Sri C.N.Murthy

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

Present: Sri C.N.Murthy, Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Wednesday, the Nineteenth day of April, 2017.

Insolvency Petition No.51/2015

Khatib Shasha Vali....Petitioners

Versus

1) B.Sharif

2) V.Lakshmi Devi

3) S.Swamy Reddy

4) P.Pullamma

5) M.Gouse Peera

6) D.Jeelan

7) Venkataiah (Rajamata Stores)

8) Jetti Padmavathi

9) C.Rama Subbamma

10) C.Lakshmi Devi

11) Ramesh (Finance)

12) J.Ramudu

13) D.Hussainamma

14) D.Rangaiah

15) M.Nayab

16) P.Venkata Narayana

17) K.Lakshmi Narayana

18) M.Raf

19) S.Imaam

20) K.Dilshad

21) B.Subbaiah

22) S.Wahid

23) S.Shamsheer (V.S.S)

24) Md.Gouse (A.S.H)

25) Khalandar (A.S.H)

26) Reddappa .... Respondents

This petition coming up for fnal hearing before today in the presence of

Sri S.Mahamood, Advocate for Petitioner and Sri U.Prathap, Advocate for

Respondents 2 to 5, 8 to 13, 15 and 17 to 20 and the petition against

Respondents 1, 7, 16 and 21 to 26, and after hearing on both sides and after having stood over for consideration till today, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition fled by the Petitioner under Sec.10 of Provincial Insolvency

Act praying to adjudge him as insolvent.

2.The brief averments in the petition are that the petitioner is a vegetable vendor and also doing cultivation. He sustained loss in agricultural yeild of cotton seeds and loss in vegetable business. It is pleaded that the petitioner is unable to discharge debts due to creditors and they are pressurizing him. The petitioner pleaded that he borrowed amounts at higher rate of interest from some of the creditors to clear off debts of other creditors. The respondents threatened the

Page 2 petitioner and obtained his signatures on blank promissory notes and also tried to assault him. The creditors warned that they will go to any extent if their debts are not paid immediately. In the circumstances petitioner prayed to declare him as insolvent. He mentioned his debts in ‘A’ Schedule of the petition. The petitioner has no immovable properties as per 'B' schedule. He mentioned wearing apparels and utensils in 'C' schedule.

3.It is seen from records except respondents 4, 8 and 14 the other respondents were set exparte for their failure to appear before Court.

4.It is seen that respondents 4, 8 and 14 fled separate counters but the contents are almost similar. They denied that the petitioner sustained loss in agriculture and vegetable business. It is pleaded that the petitioner is having both movable and immovable properties at his village, but they were not mentioned with a malafde intention. Further the petitioner earns Rs.1,00,000/- per month from his business at the village. It is pleaded that to evade payments of debts to respondents the present petition is fled. In the circumstances it was prayed to dismiss the I.P.

5.In support of his case the petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1 and fled his chief examination affidavit as P.W.1 mostly reiterating the contents of the main petition. No documents were marked on his behalf. On behalf of respondents the fourteenth respondent fled his chief examination affidavit as

R.W.1. No documents were marked on behalf of respondents also.

6.Heard.

7.Now, the point for consideration is:-

Whether there are valid grounds to declare the petitioner as insolvent?

8.Point:- It is the case of petitioner that he is a vegetable vendor. Further his main source of income is doing cultivation. According to him he sustained loss in the yield of cotton seeds and also loss in vegetable business. In his cross examination the petitioner deposed that he did vegetable business at weekly market at Chagalamarri but did not obtain any license. He further deposed that they took agricultural lands on lease. Those lands belonged to Huzuruddin of

Chagalamarri. According to petitioner he raised seed cotton in four acres of land.

The petitioner also admitted that he did not plead the fact of taking lands on lease. He also admitted that he did not state in which year he sustained loss in agriculture.

Page 3

9.I have carefully perused the material available on record and it is seen that at the outset the petitioner did not place any material before this Court to show that he took lands on lease and that he is a vegetable vendor. Nothing is stated about the investment made by the petitioner nor the actual loss sustained by the petitioner. The petitioner further admitted that he took lands of one Huzuruddin on lease, but neither the lessor was examined nor the lease deed was produced.

Apart from that there is no corresponding pleadings to this effect in the petition fled by the petitioner. It is a settled principle that no amount of evidence can be looked into in the absence of pleadings. As such the plea of the petitioner that he took lands on lease, raised cotton and sustained loss cannot be accepted. Apart from that the petitioner did not state the period of his cultivation and the period when he sustained loss. In other words the petitioner failed to show about the details of the investment made by him in cultivation and the actual loss sustained by him. The mere oral testimony of petitioner is not sufficient to declare him as an insolvent.

10.At this juncture I came across a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., in the case of Kota Sivarama Prasada Rao v. Shaik Mastanvali [2014 (3) ALT 604] wherein it was held that a petitioner is required to satisfactorily establish that he is unable to pay his debts. In the present case the petitioner failed to satisfy the Court that he was engaged in cotton seed cultivation and that he sustained loss in the said process. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for.

9.In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

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

signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined)

For Petitioner:- For Respondents:-

P.W.1: Kathib Shasha Vali None

Exhibits marked

Nil

S.C.J, ALG.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

Present: Sri C.N.Murthy, Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Wednesday, the Nineteenth day of April, 2017.

Insolvency Petition No.51/2015

Khatib Shasha Vali, S/o Late Ahamed, Aged 30 years, Muslim, at present no work, R/o H.No.7-85, Chinna Makanam Veedhi, Chagalamarri town and mandal,

Kurnool District. ....Petitioners

Versus

1) B.Sharif, S/o Budebhai, Aged 40 years, Muslim, Business, R/o H.No.17-28, Mangali Veedhi, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

2) V.Lakshmi Devi, W/o Lakshmaiah (Teacher), Aged 40 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o H.No.17-54, Mangali Veedhi, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

3) S.Swamy Reddy, S/o Not known, Aged 35 years, Hindu, Teacher, R/o H.No.11-43, New Buildings, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

4) P.Pullamma, W/o Peddaiah, Aged 50 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o H.No.7-17, Sivalayam Street, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

5) M.Gouse Peera, S/o Abdul Khadar, Aged 45 years, Muslim, Business, R/o H.No.6-20, Pedda Makhanam Street, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

6) D.Jeelan, S/o Mabu, Aged 30 years, Muslim, Business, R/o H.No.8-96, Near Vegetable Market, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

7) Venkataiah (Rajamata Stores), S/o Not known, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No.7-94, Main Road, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

8) Jetti Padmavathi, W/o Nagaiah, Aged 35 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No.7-48, Sivalayam Street, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

9) C.Rama Subbamma, W/o Pedda Narasimhudu, Aged 55 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o H.No.7-50, Opp. Vegetable Market, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

Page 2

10) C.Lakshmi Devi, W/o C.Prasad, Aged 35 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No.8-56, Sivalayam Street, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

11) Ramesh (Finance), S/o Chenchaiah, Aged 40 years, Hindu, R/o H.No.19-48, Chinna Makanam Street, Opp. Khaja Textiles, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

12) J.Ramudu, S/o J.Subbaiah, Aged 38 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No.7-28, Uppu Veeraiah Street, Besides Jeweller, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

13) D.Hussainamma, W/o Pedda Pamuleti, Aged 40 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No.1-32, Besides Chicken Shop, Mutyalapadu Bus-stand, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

14) D.Rangaiah (Cement Shop), S/o Not known, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No.2-24, Ground Floor, Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

15) M.Nayab, S/o Marusa, Hindu, Business, Aged about 50 years, R/o H.No.6-29, Pedda Makanam Street, Bugga Rastha, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

16) P.Venkata Narayana, S/o Not known, Aged about 45 years, Hindu, Lecturer, R/o H.No.11-18, New Buildings, Chagalamarri village and mandal, Kurnool District.

17) K.Lakshmi Narayana, S/o Venkataiah, Aged 40 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No.6-11, Lalaswamy Makanam Street, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

18) M.Raf, S/o Khaja Rasool, Aged 35 years, Muslim, Home Guard, R/o H.No.18-10, Nagulakatta Street, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

19) S.Imaam, S/o S.Rasool, Aged 30 years, Muslim, Business, R/o H.No.2-48, Back side Mana Gromor Fetilizers Shop, Mutyalapadu Bus-stand, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

20) K.Dilshad, S/o Noor Hussain, Aged 38 years, Muslim, R/o H.No.8-86, Sivalayam Street, Chagalamarri town and mandal, Kurnool District.

21) B.Subbaiah, S/o Not known, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Commission Agent of Vegetables, R/o Bakra Peta Post, Duvvur, Y.S.R. District.

Page 3

22) S.Wahid (L.M.K), S/o Not known, Aged 40 years, Muslim, Business, R/o New Vegetable Market, Proddutur Post, Y.S.R. District.

23) S.Shamsheer (V.S.S), S/o Not known, Aged 50 years, Muslim, Business, R/o New Vegetable Market, Proddutur Post, Y.S.R. District.

24) Md.Gouse (A.S.H), S/o Not known, Aged 45 years, Muslim, Business, R/o Mixed Vegetable Market, Proddutur Post, Y.S.R. District.

25) Khalandar (A.S.H), S/o Not known, Aged 40 years, Muslim, Business, R/o New Vegetable Market, Proddutur Post, Y.S.R. District.

26) Reddappa, S/o Not known, Kothimeera Business, Aged 40 years, Hindu, Business, R/o New Vegetable

Market, Proddutur Post, Y.S.R. District. .... Respondents

This is a petition fled by the Petitioner under Sec.10 of Provincial Insolvency

Act praying to adjudge him as insolvent.

Petition presented on 30.11.2015 and fled on 3.12.2015. A fxed Court Fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Sch.II Art.I (2a) of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action for the petition arose at Chagalamarri village and mandal within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This petition coming up for fnal hearing before today in the presence of

Sri S.Mahamood, Advocate for Petitioner and Sri U.Prathap, Advocate for

Respondents 2 to 5, 8 to 13, 15 and 17 to 20 and the petition against

Respondents 1, 7, 16 and 21 to 26, and after hearing on both sides and after having stood over for consideration till today, this Court doth Order and passed the decreetal Order as follows:-

1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed; 2)that there shall be no Order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 19th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Page 4

A – Schedule

(Liabilities)

S.No.Name of the CreditorNature of debtAmount in Rs.

1.B.SharifPromissory note1,00,000

2.V.Lakshmi DeviPromissory note2,20,000

3.S.Swamy ReddyPromissory note1,60,000

4.P.PullammaPromissory note1,00,000

5.M.Gouse PeeraPromissory note1,70,000

6.D.JeelanPromissory note4,00,000

7.Venkataiah (Rajamata Street)Promissory note1,00,000

8.Jeeti PadmavathiPromissory note1,00,000

9.C.Rama SubbammaPromissory note1,00,000

10.C.Lakshmi DeviPromissory note 90,000

11.Ramesh (Finance)Promissory note 30,000

12.J.RamuduPromissory note 50,000

13.D.HussainammaPromissory note1,00,000

14.D.RangaiahPromissory note 90,000

15.I.NayabPromissory note 30,000

16.Venkata NarayanaPromissory note 50,000

17.K.Lakshmi NarayanaPromissory note 30,000

18.M.RafiPromissory note1,00,000

19.ImaamHand loan 20,000

20.DilshadHand loan 10,000

21.SubbaiahHand loan 5,000

22.S.WahidPromissory note5,00,000

23.S.Shamsheer (V.S.S)Promissory note1,00,000

24.Id.Gouse (A.S.H)Promissory note2,50,000

25.Khalandar (A.S.H)Promissory note1,80,000

26.Reddappa (Kothimeera business)Promissory note 70,000 Total :16,80,000

B – Schedule

(Immovable Property) Nil

C- Schedule

(Movable properties) Shirts 2Rs. 100-00 Lungies 2Rs. 200-00 UtensilsRs. 150-00 --------------- Total Rs. 450-00 ---------------

ABSTRACT

Total LiabilitiesRs. 16,80,000 Total AssetsRs. 450-00 Total outstandingRs. 16,79,550

SCJ, ALG.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::ALLAGADDA

Present: Sri C.N.Murthy, Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Thursday, the Twentieth Day of April, 2017.

Original Suit No.232/2016

State Bank of India, Chagalamarri rep. by its Manager.…. Plaintif

Versus

1) Karideti Lakshmi Devi (1st leader)

2) Majjari Parvathi (2nd leader)

3) Majjari Jyothi

4) Korideti Saraswathi

5) Korideti Rajamma

6) Paluri Siva Lakshamma

7) Karimaddela Narayanamma

8) Garugu Lakshmi Devi

9) Yagnam Parvathamma

10) Pabbidi Venkata Lakshamma

11) Karimaddela Rama Lakshamma… Defendants (Group members of Dhana Lakshmi Podupu Lakshmi Group)

This suit coming up before me for hearing today in the presence of Sri P.S.Mahaboob Basha and Sri U.Prathap, Advocates for the Plaintif and Defendants 1, 2, 4 to 11 have remained exparte, and suit against Defendant No.3 was dismissed as not pressed, and matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif bank against the defendants for recovery of loan amount.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are that the 11 members of

Chakravarthulapalle village formed into a self help group styled as

Dhana Lakshmi Podupu Lakshmi Group for which the first defendant is the first leader and second defendant is the second leader. All the group members gave a power of attorney to them on 31.7.2007 and 30.3.2008 authorizing them to open savings, fixed deposits and other accounts in the bank. They were authorized to maintain books, to grant loans to the group members

Page 2 and also to receive all payments due to the self help group. On 31.7.2007 and 30.3.2008 a meeting was held by the said Podupu

Lakshmi Group in which it was resolved that the defendants 1 and 2 were permitted to take a loan of Rs.70,000/- and

Rs.1,50,000/- from the bank. Accordingly they applied for the said loan which was granted to the defendants. The defendants executed an agreement in favour of the plaintif bank on 31.7.2007 and 30.3.2008 accepting their conditions and agreeing to repay the same in 60 monthly installments of Rs.716/- and also with interest for Rs.70,000/-. The defendants executed another agreement in favour of the plaintif bank on 30.3.2008 accepting their conditions and agreeing to repay the same in 24 monthly installments of Rs.6,250/- and also with interest for Rs.1,50,000/- as per the rates fixed by Reserve Bank of India/NABARD for which the interest is fixed at 10.5%.

3.It is pleaded that the defendants also executed and submitted an application form, articles of agreement, inter-se agreement, resolution passed by the defendants, sponsorship letter in favour of the plaintif bank on 31.7.2007 and 30.3.2008 separately. It is pleaded that the defendants utilized Rs.70,000/- loan through bank account No.30213526074. They availed the second loan through account No.30358198976. Further the first and second leaders executed revival letters to the plaintif bank on 3.4.2010, 20.1.2013 and 5.10.2014 separately acknowledging and confirming the liability of outstanding loan. It is pleaded that in spite of issuing a legal notice dt.1.11.2011 the defendants did not discharge the loan amount. Hence the present suit is filed.

4.It is seen from records that the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 11 were set exparte for their failure to appear before Court. The suit against

Defendant No.3 was dismissed as not pressed by the plaintif bank.

Original Suit No.232/2016

Page 3

5.In support of its case the plaintif bank got filed chief examination affidavit through its Branch Manager reiterating the contents in the plaint about the loan transaction. Through P.W.1

Exs.A.1 to A.19 are marked. Ex.A.1 is Application form submitted by the defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintif bank dt.31.7.2007 for

Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.2 is Articles of agreement executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintif bank dt.31.7.2007 for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.3 is

Inter-se agreement dt.31.7.2007 executed by defendants in favour of plaintif bank for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.4 is Resolution dt.31.7.2007 passed by the defendants for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.5 is sponsorship letter dt.31.7.2007 issued by plaintif bank for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.6 is Revival letter dt.3.4.2010 executed by 1st and 2nd defendants for Rs.70,000/-;

Ex.A.7 is Revival letter dt.20.1.2013 executed by 1st and 2nd defendants for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.8 is Application form submitted by the defendants 1 and 2 to plaintif bank dt.5.10.2014 for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.9 is

Application form submitted by the defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintif bank dt.30.3.2008 for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.10 is Articles of agreement executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintif bank dt.30.3.2008 for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.11 is Inter-se agreement dt.30.3.2008 executed by defendants in favour of plaintif bank for

Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.12 is Resolution dt.30.3.2008 passed by the defendants for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.13 is sponsorship letter dt.30.3.2008 issued by plaintif bank for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.14 is Revival letter dt.3.4.2010 executed by 1st and 2nd defendants for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.15 is Revival letter dt.20.1.2013 executed by 1st and 2nd defendants for

Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.16 is revival letter dt.5.10.2014 executed by 1st and 2nd defendants for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.17 is the legal notice dt.1.11.2011 issued by plaintif bank to defendants; Ex.A.18 is the account extract for

Rs.70,000/-; and Ex.A.19 is the account extract for Rs.1,50,000/-.

6.Heard.

7.Now the only point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintif bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants?

Original Suit No.232/2016

Page 4

8.Point:- I have carefully perused the material available on record and it is seen that the defendants 1 and 2 were authorized by the other defendants vide Exs.A.4 and A.12 resolutions to apply for loans. Thus prima facie liability of defendants 1 and 2 is established by the plaintif bank. Further as per Exs.A.3 and A.10 inter-se agreements authorized the first and second defendants to open savings, fixed deposits and other accounts and also to receive payments due to the self help group. Further Exs.A.6 to A.8 and A.14 to A.16 revival letters executed by the first and second defendants acknowledged the liability of self help group. Exs.A.18 and A.19 account extracts show the outstanding amount due from the defendants. The unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 proves the case of plaintif bank. Hence, it is held that the plaintif bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from defendants.

9.In the result the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.3,86,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and eighty six thousands only) against the defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 11 jointly and severally with future interest at 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a till the date of realization on the suit amount of Rs.3,86,000/-. The suit against Defendant

No.3 was dismissed as not pressed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses Examined)

For Plaintif:-

P.W.1: B.Ananda Babu, Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Chagalamarri.

For Defendants:-

None

Original Suit No.232/2016

Page 5

Exhibits marked

For Plaintif:-

Ex.A.1: Application form submitted by the defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintif bank dt.31.7.2007 for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.2: Articles of agreement executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintif bank dt.31.7.2007 for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.3: Inter-se agreement dt.31.7.2007 executed by defendants in favour of plaintif bank for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.4: Resolution dt.31.7.2007 passed by the defendants for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.5: Sponsorship letter dt.31.7.2007 issued by plaintif bank for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.6: Revival letter dt.3.4.2010 executed by 1st and 2nd defendants for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.7: Revival letter dt.20.1.2013 executed by 1st and 2nd defendants for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.8: Application form submitted by the defendants 1 and 2 to plaintif bank dt.5.10.2014 for Rs.70,000/-; Ex.A.9: Application form submitted by the defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintif bank dt.30.3.2008 for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.10: Articles of agreement executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintif bank dt.30.3.2008 for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.11: Inter-se agreement dt.30.3.2008 executed by defendants in favour of plaintif bank for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.12: Resolution dt.30.3.2008 passed by the defendants for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.13: Sponsorship letter dt.30.3.2008 issued by plaintif bank for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.14: Revival letter dt.3.4.2010 executed by 1st and 2nd defendants for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.15: Revival letter dt.20.1.2013 executed by 1st and 2nd defendants for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.16: Revival letter dt.5.10.2014 executed by 1st and 2nd defendants for Rs.1,50,000/-; Ex.A.17: Legal notice dt.1.11.2011 issued by plaintif bank to defendants; Ex.A.18: Account extract for Rs.70,000/-; and Ex.A.19: Account extract for Rs.1,50,000/-.

For Defendants:-

Nil

S.C.J. ALG.

Original Suit No.232/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::ALLAGADDA

Present: Sri C.N.Murthy, Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Thursday, the Twentieth Day of April, 2017.

Original Suit No.232/2016

State Bank of India, Chagalamarri rep. by its Manager.…. Plaintif

Versus

1) Karideti Lakshmi Devi (1st leader), W/o Srinivasa, Aged about 36 years, R/o H.No.3-6.

2) Majjari Parvathi (2nd leader), W/o Lakshmi Narasaiah, Aged about 28 years, R/o H.No.3-40.

3) Majjari Jyothi, W/o Bhargava Narasimhudu, Aged about 33 years, R/o H.No.2-11.

4) Korideti Saraswathi, W/o Krishna Murthy, Aged about 43 years, R/o H.No.4-11.

5) Korideti Rajamma, W/o Rama Subbaiah, Aged about 44 years, R/o H.No.5-6.

6) Paluri Siva Lakshamma, W/o Venkateswara Reddy, Aged about 43 years, R/o H.No.1-70.

7) Karimaddela Narayanamma, W/o Lakshmi Reddy, Aged 50 years, R/o H.No.1-12.

8) Garugu Lakshmi Devi, W/o Thirupathaiah, Aged about 46 years, R/o H.No.2-42.

9) Yagnam Parvathamma, W/o Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged about 53 years, R/o H.No.3-45.

10) Pabbidi Venkata Lakshamma, W/o Bali Reddy, Aged about 51 years, R/o H.No.7-60.

11) Karimaddela Rama Lakshamma, W/o Anantha Reddy, Aged about 46 years, R/o H.No.1-17. … Defendants

All are Hindus, House wives, R/o Chakravarthulapalle village, Chagalamarri mandal, Kurnool District.

This is a suit filed by the plaintif bank against the defendants for recovery of loan amount.

Original Suit No.232/2016

Page 2

Plaint presented on 22.8.2016 and filed on 17.11.2016.

J.V of Rs.3,86,000/- (Rs.1,28,000/- + Rs.2,58,000/-) and Total C.F of

Rs.8,752/- (Rs.3,726/- + Rs.5,026/-) is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose at Chagalamarri village and mandal within jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit coming up before me for hearing today in the presence of Sri P.S.Mahaboob Basha and Sri U.Prathap, Advocates for the Plaintif and Defendants 1, 2, 4 to 11 have remained exparte, and suit against Defendant No.3 was dismissed as not pressed, and matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court doth Order and passed the decree as follows:-

1) that the defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 11 jointly and severally do pay to the plaintif bank a sum of Rs.3,86,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and eighty six thousands only) with future interest at 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a till the date of realization on the suit amount of Rs.3,86,000/-.

2) that the defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 11 do also pay to the plaintif bank a sum of Rs.15,714/- being costs of the suit;

3) that the suit against Defendant No.3 is dismissed as abated. Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 20th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Memo of Costs

For PlaintifFor Defendants Stamp on VakalatRs. 2-00 -- Stamp on PlaintRs. 8752-00 -- Stamp on ProcessRs. 270-00 -- Advocate’s FeeRs. 6640-00 Nil (Not certified) Writing ChargesRs. 20-00 Typing ChargesRs. 30-00 ------------------ Total :Rs.15714-00 ------------------

SCJ, ALG.

Original Suit No.232/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::ALLAGADDA

Present: Sri C.N.Murthy, Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Wednesday, the Nineteenth Day of April, 2017.

Original Suit No.85/2015

Paradesi Raju…..Plaintif

Versus

Syed Abdul Rahiman….. Defendant

This suit coming up before me for hearing on 12.4.2017 in the presence of Sri P.Subba Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintif and of

Sri P.S.Mahaboob Basha and Sri U.Prathap, Advocates for the

Defendant, and after hearing on both sides and the matter after having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant on the strength of promissory notes purported to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,35,542/- from plaintif on 6.6.2012 and also borrowed a sum of Rs.1,43,000/- on 11.6.2012 and executed two promissory notes respectively in favour of plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. In spite of repeated demands and issuing legal notice dt.23.2.2015 since the defendant did not repay the loan amount the plaintif filed present suit for recovery of loan amounts.

3.As against the above the defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint pleading that the suit promissory notes are renewal promissory notes. The defendant furnished particulars of amounts borrowed from plaintif on various dates as follows:- 10.1.2011Rs. 50,000/- 7.7.2011Rs.60,000/- 9.8.2011Rs.25,000/- 19.8.2011Rs.20,000/- 30.8.2011Rs.40,000/-

Page 2 7.9.2011Rs.25,000/- 20.9.2011Rs.10,000/- 11.10.2011Rs.10,000/- 20.10.2011Rs.15,000/- 5.11.2011Rs.40,000/- 21.11.2011Rs.50,000/- 24.11.2011Rs.30,000/- 5.12.2011Rs.80,000/- 15.12.2011Rs.50,000/-

According to defendant he discharged those loan amounts after which the plaintif obtained two promissory notes for the balance amount. Further the previous promissory notes were returned to the defendant. Thus according to defendant he never received any cash consideration from plaintif towards the suit promissory notes but the plaintif filed the suit for wrongful gain. Further the plaintif did not send xerox copies of the suit promissory notes along with legal notice.

4.The defendant further pleaded that he never signed in the presence of attestors and scribe in the suit promissory notes. It is pleaded that the plaintif is doing money lending business and that the suit promissory notes are nominal one. In the circumstances it was prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:-

Issues:-

1) Whether the promissory notes dt.6.6.2012 and 11.6.2012 are supported by cash consideration?

2) Whether the suit promissory notes dt.6.6.2012 and 11.6.2012 are renewal promissory notes of earlier transactions?

3) Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

Original Suit No.85/2015

Page 3

6.On behalf of the plaintif three witnesses were examined and

Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the defendant one witness was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.14 were marked.

7.Issues 1 and 2:- The plaintif filed his chief examination affidavit as P.W.1 reiterating the contents in the plaint stating about the suit transactions with the defendant. In his cross-examination the plaintif admitted that the rate of interest agreed in Exs.A.1 and A.2 is 18% p.a.

He denied the suggestion that he claimed interest at 24% p.a. The plaintif denied the suggestion that he is a money lender. The plaintif as P.W.1 further admitted that he had previous financial transactions with the defendant and also admitted that Exs.B.1 to B.14 are the promissory notes pertaining to previous transactions with the defendant. However the plaintif denied that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are renewal promissory notes of the previous financial transactions.

8.P.W.2 U.Peddanna is an attestor for the suit promissory notes.

He filed his chief examination affidavit stating about his presence at the time of Exs.A.1 and A.2 transactions. He stated that the agreed rate of interest is 18% p.a. In his cross-examination P.W.2 stated that on the request of plaintif he attested Exs.A.1 and A.2, but he does not know the denomination of notes paid to defendant. Along with him another attestor Imam Hussain was present. P.W.2 stated that the scribe is one Prabhakar. P.W.2 further deposed that the suit transactions took place in June, 2012. He denied the suggestion that

Exs.A.1 and A.2 transactions did not take place in his presence.

9.P.W.3 Jemmi Prabhakar is the scribe of Exs.A.1 and A.2. He filed his chief examination affidavits supporting the case of plaintif stating about his presence at the time of Exs.A.1 and A.2 transactions and also scribing Exs.A.1 and A.2. He stated that the agreed rate of interest is 18% p.a. In his cross-examination P.W.3 stated that there is diference in his signatures in chief examination affidavit. He admitted that his name is not shown beneath the scribe in Exs.A.1 and A.2 promissory notes. P.W.3 stated that he knew the attestors. According to him the suit promissory notes were executed at the house of plaintif between

Original Suit No.85/2015

Page 4 4.00 and 5.00 PM. He admitted that the plaintif is a money lender. In the course of cross-examination P.W.3 stated that he is not aware of the contents of his chief examination affidavit. P.W.3 stated that himself and plaintif are working as 'seed organizers'.

10.The defendant filed his chief examination affidavit as D.W.1 reiterating the contents in the written statement. In his cross- examination the defendant admitted that he is working in Education

Department and that he also does agriculture. The defendant admitted execution of Ex.A.2 promissory notes, but it was blank at the time of execution. Though the defendant denied execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note he stated that it was a renewal promissory note. The defendant also admitted about receiving of Ex.A.3 legal notice from plaintif. He stated that he did not issue any reply notice to the plaintif.

11.It is the case of plaintif that the defendant after borrowing from him executed Exs.A.1 and A.2 promissory notes agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest at 18% p.a. On the other hand it is the plea of the defendant that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are renewal promissory notes for previous financial transactions with the plaintif. In fact the plaintif admitted the previous financial transactions with the defendant and through plaintif Exs.B.1 and B.14 promissory notes were marked. Thus at the outset the defendant is successful in establishing that he had previous financial transaction with the plaintif. However this by itself does not disprove the case of plaintif. It may be noted that the defendant is not denying his signatures on Exs.A.1 and A.2. It is his plea that he executed Exs.A.1 and A.2 promissory notes in favour of plaintif for the balance amounts in respect of previous loan transaction.

12.Thus one way the defendant is admitting execution of suit promissory notes in favour of plaintif, but his plea is that Exs.A.1 and

A.2 are not supported by cash consideration. The onus lies on the defendant to prove this aspect, but the defendant did not ofer any satisfactory evidence in respect of his plea. In other words there is no

Original Suit No.85/2015

Page 5 material available to show that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are not supported by cash consideration. The statutory presumption with regard to passage of consideration is in favour of plaintif. The defendant failed to rebut the said presumption. As such it can be said that the defendant failed to show that the suit promissory notes are not supported by cash consideration and that they are renewal promissory notes of earlier transactions. Hence, issues 1 and 2 are held against the defendant.

13.Issue No.3:- It may be noted that the original rate of interest agreed is 18% p.a, but the plaintif pleaded 24% p.a at para 3 of the plaint. However the interest is calculated at the rate of 18% p.a only in the body of the plaint. In view of the findings on issues 1 and 2 the plaintif as a consequence is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

14.Issue No.3:- In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.4,26,659/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty six thousands six hundred and fifty nine only) with future interest at 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a till the date of realization on the total prl. amount of Rs.2,78,542/-.

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

corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses Examined)

For Plaintif:-

P.W.1: Paradesi Raju

P.W.2: U.Peddanna

P.W.3: Jemmi Prabhakar

For Defendants:-

D.W.1:Syed Abdul Rahiman

Original Suit No.85/2015

Page 6

Exhibits marked

For Plaintif:-

Ex.A.1: Promissory note dt.6.6.2012 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.1,35,542/-;

Ex.A.2: Promissory note dt.11.6.2012 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.1,43,000/-;

Ex.A.3: Office copy of legal notice dt.23.3.2015;

Ex.A.4: Served postal acknowledgement.

For Defendant:-

Nil

S.C.J, ALG.

Original Suit No.85/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::ALLAGADDA

Present: Sri C.N.Murthy, Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Wednesday, the Nineteenth Day of April, 2017.

Original Suit No.85/2015

Paradesi Raju, S/o Chinna Thimmaiah, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o M.V. Nagar, Allagadda town and mandal, Kurnool District. …..Plaintif

Versus

Syed Abdul Rahiman, S/o Syed Fakruddin, Aged about 49 years, Muslim, Laskar, Irrigation Department, Chagalamarri village and mandal,

Kurnool District. ….. Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant on the strength of promissory notes purported to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif.

Plaint presented on 3.6.2015 and filed on 13.7.2015. J.V of Rs.4,26,659/- (Rs.2,08,512/- + Rs.2,18,147/-) and Total C.F of Rs.9,752/- (Rs.4,826/- + Rs.4,926/-) is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act, 1956.

The cause of action for the suit arose at M.V. Nagar of Allagadda town, on 6.6.2012 and 11.6.2012 when the defendant borrowed amount and executed promissory note in favour of plaintif which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit coming up before me for hearing on 12.4.2017 in the presence of Sri P.Subba Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintif and of Sri P.S.Mahaboob Basha and Sri U.Prathap, Advocates for the Defendant, and after hearing on both sides and the matter after having stood over for consideration till today, this Court doth Order and passed the following decree:-

1) that the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.4,26,659/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty six thousands six hundred and fifty nine only) with future interest at 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a till the date of realization on the suit amount of Rs.2,78,542/-;

2) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.26,248/-.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 19th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Original Suit No.85/2015

Page 2

MEMO OF COSTS

For Plaintif For Defendant

Stamp on Vakalat Rs. 2-00Rs. 2-00

Stamp on Plaint Rs. 9752-00 --

Stamp on Process Rs. 45-00 --

Advocate’s Fee Rs.16399-00 Rs.12000-00

Writing Charges Rs. 20-00 Rs. 20-00

Typing Charges Rs. 30-00 Rs. 30-00

------------------ ------------------

Total : Rs.26248-00 Rs.12052-00

------------------ ------------------

S.C.J, ALG.

Original Suit No.85/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::ALLAGADDA

Present: Sri C.N.Murthy, Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Wednesday, the Eighteenth Day of April, 2017.

Original Suit No.139/2016

State Bank of India, Chagalamarri Branch, rep. by its Branch Manager.… Plaintif

Versus

1) Shela Uma Maheswari (1st leader)

2) B.Lakshmi Devi (2nd leader)

3) R.Dastagiramma

4) E.Pullamma

5) B.Padmavathi

6) K.Narayanamma

7) S.Lakshmi Devi

8) Hussainamma

9) V.Lakshmi Devi

10) P.Mabunni

11) S.Dastagiramma

12) P.Pakuramma

13) D.Rebakamma … Defendants (Group members of Sireesha Podupu Lakshmi Group)

This suit coming up before me for hearing today in the presence of Sri P.S.Mahaboob Basha and Sri U.Prathap, Advocates for the Plaintif and the Defendants having remained exparte, and after the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this

Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif bank against the defendants for recovery of loan amount.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are that the 13 members of

D.Kothapalli village formed into a self help group styled as

Sireesha Podupu Lakshmi Group for which the first defendant is the first leader and second defendant is the second leader. All the group members gave a power of attorney to them on 1.9.2007 authorizing them to open savings, fixed deposits and other accounts in the bank. They were authorized to maintain books, to

Page 2 grant loans to the group members and also to receive all payments due to the self help group. On 1.9.2007 a meeting was held by

Sireesha Podupu Lakshmi Group in which it was resolved that the defendants 1 and 2 were permitted to take a loan of

Rs.3,68,000/- from the bank. Accordingly they applied for the said loan which was granted to the defendants. The defendants executed an agreement in favour of the plaintif bank on 1.9.2007 accepting their conditions and agreeing to repay the same in 20 installments of Rs.18,400/- and also with interest as per the rates fixed by Reserve Bank of India/NABARD for which the interest is fixed at 10.5%.

3.It is pleaded that the defendants also executed and submitted an application form, articles of agreement, inter-se agreement, resolution passed by the defendants, sponsorship letter in favour of the plaintif bank on 1.9.2007. It is pleaded that the defendants utilized the loan through bank account

No.30235451294 and that in spite of repeated demands the first and second leaders executed revival letters to the plaintif bank on 1.5.2010, 27.10.2012 and 27.10.2014 acknowledging and confirming the liability of outstanding loan. Further a legal notice was issued to them on 1.11.2011 but the defendants did not pay any amount. Hence the present suit is filed.

4.It is seen from records that the defendants were set exparte for their failure to appear before the Court.

5.In support of its case the plaintif bank got filed chief examination affidavit through its Branch Manager reiterating the contents in the plaint about the loan transaction. Through P.W.1

Exs.A.1 to A.10 are marked. Ex.A.1 is Application Form submitted by the defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.2 is Articles of agreement executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.3 is Inter-se agree-

Original Suit No.139/2016

Page 3 ment executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.4 is Resolution passed by the defendants submitted the same to the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.5 is a sponsorship letter dt.1.9.2007 issued by plaintif bank; Ex.A.6 is

Revival letter executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.1.5.2010. Ex.A.7 is Revival letter executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.27.10.2012.

Ex.A.8 is Revival letter executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.27.10.2014. Ex.A.9 is office copy of legal notice dt.1.11.2011, Ex.A.10 is Account extract.

6.Heard.

7.Now the only point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintif bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants?

8.Point:- I have carefully perused the material available on record and it is seen that the defendants 1 and 2 were authorized by the other defendants vide Ex.A.4 resolution to apply for a loan of Rs.3,68,000/-. Thus prima facie liability of defendants 1 and 2 is established by the plaintif bank. Further as per Ex.A.3 inter-se agreement authorized the first and second defendants to open savings, fixed deposits and other accounts and also to receive payments due to the self help group. Under this agreement i.e. Ex.A.3 defendants 1 and 2 were elected as the first leader and second leader. Further Exs.A.6 to A.8 revival letters executed by the first and second defendants acknowledged the liability of self help group. Ex.A.10 account extract shows the outstanding amount due from the defendants. The plaintif bank through the unchalleged testimony of P.W.1 proved the loan transaction apart from exhibiting Exs.A.1 to A.10. Thus the plaintif bank clearly proved that the defendants are due an amount of Rs.7,56,630/- and as such they are liable to repay the said amount to the plaintif bank.

Original Suit No.139/2016

Page 4

9.In the result the suit claim is proved and the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.7,56,630/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty six thousands six hundred and thirty only) against the defendants jointly and severally with future interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the suit amount of

Rs.7,56,630/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses Examined)

For Plaintif:- P.W.1: B.Ananda Babu, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chagalamarri.

For Defendants:- None

Exhibits marked

For Plaintif:-

Ex.A.1: Application Form submitted by the defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.2: Articles of agreement executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.3: Inter-se agreement executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.4: Resolution passed by the defendants submitted the same to the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.5: sponsorship letter dt.1.9.2007 issued by plaintif bank Ex.A.6: Revival letter executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.1.5.2010. Ex.A.7: Revival letter executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.27.10.2012. Ex.A.8: Revival letter executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.27.10.2014; Ex.A.9: Office copy of legal notice dt.1.11.2011 issued by plaintif bank to defendants. Ex.A.10: Account extract.

For Defendants:- Nil

S.C.J. ALG.

Original Suit No.139/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::ALLAGADDA

Present: Sri C.N.Murthy, Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Wednesday, the Eighteenth Day of April, 2017.

Original Suit No.139/2016

State Bank of India, Chagalamarri Branch, rep. by its Branch Manager.… Plaintif

Versus

1) Shela Uma Maheswari (1st leader), W/o Koni Reddy, Aged about 38 years.

2) B.Lakshmi Devi (2nd leader), W/o Narasimhudu, Aged about 39 years.

3) R.Dastagiramma, W/o Dastagiri Reddy, Aged about 47 years.

4) E.Pullamma, W/o E.Narsi Reddy, Aged about 47 years.

5) B.Padmavathi, W/o Venkateswarlu, Aged about 48 years.

6) K.Narayanamma, W/o Subba Reddy, Aged about 39 years.

7) S.Lakshmi Devi, W/o Pedda Koni Reddy, Aged about 40 years.

8) Hussainamma, W/o Hussainvali, Aged about 38 years.

9) V.Lakshmi Devi, W/o Jaya Rami Reddy, Aged about 39 years.

10) P.Mabunni, W/o Chinna Mabu, Aged about 37 years.

11) S.Dastagiramma, W/o Jayarami Reddy, Aged about 39 years.

12) P.Pakuramma, W/o Dastagiri, Aged about 38 years.

13) D.Rebakamma, W/o D.Obulesu, Aged about 37 years. … Defendants

All are Hindus and Muslims, House wives, R/o D.Kothapalle village, Chagalamarri mandal, Kurnool District.

Original Suit No.139/2016

Page 2 This is a suit filed by the plaintif bank against the defendants for recovery of loan amount.

Plaint presented on 8.8.2016 and filed on 11.8.2016. J.V of Rs.7,56,630/- and C.F of Rs.10,026/- is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose at Chagalamarri village and mandal within jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit coming up before me for hearing today in the presence of Sri P.S.Mahaboob Basha and Sri U.Prathap, Advocates for the Plaintif and the Defendants having remained exparte, and after the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this

Court doth Order and passed the decree as follows:-

1) that the defendants jointly and severally do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.7,56,630/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty six thousands six hundred and thirty only) with future interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the suit amount of Rs.7,56,630/-;

2) that the defendants do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.24,032/- being costs of the suit;

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 19th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Memo of Costs

For PlaintifFor Defendants

Stamp on VakalatRs. 2-00 -- Stamp on PlaintRs.10026-00 -- Stamp on ProcessRs. 350-00 -- Advocate’s FeeRs.12200-00 Nil Publication chargesRs. 1404-00 (Not certified) Writing ChargesRs. 20-00 -- Typing ChargesRs. 30-00 --

------------------ -----------------

Total :Rs.24032-00 --

------------------ -----------------

SCJ, ALG.

Original Suit No.139/2016

O.S.No.91/2015 Decree D.D.13.2.2017

1)that the defendants 1, 4 to 13 jointly and severally do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.7,56,630/- (Rupees thirteen thousands forty seven thousands nine hundred and twenty five only) with future interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the suit amount of Rs.7,56,630/-; 2)that the defendants 1, 4 to 13 do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.28,624/- being costs of the suit;

3) that the suit against Defendants 2 and 3 is dismissed as not pressed.

// By Order //

Sr. Superintendent.

Original Suit No.139/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::ALLAGADDA

Present: Sri C.N.Murthy, Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Wednesday, the Eighteenth Day of April, 2017.

Original Suit No.139/2016

State Bank of India, Chagalamarri Branch, rep. by its Branch Manager.… Plaintif

Versus

1) Shela Uma Maheswari (1st leader)

2) B.Lakshmi Devi (2nd leader)

3) R.Dastagiramma

4) E.Pullamma

5) B.Padmavathi

6) K.Narayanamma

7) S.Lakshmi Devi

8) Hussainamma

9) V.Lakshmi Devi

10) P.Mabunni

11) S.Dastagiramma

12) P.Pakuramma

13) D.Rebakamma … Defendants (Group members of Sireesha Podupu Lakshmi Group)

This suit coming up before me for hearing today in the presence of Sri P.S.Mahaboob Basha and Sri U.Prathap, Advocates for the Plaintif and the Defendants having remained exparte, and after the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this

Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif bank against the defendants for recovery of loan amount.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are that the 13 members of

D.Kothapalli village formed into a self help group styled as

Sireesha Podupu Lakshmi Group for which the first defendant is the first leader and second defendant is the second leader. All the group members gave a power of attorney to them on 1.9.2007 authorizing them to open savings, fixed deposits and other accounts in the bank. They were authorized to maintain books, to

Page 2 grant loans to the group members and also to receive all payments due to the self help group. On 1.9.2007 a meeting was held by

Sireesha Podupu Lakshmi Group in which it was resolved that the defendants 1 and 2 were permitted to take a loan of

Rs.3,68,000/- from the bank. Accordingly they applied for the said loan which was granted to the defendants. The defendants executed an agreement in favour of the plaintif bank on 1.9.2007 accepting their conditions and agreeing to repay the same in 20 installments of Rs.18,400/- and also with interest as per the rates fixed by Reserve Bank of India/NABARD for which the interest is fixed at 10.5%.

3.It is pleaded that the defendants also executed and submitted an application form, articles of agreement, inter-se agreement, resolution passed by the defendants, sponsorship letter in favour of the plaintif bank on 1.9.2007. It is pleaded that the defendants utilized the loan through bank account

No.30235451294 and that in spite of repeated demands the first and second leaders executed revival letters to the plaintif bank on 1.5.2010, 27.10.2012 and 27.10.2014 acknowledging and confirming the liability of outstanding loan. Further a legal notice was issued to them on 1.11.2011 but the defendants did not pay any amount. Hence the present suit is filed.

4.It is seen from records that the defendants were set exparte for their failure to appear before the Court.

5.In support of its case the plaintif bank got filed chief examination affidavit through its Branch Manager reiterating the contents in the plaint about the loan transaction. Through P.W.1

Exs.A.1 to A.10 are marked. Ex.A.1 is Application Form submitted by the defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.2 is Articles of agreement executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.3 is Inter-se agree-

Original Suit No.139/2016

Page 3 ment executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.4 is Resolution passed by the defendants submitted the same to the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.5 is a sponsorship letter dt.1.9.2007 issued by plaintif bank; Ex.A.6 is

Revival letter executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.1.5.2010. Ex.A.7 is Revival letter executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.27.10.2012.

Ex.A.8 is Revival letter executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.27.10.2014. Ex.A.9 is office copy of legal notice dt.1.11.2011, Ex.A.10 is Account extract.

6.Heard.

7.Now the only point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintif bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants?

8.Point:- I have carefully perused the material available on record and it is seen that the defendants 1 and 2 were authorized by the other defendants vide Ex.A.4 resolution to apply for a loan of Rs.3,68,000/-. Thus prima facie liability of defendants 1 and 2 is established by the plaintif bank. Further as per Ex.A.3 inter-se agreement authorized the first and second defendants to open savings, fixed deposits and other accounts and also to receive payments due to the self help group. Under this agreement i.e. Ex.A.3 defendants 1 and 2 were elected as the first leader and second leader. Further Exs.A.6 to A.8 revival letters executed by the first and second defendants acknowledged the liability of self help group. Ex.A.10 account extract shows the outstanding amount due from the defendants. The plaintif bank through the unchalleged testimony of P.W.1 proved the loan transaction apart from exhibiting Exs.A.1 to A.10. Thus the plaintif bank clearly proved that the defendants are due an amount of Rs.7,56,630/- and as such they are liable to repay the said amount to the plaintif bank.

Original Suit No.139/2016

Page 4

9.In the result the suit claim is proved and the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.7,56,630/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty six thousands six hundred and thirty only) against the defendants jointly and severally with future interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the suit amount of

Rs.7,56,630/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses Examined)

For Plaintif:- P.W.1: B.Ananda Babu, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chagalamarri.

For Defendants:- None

Exhibits marked

For Plaintif:-

Ex.A.1: Application Form submitted by the defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.2: Articles of agreement executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.3: Inter-se agreement executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.4: Resolution passed by the defendants submitted the same to the plaintif bank dt.1.9.2007. Ex.A.5: sponsorship letter dt.1.9.2007 issued by plaintif bank Ex.A.6: Revival letter executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.1.5.2010. Ex.A.7: Revival letter executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.27.10.2012. Ex.A.8: Revival letter executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif bank dt.27.10.2014; Ex.A.9: Office copy of legal notice dt.1.11.2011 issued by plaintif bank to defendants. Ex.A.10: Account extract.

For Defendants:- Nil

S.C.J. ALG.

Original Suit No.139/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::ALLAGADDA

Present: Sri C.N.Murthy, Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Wednesday, the Eighteenth Day of April, 2017.

Original Suit No.139/2016

State Bank of India, Chagalamarri Branch, rep. by its Branch Manager.… Plaintif

Versus

1) Shela Uma Maheswari (1st leader), W/o Koni Reddy, Aged about 38 years.

2) B.Lakshmi Devi (2nd leader), W/o Narasimhudu, Aged about 39 years.

3) R.Dastagiramma, W/o Dastagiri Reddy, Aged about 47 years.

4) E.Pullamma, W/o E.Narsi Reddy, Aged about 47 years.

5) B.Padmavathi, W/o Venkateswarlu, Aged about 48 years.

6) K.Narayanamma, W/o Subba Reddy, Aged about 39 years.

7) S.Lakshmi Devi, W/o Pedda Koni Reddy, Aged about 40 years.

8) Hussainamma, W/o Hussainvali, Aged about 38 years.

9) V.Lakshmi Devi, W/o Jaya Rami Reddy, Aged about 39 years.

10) P.Mabunni, W/o Chinna Mabu, Aged about 37 years.

11) S.Dastagiramma, W/o Jayarami Reddy, Aged about 39 years.

12) P.Pakuramma, W/o Dastagiri, Aged about 38 years.

13) D.Rebakamma, W/o D.Obulesu, Aged about 37 years. … Defendants

All are Hindus and Muslims, House wives, R/o D.Kothapalle village, Chagalamarri mandal, Kurnool District.

Original Suit No.139/2016

Page 2 This is a suit filed by the plaintif bank against the defendants for recovery of loan amount.

Plaint presented on 8.8.2016 and filed on 11.8.2016. J.V of Rs.7,56,630/- and C.F of Rs.10,026/- is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose at Chagalamarri village and mandal within jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit coming up before me for hearing today in the presence of Sri P.S.Mahaboob Basha and Sri U.Prathap, Advocates for the Plaintif and the Defendants having remained exparte, and after the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this

Court doth Order and passed the decree as follows:-

1) that the defendants jointly and severally do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.7,56,630/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty six thousands six hundred and thirty only) with future interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the suit amount of Rs.7,56,630/-;

2) that the defendants do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.24,032/- being costs of the suit;

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 19th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

Memo of Costs

For PlaintifFor Defendants

Stamp on VakalatRs. 2-00 -- Stamp on PlaintRs.10026-00 -- Stamp on ProcessRs. 350-00 -- Advocate’s FeeRs.12200-00 Nil Publication chargesRs. 1404-00 (Not certified) Writing ChargesRs. 20-00 -- Typing ChargesRs. 30-00 --

------------------ -----------------

Total :Rs.24032-00 --

------------------ -----------------

SCJ, ALG.

Original Suit No.139/2016

O.S.No.91/2015 Decree D.D.13.2.2017

1)that the defendants 1, 4 to 13 jointly and severally do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.7,56,630/- (Rupees thirteen thousands forty seven thousands nine hundred and twenty five only) with future interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the suit amount of Rs.7,56,630/-; 2)that the defendants 1, 4 to 13 do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.28,624/- being costs of the suit;

3) that the suit against Defendants 2 and 3 is dismissed as not pressed.

// By Order //

Sr. Superintendent.

Original Suit No.139/2016