
13.PW.2 in his chief examination stated that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff in the month
September, 2013 for his business necessities and immediately after receipt of said amount, the defendant executed a demand promissory note on the letter head of his firm in favour of plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ Rs.1.50 Ps per hundred per month to the plaintiff or his order and at that time, he was present and attested the said promissory note and the defendant himself scribed the said promissory note and that he can identify the same if it is shown to him.
14.During cross examination by learned counsel for defendant,
PW2 denied that the month column of Ex.A1 is changed from 1 to 9, that his signature on Ex.A1 is appearing fresh when compared to the text of Ex.A1, and that the plaintiff has not given Rs.4,00,000/- to defendant in his presence and also in the presence of Laxmaiah and
Venkateshwarlu. During further cross examination, PW.2 denied that in view of close friendship between plaintiff and his father, he signed in his document wherever his father asked him to sign on request of plaintiff and that he was not present at the time of any transaction as alleged.
14 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
15.In support of his contentions, the defendant as DW.1 in his chief examination reiterated his written statement and got marked
Exs.B1 to B6, which are all the certified copies of receipts said to have been executed by plaintiff. Further during cross examination of PW.1,
Ex.B7 was marked it is certified copy of evidence of PW.1 in OS.No.130 of 2016.
16.During cross examination by learned counsel for plaintiff,
DW.1 admitted that the owner of the building(Malgi) where his shop is situated is the plaintiff. He further admitted that Ex.A1 was scribed and executed by him in favour of the plaintiff and further added that it was not executed on the date mentioned therein and the date portion on
Ex.A1 was altered. He further admitted that Ex.A2 was scribed and executed by him and further added that the date portion on it was altered. During further cross examination by learned counsel for plaintiff, DW.1 replied that he received Rs.4,00,000/- through Ex.A1 and
Rs.1,50,000/- through Ex.A2, that the address mentioned on
Ex.A4/envelope belongs to him. He denied that he refused to receive the Ex.A4 on 05.07.2016. DW.1 admitted that he did not send any legal notice to PW.1 asking him to return Exs.A1 and A2 and further added that he requested PW.1 to return Exs.A1 and A2 at the time of repayment of the loan amount, but PW.1 said that he would return later. DW.1 replied that he did not file any complaint to the police for 15 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
return of Exs.A1 and A2 and he did not file any private complaint in the court against PW.1 in this regard and he also did not give any paper publication in this regard. He stated that he repaid an amount of
Rs.11,00,000/- on 22.03.2016, which he had taken under Exs.A1 and A2 and that he repaid the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- from the amount that he had withdrawn from the Axis bank, Miryalaguda branch on various days and the last five digits of his account number in Axis bank,
Miryalaguda branch are 34308 and at present, he doesn’t remember the dates on which he has withdrawn the above mentioned Rs.11,00,000/- and he has withdrawn the said amount in a period of 7 or 8 months prior to the repayment and the denomination of the currency notes of the amount of Rs.11 lakhs was 720 notes of Rs.1,000/- and 760 notes of
Rs.500/- and at the time of repayment of Rs.11 lakhs, one person by name Chiluveru Bixam was present there and he was a resident of NSP camp, Miryalaguda, who worked in his shop as a helper(gumastha) prior to repayment of the loan amount and he worked from 2004 to 2013.
DW.1 further stated that he did not obtain any bond from PW.1, but he obtained only receipt/Ex.B2 from him after repayment of the loan amount. He admitted that PW.1 can read and write, but denied that the signature on the said receipt does not belong to PW.1 and that he forged the said receipt and it was created by him in collusion with said
Bixam. DW.1 further deposed that the said receipt was scribed by him, 16 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
but the signature belongs to PW.1. He denied that the signature is not below the whole matter which was written in the receipt and that he created the documents with the help of said Bixam to evade the repayment of loan amounts of this suit and other two suits. DW.1 further admitted that he did not mention in his written statement that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.11 lakhs from Axis bank on various dates for repayment of the loan amount. He further admitted that he is the tenant of shop of PW.1 and as such he is tenant of PW.1 and denied that when PW.1 demanded him to repay the loan amount and also when asked to vacate the shop, he created the false documents and filed the same. He further admitted that when PW.1 asked him to vacate the shop which he took on rent in his building, he filed an injunction suit against PW.1 vide. OS.No. 130 of 2016 on the file of this court and that he does not know whether he had mentioned in the said suit that he had repaid the loan amount of Rs.11 lakhs to PW.1. He further admitted that he did not file any additional written statement after filing of rejoinder by PW.1. He further admitted that he is paying rent of
Rs.5,000/- per month to PW.1 and denied that he is paying only
Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- and further added he is paying a rent of Rs.5,000/- per month as per the oral agreement and further denied that there was no oral agreement of Rs.5,000/- per month.
17 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
17.Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that when the plaintiff denies his signature on Ex.B1 and contended that it is a forged document, the burden lies on the defendant to prove the signature or send it to FSL, but the defendant has not taken any such steps. Further,
Ex.B1 does not contain the particulars from whom it was received and by whom it was given and also about the loan amount, interest etc., and further, it does not contain any heading about the nature of the document and also the name of the scribe and further, when the plaintiff is an educated person, there is no need for the defendant to scribe Ex.B1 and what made him to do the same. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that for the past 19 years defendant is not vacating the shop. It is further argued that the said Bixam was not produced before the Court to support the case of defendant. It is further argued that the signatures of plaintiff on his affidavits etc., are different from the signature on Ex.B1.
18.Per contra, learned counsel for defendant did not turn up for arguments even after giving sufficient time and therefore, the arguments on behalf of defendant are treated as heard.
19.In view of the above oral and documentary evidence and as argued by learned counsel for plaintiff, the plaintiff could able to establish his case. When it is the contention of defendant that the suit 18 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
promissory notes/Exs.A1 and A2 are materially altered, the same is not proved in any way either by adducing oral or documentary evidence or by way of an expert opinion. Further, on perusal of Exs.A1 and A2, with a naked eye, it can be said that there are no alterations in the documents and they are true and genuine. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the defendant cannot take advantage of the repeated writings on the document and deny the entire execution of
Exs.A1 and A2, as they are admittedly executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.
20.It is the further contention of the defendant that the plaintiff is doing money lending business without having valid license.
To prove his contention, the defendant did not place any other documentary evidence or oral evidence except his self explanatory statement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is doing money lending business as on the date of filing the present suit and earlier to it.
21.It is the further contention of the defendant that he paid the entire loan amounts under the suit promissory notes and also other promissory notes for which the plaintiff and his wife by name Tedla
Sunanda filed suits in OS.No.144 of 2016 and 129 of 2016 and the plaintiff also passed receipt on 22.03.2016 in favour of defendant 19 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
stating that the plaintiff received an amount Rs.11 lakhs from the defendant towards total due amount, but the defendant in his cross examination stated that to repay the said amount he had withdrawn the amounts from Axis bank, Miryalaguda branch on various dates, but he does not remember the dates on which he has withdrawn the amount of
Rs.11 lakhs, however, he stated that he has withdrawn the amount
Rs.11 lakhs in a period of 7 or 8 months prior to the repayment and at that time, one Chiluveru Bixam was present. But, the defendant did not choose to examine said Bixam as a witness on his behalf to prove the said contention. Further, to prove that the amount was repaid, the defendant got marked Exs.B1 and B2.
22.On perusal of Ex.B7, which is deposition of DW.1 (plaintiff herein) in OS.No. 130 of 2016, wherein he deposed that the alleged receipt dated 22.03.2016 said to have been executed by him is false and he never received the said amount of Rs.11 lakhs from the plaintiff (defendant herein) and further there is no whisper in this regard during cross examination.
23.On perusal of Ex.B1, which is a paper slip on which it is written the denomination of the amounts as deposed by DW.1 in his cross examination and also it is mentioned in it that the due amount which they have to repay has been received by them. On further 20 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
perusal, it appears that it contains the signature of the executant without mentioning his name and that the signature of the witness is of one C. Bixam. Further, Ex.B2 is not reflecting that by whom it was executed by mentioning the name of the executant and in favour of whom it was executed is also not appearing on the face of it. Further, in his cross examination, PW.1 stated that he has no objection for sending the receipt (Ex.B2) to an expert for opinion, but the defendant did not choose to send the said receipt for expert’s opinion. Further, for such a huge amount of Rs.11 lakhs said to have been paid by defendant and the plaintiff acknowledged the same, the defendant ought to have obtained a bond or proper acknowledgment from the plaintiff, but he did not do so and further it shows the negligence of the defendant in getting such a document under Ex.B2. Therefore, Ex.B2 is itself doubtful and the same cannot be taken into consideration to say that the defendant repaid the amount to the plaintiff.
24.Further, Exs. B3 to B6/receipts are also appearing that the same were issued for payment of rent only but not for repayment of the loan amounts as contended by the defendant, since the amounts under the said documents were paid @ Rs.15,000/- per month for every month without having any particulars that the same are pertaining to the loan amounts. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that he repaid 21 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
the entire suit amount is not proved, in view of the above oral and documentary evidence.
25.In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated supra, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the defendant failed to prove his contentions and thereby, the plaintiff could able to prove his case that the defendant borrowed the amounts under Exs.A1 and A2 and failed to repay the same and therefore, he is entitled to recover the amounts as claimed by him. Therefore, the suit promissory notes/Exs.A1 and A2 are proved to be true, valid, genuine and binding upon the defendant and that they are not materially altered or fabricated documents.
26.Further, it is the contention of the defendant that the calculations and figures mentioned in the plaint are created for the purpose of filing this suit. But, in view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the Exs.A1 and A2 are proved to be true and correct and therefore, the contention of the defendant that the calculations and figures mentioned in the plaint are wrong cannot be sustained.
Issues No.1 to 3 are answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
22 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
Additional Issue:
27. It is the contention of defendant that the plaintiff is doing money lending business without having a valid license. To prove the said contention, except adducing the self explanatory evidence, the defendant did not place any other oral or documentary evidence.
Further, PW.1 denied in his cross examination that he did money lending business without having license and except this suggestion nothing was elicited from the cross examination of PW.1 in this regard. As such, except the bare allegations, no cogent evidence is placed by the defendant that the plaintiff is doing money lending business and as a part of his business, he lent the amounts under Exs. A1 and A2 to the defendant. The bare allegation without proof cannot sustain in the eye of law. Therefore, the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff did money lending business at the relevant time of suit transaction.
Additional Issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No.4 :
In view of the findings on issues No.1 to 3 and additional issue, the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for. Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.
23 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
28.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs against the person and property of the defendant for a sum of
Rs.7,84,750/- (Rupees seven lakhs eighty four thousand seven hundred and fifty only) with an interest @ 6% per annum on the principal sum adjudged from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.
-Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of November, 2025.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MIRYALAGUDA.
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED
THE PLAINTIFF:
PW-1: Tedla Laxmaiah PW-2: Edukulla Praveen Kumar
THE DEFENDANT:
DW-1: Gouru Venkateshwarlu
EXHIBITS MARKED
THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1: Original promissory note, dated 10.09.2013.
Ex.A2: Original promissory note, dated 09.09.2015.
Ex.A3: Office copy of Legal notice, dated 04.07.2016.
Ex.A4: Unserved returned Legal notice, dated 05.07.2016 (envelope cover).
Ex.A5: EC, dated 18.08.2016.
24 of 24
OS No.123 of 2016, SCJ, Mlg
THE DEFENDANT:
Ex.B1: Original receipt, dated 22.03.2016.
Ex.B2: Certified copy of receipts, dated 10.11.2013 to 09.06.2014.
Ex.B3: Certified copy of receipts, dated from 08.07.2014 to 07.04.2015.
Ex.B4:Certified copy of receipts, dated from 09.05.2015 to 07.12.2015.
Ex.B5: Certified copy of receipts, dated from 08.01.2016 to 09.03.2016.
Ex.B6: Certified copy of receipts, dated from 09.04.2016 to 09.08.2016.
Ex.B7: Certified copy of deposition of DW.1 in OS.No. 130 of 2016.
( Exs. B1 and B6 are marked subject to mode of proof of contents)
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MIRYALAGUDA.