Smt.Ch.Ashalatha

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Prl District Courts, Chittoor · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Ch.Ashalatha, PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 618 court orders on record since 2014. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP cases.

618

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/708/2015

G.Allasaheb vs P.Hari Babu

30 Sep 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR

Present: Smt Ch. Ashalatha, L.L.M., B.C.J., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Chittoor.

Friday, the Thirtieth (30th) day of September, 2016

O.S. No. 708 of 2015

Between: G. Allasaheb, S/o. Lala Saheb, Muslim, aged about years, Employee, Working as Attender in District Collector's Office, Chittoor Town and District.

... Plaintiff

And: P. Haribabu, S/o. Krishnama Naidu, Hindu, aged about years, Business, residing at D.No.1515, L.B. Puram, Bandapalli Post, Chittoor Mandal and District.

... Defendant

This suit is coming on 2692016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri C. Munaswamy, Advocate for plaintiff; Sri P.V. Chakravarthy Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ against the defendant basing on a promissory note and for costs.

2.The plaintiff's case in brief is as follows:

Due to well acquaintance with him the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ from him in the month of December 2014 to meet his family necessities and for business and agreed to repay the same within four months.

On his several oral requests the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.

523895 drawn on Indian Bank, Greamspet Branch for Rs.2,00,000/ on 15042015 to discharge due amount, but the same was dishonored on 2 21.04.2015 due to insufficient funds. Then he intimated the same to the defendant and requested him to repay amount due under the said cheque. The defendant sought some time to pay the entire debt due under the said cheque.

Later in spite of his several demands, the defendant postponed to pay on one pretext or the other. Dishonour of said cheque clearly proves the defendant's intention of fraud and criminal misappropriation. The defendant is doing business, therefore he is not entitled to claim under any agricultural debt relief act or any other debt relief acts. Hence, this suit.

3. The defendant specifically denied borrowing amount of Rs.2 lakhs in his written statement. His case is as follows: he has borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/ from the plaintiff on 10.10.2014 for his hotel business and then the plaintiff obtained two blank promissory notes, two empty cheques drawn on

Indian Bank, Greamspet Branch and also two Registered Sale deeds dt.04.09.2014 stood in the name of his wife. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.

493 of 2015 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Chittoor against him basing on one of the said blank promissory notes. The plaintiff filed this false case basing on one of the two blank cheques taken by defendant only to harass him. He is running a small hotel in the name of Balaji Hotel near Collectors office. Due to road extension some portion of his Hotel is damaged, therefore the defendant unable to pay the interest to the plaintiff for the last six months,

Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2

01. "Whether suit promissory note is not supported by

consideration as pleaded by the defendant?"

02. "To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?"

Promissory note is not the subject matter of this suit, therefore instead of issue no.1 following issue is framed:

"Whether cheque dated 15042015 is supported by

consideration of Rs.1 lakh only as pleaded by the

defendant?" 3

5.In order to support his case the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, marked Exs. A1 and A2. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and further got examine DW2. No documentary evidence is adduced in support of the defendant.

6.I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

7. ISSUE NO. 1

The plaintiff's case is that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/ in the year 2014 agreeing to repay the same within four months and subsequently on 15.04.2015 at his request the defendant issued a cheque under Ex.A1 but it was dishonored due to insufficient funds. He filed return memo under Ex. A2 in that regard.

Whereas the defendant's specific case is that he borrowed one lakh only and then the plaintiff obtained two blank promissory notes, blank signed cheques and registered sale deeds related to his property. He also contends that the plaintiff filed a suit against him on basis of one promissory note and the same is pending.

There is no dispute that the plaintiff works as an attender in

District Cooperative Society and the defendant's hotel is in front of office in which the plaintiff works.

The plaintiff as PW1 reiterated his case. During cross examination it is elicited from him that he filed promissory notes in another case. It is pertinent to say here that the plaintiff has not stated anything about filing of another suit basing on promissory note either in his plaint or in his chief affidavit. Further, PW1 has not even whispered that those promissory notes are not related to Ex.A1.

The plaintiff specifically pleaded that the defendant borrowed amount in the year 2014 and at his request the defendant issued Ex.A1 on 15042015 During cross examination PW1 admitted the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the defendant that the defendant issued Ex.A1 in the 4 year 2014. Further, during cross examination DW1 was suggested by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that he gave documents relating to his land at the time of borrowing amount and that at the time of borrowing amount he gave filled cheques. It supports the defendant's contention that while borrowing amount the plaintiff obtained blank signed cheques.

DW1 was suggested that his wife and himself borrowed

Rs.12,00,000/ from the plaintiff for the development of hotel. He denied the suggestion and specifically stated that he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/ only. The plaintiff did not aver anywhere till DW1 was suggested that the defendant and his wife borrowed Rs.12,00,000/.

The defendant got examine DW2 who denied that the defendant borrowed Rs.12,00,000/ from the plaintiff. He specifically stated that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/ only from the plaintiff. He also stated that the defendant executed two promissory notes and issued two cheques for

Rs.1,00,000/.

It is elicited from PW1 that he, the defendant and his wife were present at the time of issuing Ex.A1 and as well at the time of execution of promissory notes by the defendant. But during cross examination DW1 was suggested that he borrowed amount in the presence of one Venkatesulu.

Further, DW2 was suggested that entire transaction took place in the presence one Ramesh and Venkatesh. The plaintiff failed to get examine any cogent witness or alleged persons in his support.

DW1 stated that when he went to pay the amount the plaintiff demanded him to execute deed in his favour in respect of his land. DW2 specifically stated in his chief affidavit that he tried to mediate the matter asking the plaintiff to receive one lakh rupees.

In view of all the above, it is held that the defendant succeeded in proving that Ex.A1 is supported by one lakh rupees only and accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

8. ISSUES NO. 2

In view of the answer given to issue No. 1, it is held that the 5 plaintiff is entitled to claim one lakh rupees only and accordingly this issue is answered partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendant.

In the result, suit is partly decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ together with interest at 12% p.a. on principal sum adjudged Rs.1,00,000/ from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at 6% p.a. on principal sum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after her transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 30th day of September, 2016.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined. For plaintiff : For defendant: PW1: G. Alla Saheb DW1: P. Hari Babu DW2: Sreekant Kumar Exhibits marked on behalf of For plaintiff : Ex.A1: Original cheque bearing No. 523895 for Rs.2,00,000/ drawn on Indian Bank, Greamspet Branch, Chittoor dt. 15042015.

Ex.A2: Return memo dated 21.04.2015 of Indian Bank, Greamspet Branch.

For defendants: NIL

II A.J.C.J.,

CTR.

Draft copy in

O.S.708/2015

Dt:30.09.2016

OS/100525/2016

B.Venkatappa vs B.Narasimhulu

04 Apr 2017

In the Court of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge: Chittoor.

Present: Smt CH.Ashalatha, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor

Tuesday , the Fourth (4th) day of April, 2017.

O.S.No. 525 OF 2016

Between: B. Venkatappa, …Plaintiff. And: B. Narasimhulu, …Defendant

This suit is coming on 04.04.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. V. Ramanarayana reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. P. Ashok Anand,

Advocate for defendant ; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed against the defendant for recovery of an amount of

Rs. 1,92,910/ being the principal and interest due under a promissory note

dated 11.12.2013 and for costs.

2). The plaintiff's case in brief is as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ on 11.12.2013 from him to meet his family necessities and business and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a. In spite of his repeated demands including issuance of legal notice dated 10.05.2016 the defendant did not pay any amount due under the said promissory note. The defendant is doing business, therefore he is not entitled to claim benefits of Act 4 of 1938. Hence, this suit.

The defendant specifically denied borrowing amount on the specified date. His case is as follows: The plaintiff is doing unregistered chit transactions.

He joined in one chit for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ on 10.01.2011. When he became a successful bidder during chit transaction in the month of May 2011 the plaintiff obtained a blank promissory note from him towards security for future chit 2 installments. He has no necessity to borrow amount from the plaintiff. After completion of chit he requested the plaintiff to return the said empty promissory note, but the plaintiff postponed to return the same on one pretext or the other.

Due to recent disputes arose between him and the plaintiff, by taking advantage of blank promissory note the plaintiff created the alleged promissory note with the help of attester and scribe. Immediately after receiving legal notice he approached the plaintiff and the plaintiff promised that it was sent due to oversight. Therefore, he has not given any reply. The attester and scribe of the alleged promissory note are close associates of the plaintiff. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)Basing on the above pleadings following issues are framed:

01.Whether suit promissory note is not supported by consideration as pleaded by the defendant ?

02.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for ?

5)The plaintiff examined himself as Pw1, marked Exs.A1 and 2 and further got examine Pw2. The defendant examined himself as Dw1 and further got examine Dws2 and 3. Neither oral nor documentary evidence is adduced in support of the defendant.

6)I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

Issue No.1:

The plaintiff's case is that the defendant borrowed amount and executed a promissory note under Ex.A1. Whereas the defendant contends that he is a member in one chit run by the plaintiff, that when he became a successful bidder during chit transaction the plaintiff obtained blank promissory note executed by him and that even after completion of chit the plaintiff did not choose to return the same.

The defendant specifically contends that the plaintiff brought up Ex.A1 by fabricating blank promissory note executed by him.

The defendant as Dw1 admitted that Ex.A1 bears his signature. Now it is incumbent upon the defendant to prove that Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration as pleaded by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff as Pw1 specifically stated that one Jyothi is scribe of Ex.A1 and that one Subramanyam and Jyothi were present at the time of transaction.

Attestor to Ex.A1 is examined as Pw2. During cross examination initially Pw2 stated that he was not present at the time of transaction but he immediately stated that he was present at the time of transaction and execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant.

Ex.A1 bears two signatures of the defendant whereas Pw2 stated that the defendant signed only once in ExA1. Contrary to the plaintiff's case Pw2 stated that father of

Jyothi is scribe of Ex.A1. It is pertinent to say here that the plaintiff did not choose to get examine scribe of Ex.A1.

The defendant specifically pleaded that after receiving legal notice he approached the plaintiff and the plaintiff promised that it was sent due to mistake and over sight, therefore he has not given any reply. But during cross examination the defendant as Dw1 stated that he did not receive Ex.A2.

The defendant got examine Dw2 alleged to be a member of chit run by the plaintiff. During cross examination he specifically stated that he does not know the contents of his chief affidavit. It is elicited from him that he knew the defendant since his child hood and that he does not know the debts obtained by the defendant and as well money lent by the plaintiff to third parties.

Dw3 reiterated the defendant's case in his chief affidavit. He specifically stated in it that recently some disputes arose between the plaintiff and defendant and by taking advantage of the same the plaintiff brought up the promissory note with the collusion of attester and scribe. But during cross examination it is elicited from Dw3 that the defendant is his friend. He deposed that he was present when the defendant executed blank promissory note. But it is elicited from him that he has not seen copy of Ex.A1 prior to filing of his chief affidavit. There is no explanation how he instructed to prepare his chief affidavit by making statements about Ex.A1.

It is evident that the defendant, Dw2 and 3 had well acquittance among them. Dw3 specifically stated that the defendant and Pw2 are members of alleged chit and he does not know the names of all the 20 members of the chit. It is elicited from him that he knew Thyagarajulu [Dw2] for about 10 years. Dw3 does not know the amounts lent by the plaintiff and as well the debts incurred by the defendant. It is also elicited from Dw3 that there are no disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is opined that Dws2 and 3 stepped in to the witness box only to support the defendant's case.

There is no cogent evidence in support of the defendant's case that ExA1 is not supported by consideration. Further, Pw2 specifically stated that cash was given in denomination of Rs.500 and 100. In view of the all the above facts and 4 circumstances, it is held that the defendant failed to prove that ExA1 is not supported by consideration as pleaded by him and accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No. 2

In view of the answer given to issue No.1 and in view of the facts and circumstances, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief as sought for and accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

In result, suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 1,92,910/ together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal sum adjudged i.e.Rs.1,20,000/ from the date of filing of this suit till the date of passing decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on principal sum from the date of passing decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 4th day of March, 2017.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Chittoor.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined.

For plaintiff : For defendants:

P.W1: B. Venkatappa DW.1 : B. Narasimhulu P.W.2 : P. Subramanyam DW.2 : J. Thyagarajulu DW.3 : B.Viswanadh

Exhibits marked on behalf of For plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dt. 11.12.2013 executed by the defendant Rs.1,20,000/ along with xerox copy of the same. Ex.A2: Office copy of Legal notice dt. 10.05.2016 with postal receipts.

For defendants:

NIL

I A.J.C.J.,CTR.

OS/100638/2016

M.Subramanyam vs S.Masthan

31 Mar 2017

In the Court of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge: Chittoor.

PRESENT: Smt CH.Ashalatha, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Friday, the Thirty First (31st ) day of March, 2017.

O.S.No. 638 OF 2016

Between:

M. Subramanyam …Plaintiff

And:

S. Masthan …Defendant

This suit is coming on 28032017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. V. Ramanarayana Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.

G. Srinivasulu, Advocate for defendant; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.93,750/ being the principal and interest due under a promissory note dated 26.09.2013 and for costs.

2).The plaintiff's case in brief is as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.55,000/ on 26.09.2013 from him to meet his family necessities and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a. In spite of his repeated demands including issuance of legal notice

dated 05.05.2016 the defendant did not pay due amount. The defendant

is doing business, therefore he is not entitled to claim benefits of Act 4 of 1938. Hence, this suit.

The defendant specifically denied borrowing amount and execution of promissory note. His case is as follows: The plaintiff is a 2 stranger to him. After receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff, when he approached the plaintiff stated that it was issued due to over sight by his counsel. Believing his words he has not given any reply to the notice. He is a retired Army man and he is receiving pension. Now he is working as a security gourd at Chennai. He has no necessity to borrow amount from anybody. The plaintiff filed this suit to get wrongful gain by forging his signature in promissory note. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

3)Basing on the above pleadings following issues are framed:

1. Whether suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for ?

4) The plaintiff examined himself as Pw1, marked Ex.A1 to A3 and further got examine Pw2. Neither oral nor documentary evidence is adduced in support of the defendant.

5) I have heard the plaintiff's counsel. There was no representation for the defendant, therefore treated as heard the defendant. I have perused the material on record.

Issues No.1

The plaintiff as Pw1 reiterated his case that the defendant borrowed amount and executed a promissory note under Ex.A1. He further got examine one attester to Ex.A1 as Pw2 and he supported the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff got issue legal notice under Ex.A2 to the defendant demanding due amount. A perusal of Ex.A3 shows that the defendant received ExA2. It seems even after of receipt of Ex.A2 the defendant did not choose to pay due amount nor gave reply to ExA2.

The defendant denied borrowing amount and execution of

ExA1. He has taken a specific plea of forgery of his signature in ExA1. It is incumbent upon him to prove his plea. But he did not choose to step into the witness box even to aver his own case. Further, there is no cogent evidence in support of the defendant. Furthermore, nothing 3 contrary is elicited from Pw1 during his cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendant. Further, the defendant failed to cross examine Pw2, therefore cross examination of Pw 2 is treated as nil.

In view of the evidence of Pws1 and 2 and Ex.A1 to 3, it is held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving that ExA1 is true, valid and binding the defendant and accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No. 2

In view of the answer given to issue no.1, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief as sought for and accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

In the result, suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 93,750/ together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal sum adjudged i.e. Rs.55,000/ from the date of filing of this suit till the date of passing decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on principal sum from the date of passing decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 31stday of March,

2017

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Appendix of evidence

witnesses examined

For plaintiff : For defendant:

P.W.1: M. Subramanyam P.W.2 : K. Gunasekhar

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Promissory note dt. 26.09.2013 executed by the defendant for Rs.55,000/ . Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice issued by the defendant. Ex.A3: Acknowledgment served on the defendant. Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendant:

NIL

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

In the Court of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge: Chittoor.

PRESENT: Smt CH.Ashalatha, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Friday, the Thirty First (31st ) day of March, 2017.

O.S.No. 638 OF 2016

Between:

M. Subramanyam , aged about 70 years, S/o late Munaswamy, Hindu, cultivation, residing at D.No. 245, Appareddikandiga village, Etteri post, Gangadhara Nellore mandal, Chittoor district. …Plaintiff

And:

S. Masthan, aged about 65 years S/o Jaffer Saheb, private employee, Muslim, residing at D.No. 581, Indra nagar, Santhapet and now residing at D.No. 591A, Indira nagar, Santhapet, Chittoor4.

…Defendant

Plaint presented on: 03.09.2016 , filed on : 29.09.2016.

Suit filed against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.93,750/ being the principal and interest due under a promissory note dated 26.09.2013 and for costs.

Value of the suit : Rs. 93,750/ Court fees paid under section 20 of APCF and SV Act is : Rs. 3,266/

The cause of action for the suit arose on 26.09.2013 at Chittoor within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

This suit is coming on 28032017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. V. Ramanarayana Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri. G. Srinivasulu, Advocate for defendant; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court's doth order and decree as follows:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed by directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs. 93,750/ together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal sum adjudged i.e. Rs.55,000/ from the date of filing of this suit till the date of passing decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on principal sum from the date of passing decree till the date of realization.

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 7,848/ towards the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 31st day of March, 2017.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

Description PlaintiffDefendant (awarded)

1) stamp on plaint:3,26600Cost memo not filed Hence cost not certified.

2) stamp on vakalath:200

3) advocates fees: 4,51300

4) service of process:4500

5) process pre. Fee 200

6) Typing charges:2000

Total:7,84800

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

OS/545/2015

K.Ramadevi vs A.Sreenivaslu Naidu

29 Sep 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR

Present: Smt Ch. Ashalatha, L.L.M., B.C.J., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Chittoor.

Thursday, the Twenty Ninth (29th) day of September, 2016

O.S. No. 545 of 2015

Between: Smt. K. Ramadevi, W/o. K. Rajendra Naidu, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Cultivation, residing at 241105B C. Naidu Colony, Chittoor Town and District.

... Plaintiff

And:

1. A. Sreenivasulu Naidu, S/o. Adeppa Naidu, aged about 50 years,

2. Smt. A. Sobha, W/o. A. Sreenivasulu Naidu aged about 45 years, Both are Hindus, Cultivation, residing at Perumallakandriga Village, Thalembedu Post, Chittoor Rural Mandal and District.

... Defendant

This suit is coming on 2692016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.R. Ramakrishan, Advocate for plaintiff; Sri J. Subramanyam, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.64,675/ against the defendants basing on a promissory note and for costs.

2.The plaintiff's case in brief as follows:

On07.02.2013 the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.49,000/ from her to meet their family necessities and for their business and executed a promissory note jointly on 07.02.2013 for Rs.49,000/ agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 12% p.a. In spite of issuance of legal notice

dated 21.11.2014 the defendants neither paid due amount nor gave any reply.

The plaintiff demanded the defendants for due amount for several times but the defendants failed to repay the same. Hence, this suit.

3.The 1st defendant specifically denied borrowing amount in his written statement. His case is as follows: The plaintiff was running an unregistered Chit for an amount of Rs.30,000/ and during the 10th bid he became a successful bidder. The plaintiff insisted the defendants to sign in unfilled promissory note towards security before paying bid amount of

Rs.25,000/. The plaintiff also took two signed blank cheques. As the amount was necessary to meet his family legal necessities he was forced to obey the plaintiff's conditions. Thus, the plaintiff got promissory note for an amount of

Rs.49,000/. He never borrowed the amount of Rs.49,000/ from the defendant on 07.02.2013. Further, alleged promissory note is not supported by consideration. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

The 2nd defendant adopted the written statement of 1st defendant by filing a memo.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2

01. "Whether Suit promissory note is not supported by consideration as contended by the defendants?"

02. "To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?"

5.In order to support his case, the plaintiff examined herself as

PW1, marked Exs. A1 and A2 and further examined PW2. The 1st defendant examined himself as DW1 and got examine DW2. No documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants.

6.I have heard the plaintiff's counsel and perused the material on record.

There was no representation for the defendants, therefore treated as heard the defendants.

7. ISSUES NO. 1

The plaintiff's case is that the defendants jointly borrowed amount of Rs.49,000/ on 07.02.2013 and executed promissory note under Ex.A1. The 3 plaintiff as PW1 during cross examination specifically stated that Doraswamy,

Harinatha Reddy and Purna (Scribe) were present at the time of transaction and that they came at the instance of defendants. PW2 is an attestor to

Ex.A1. He specifically stated that cash was given in his presence which was readily available with the plaintiff in her house and that he went there at the instance of defendants. He supported the plaintiff's case that the defendants borrowed amount and executed promissory note in their presence.

Further, the plaintiff got issue legal notice under Ex.A2 prior to filing of this suit. During cross examination the 1st defendant as DW1 identified the 2nd defendant's signature on acknowledgment under Ex.A2. It shows that the defendants received ExA2 got issue by the plaintiff but it seems the defendants did not choose give any reply to the said notice.

DW1 admitted that Ex.A1 bears his signature as well as his wife.

DW1 during cross examination specifically stated that there were persons when they paid amount to the plaintiff. The defendants got examine DW2 in support of their contention that DW2 is also one of the members in chit transaction run by the plaintiff. She stated that she took chit amount from the plaintiff as a last bidder. During cross examination it is elicited from DW2 that the defendants are her friends and that there are no documents to show that she was one of the member in chit transaction. She also stated that she has not given any complaint against the plaintiff nor got issue any notice to the plaintiff to return blank promissory note and cheque obtained by her during chit transaction. Generally, when she came to the knowledge of this suit if really she is a chit member and paid the entire amount she would have demanded the plaintiff to return blank promissory note and cheque. It is elicited from DW2 that she has not received any legal notice from the plaintiff.

Generally people will maintain a pocket book even in case of an unauthorized chit.

In view of all the above facts and circumstances and in view of the evidence of PW2, it is held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving the defendants' liability under Ex.A1 and further, the defendants failed to prove that Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration as pleaded by the plaintiff.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

8. ISSUES NO. 2

In the result, suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 64,675/ together with interest at 12% p.a. on principal sum adjudged Rs.49,000/ from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at 6% p.a. on principal sum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after her transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 29th day of September, 2016.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined. For plaintiff : For defendant: PW1: K. Ramadevi DW1: A. Srinivasulu Naidu PW2: B. Harinatha Reddy DW2: Smt.T. Krishnaveni Exhibits marked on behalf of For plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Original Promissory note dt: 07.02.2013 for Rs. 49,000/ executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dt: 21.11.2014 along with postal receipt and acknowledgments.

For defendants: NIL

II A.J.C.J.,

CTR.

OS/100783/2016

S.Sridhar vs E.Giridhar Naidu

28 Mar 2017

In the Court of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge: Chittoor.

Present: Smt CH.Ashalatha, L.L.M., B.C.J., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor

Tuesday, the Twenty Eighth (28th) day of March, 2017.

O.S.No. 783 OF 2016

Between: S.Sridhar …Plaintiff. And: E.Giridhar Naidu …Defendant

This suit is coming on 24032017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.G.Rajaram, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant is remained exparte ; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 98,485/ being the

principal and interest due under a promissory note dated 10.06.2015 executed by the

defendant and for costs.

2. The plaintiff's case in brief is as follows :

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.72,500/ from him on 10.06.2015 to meet his family necessities and for drilling of bore well and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. In spite of his several demands including issuance of legal notices dated 31.05.2016 and 16.11.2016 the defendant did not choose to pay due amount. Even though the defendant received notices, he neither paid the amount nor gave reply. Hence, this suit.

3.After receipt of summons the defendant sought three months time to pay due amount. But subsequently he remained exparte.

4.In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A3. Neither oral nor documentary evidence is adduced in support of the defendant.

5. I have heard the plaintiff's counsel and perused the material on record.

6. The plaintiff as PW1 reiterated his case. He produced Ex. A1 i.e.

promissory note in his support contending that the defendant borrowed amount and executed Ex. A1. The plaintiff got issue Ex. A2 and 3 to the defendant demanding due amount under Ex. A1. A perusal of Ex.2 and 3 shows that the defendant received notices. It is pertinent to say here that after receipt of summons the defendant admitted his liability and sought time to pay due amount within three months. It seems the defendant has not paid the due amount even after completion of agreed period. The plaintiff contends that the defendant has not paid due amount.

The defendant failed to cross examine PW1, therefore cross examination of PW1 is treated as nil. Thus, the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the evidence of PW1 and Exs. A1 to A3, it is held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving the defendant's liability under Ex. A1 and that the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief as sought for.

7.In the result, suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 98,485/ together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the

principal sum adjudged i.e. Rs. 72,500/ from the date of filing of this suit till the

date of passing of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on principal sum from the date of passing of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 28th day of March, 2017.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined.

For plaintiff : For defendants:

P.W1: S. Sridhar Exparte

Exhibits marked on behalf of For plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note executed by the defendant. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt. 31.5.2016 issued to the defendant with postal acknowledgment. Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice dt. 16.11.2016 issued to the defendant with postal acknowledgment.

For defendants: NIL I A.J.C.J.CTR.

In the Court of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge: Chittoor.

Present: Smt CH.Ashalatha, L.L.M., B.C.J., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor

Tuesday, the Twenty Eighth (28th) day of March, 2017.

O.S.No. 783 OF 2016

Between:

S.Sridhar, aged about 76 years, S/o S. Rama Naidu, Hindu, cultivation, and business, residing at D.No. 337 C.B. Road, Chittoor town and district. …Plaintiff. And:

E.Giridhar Naidu, aged abokut 45 years, S/o lte E. Srinivasulu naidu, Hindu, cultivation, and business, residing at G.Gollapalle village and post, Thavanampalle mandal, Chittoor District. …Defendant

Plaint presented on: 13.12.2016 , filed on : 19.12.2016

Suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 98,485/ being the principal and interest due under a promissory note dated 10.06.2015 executed by the defendant and for costs.

Value of the suit : Rs. 98,485/

Court fees paid under section 20 of APCF and SV Act is : Rs. 3,426/

The cause of action for the suit arose on 10.06.2015 when the defendant borrowed the money and executed the suit promissory note and on 10.06.2015 , at Chittoor within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed by directing the defendant to pay suit amount of Rs. 98,485/ together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the

principal sum adjudged i.e. Rs. 72,500/ from the date of filing of this suit till the

date of passing of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on principal sum from the date of passing of decree till the date of realization.

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,835 / towards the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 28th day of March, 2017.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

Description Plaintiff Defendant (awarded)

1) stamp on plaint:3,42600

2) stamp on vakalath:200Exparte

3) advocates fees: 2,32700

4) service of process:6000

5) Typing charges2000

Total Rs.:5,83500

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Order Record 603 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/282/2016	Nagaraja vs Narayanamma	02 May 2017	Judgement	—
OS/118/2017	P.Chengaiah Naidu vs P.Nagarajulu Naidu	28 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
EP/77/2016	P.Pandurangam vs P.Thangavelu	27 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/75/2016	M.Satish vs Smt. K.Malleswari	24 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/282/2014	Minor M.Shanmugha, rep.by his mother M.Manjula vs A.Hari Kumar	24 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
OS/344/2010	E.Subramanyam Reddy vs K.Somasekhar Reddy	24 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
EP/29/2017	Kapil Chits -Hyd- Pvt Ltd vs B.V.Nataraja	19 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/524/2010	G. Prabavathi vs P.G. Jayachandra	19 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
OS/751/2016	S.Lokanadha Setty vs S.Kannaiah Setty	19 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
OS/705/2016	G.Durga Venkatesh vs P.Venugopal	18 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
OS/689/2015	S.Balasubramanyam vs P.Sudhakar	13 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
EP/61/2012	P.Purushotham Reedy vs A.Tirupathaiah	08 Apr 2017	Other	—
EP/86/2016	R.Venkatachalam vs B.M.Mani	08 Apr 2017	Other	—
OS/51/2017	Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Bangarupalyem Branch vs T.Veeraswamy	07 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100525/2016	B.Venkatappa vs B.Narasimhulu	04 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
OS/54/2017	R.Venkatesulu Naidu vs K.Mogileswaran	31 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100638/2016	M.Subramanyam vs S.Masthan	31 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/438/2012	K.Jayaram vs N.Uma	30 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/501/2012	P.Khadar Basha vs U.Sunil	30 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/667/2016	T.Raja Reddy vs A.Venu Reddy	28 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/42/2016	UCO, Bank rep. by B.M. vs B.V. Gangaiah	28 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100783/2016	S.Sridhar vs E.Giridhar Naidu	28 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/47/2017	Motam Supreme vs The Regional Passport Authority	27 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/252/2011	P.Chinamma vs C.Mohan Naidu	27 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
EP/80/2016	N.Omasekhar vs S.Udaya Kumar	24 Mar 2017	Other	—
OS/483/2016	K.Munemma vs Adi Kesavu Reddy @ Dikesavu Reddy	24 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100011/2017	T.Ekaraja vs M.Thulasamma	24 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100247/2016	R.Nirmala vs M.R.Gopinath	24 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/29/2017	M.Dhananjayulu vs C.Jayaraj	22 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/397/2012	M.Vasantha @ Vasanthamma vs P.Krishnama naidu	22 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100668/2016	B.Venkatadri Naidu vs K.Devarajulu	22 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100648/2016	N.Vijaya vs P.D.Ramesh	21 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/269/2015	B.Gajendran vs M.Sindhu	20 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/675/2015	P. Rathnamma vs P.Venkatramana Achari	20 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/606/2016	C.Pachiappan vs K.Kiran Kumar	17 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100058/2017	Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, 197, Ramapuram Branch vs Sri Vinayaka JLG,	17 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100709/2016	S.Sudhakar Reddy vs S.Mohan	17 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100470/2016	M.Nagaraja vs N.Ramamoorthy Naidu	16 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/18/2009	E.Jayaram Naidu vs E.Doraswamy Naidu	15 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100293/2016	State Bank of India, Polakala Branch vs D.Subramanyam Naidu	15 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100406/2016	D.Nirup Kumar vs K.Prabhakar	15 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100175/2016	C.Subramanyam Reddy vs K.Krishnaiah	14 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100437/2016	K.Mahendra Reddy vs P.Janakiram	13 Mar 2017	Judgement	—
OS/430/2012	P.Chittemma vs T.Anasuyyamma	23 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100703/2016	Bobba Venkatarama Naidu vs Ponaganti Gnana Sekhar	21 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100780/2016	Kamasani Nirmala vs Lakshmamma	20 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/358/2014	B.Sambasiva Reddy vs Smt DNavanethamma	16 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100030/2017	K.G.Nagendra Babu vs L.Manjula	16 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100404/2016	Balla Sundara Babu Naidu vs P.Manohar Naidu	16 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100761/2016	P.Neelakantan vs P.Rajendra Naidu	16 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/437/2014	M.A.Raghupathi vs The State rep., by District collector, Chttoor	15 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100178/2016	B.Devaraja Reddy vs K.Subramanyam Reddy	15 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100549/2016	T.Sankaraiah vs V.Gunasekhar Naidu	15 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/343/2013	Ms shriram city union finance ltd. T.yadavkumar vs K.Nagaraja Achari	14 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100222/2016	C.Pachiyappan vs Munilakshmi	14 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/96/2014	S.Rajasaheb vs G.Mallikarjuna	13 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100530/2016	B.Ramesh Babu vs N.Munirathnam Naidu	10 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100749/2016	S.Rushendra Babu vs K.Parasuram	10 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100299/2016	T.Venkataramana vs N.Narayanaswamy	08 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/116/2016	V.Doraswamy vs Voodara Subramanyam	07 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100358/2016	M.Venugopal Achari vs Dayananda Mandadi	07 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/48/2016	N. Nandagopal Reddy vs M.Sudhakar Reddy	06 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100235/2016	P.Sreedhar vs D.H.Venkatanarayana	06 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100323/2016	Ms Sai Sahithi Filling Station vs G.Mohan	03 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/347/2014	T.Veeraswamy vs P.Arunamalai Reddy	02 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100225/2016	P.Annaswamy Reddy vs P.Doraswamy Reddy	02 Feb 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100533/2016	R.Kumar vs R.Chengalraya Naidu	31 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100644/2016	Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Kanipakam branch vs Maruti Group NFSJLG	31 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100277/2016	Y.Sankar Naidu vs V.Purushotham Naidu	27 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100388/2016	V.Purushotham Naidu vs Y.Sankar	27 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100727/2016	S.Nataraja Chetty vs S.Rangaiah Naidu	25 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100238/2016	P.Sreedhar vs D.H.Venkatanarayana	23 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100326/2016	UCO Bank Aragonda Branch,rep. by B. Manager vs P.Ramachandra Naidu	23 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100504/2016	Vijaya Bank, Chittoor Branch vs A.Jayamma	19 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/409/2007	A.Doorvasulu vs KN Yaja kumar	17 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/316/2011	P.V.Prem Kumar vs The Commissioner, Chittoor Municipality	06 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/390/2014	shriram chits pvt., Ltd., Chittoor vs A.Gopala Krishna	06 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100757/2016	M.Guresh vs D.Dora Boyadu @ Dora	05 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100456/2016	Edamalapaati Varadarajulu Naidu vs Nannooru Yagamoorthy Naidu	04 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100641/2016	V.Viswanatha Reddy vs B.Kannaiah Reddy	04 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/136/2006	P.Vasanthamma vs Vsvasu achari	03 Jan 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100563/2016	Andhra Bank, Chittoor Branch vs Gorrepati Jagadish Chander	29 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
OS/366/2013	Ms shriram city Fin.ltd.,ctr.its rep.,y.T.Yadavku vs M.Sreeramulu	27 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
OS/100543/2016	T.Raghunadha Reddy vs D.Phakurdhen -died-	27 Dec 2016	Judgement	—
OS/106/2016	C.Subramanyam vs P. Jayasankar.	23 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/367/2014	G.Thyagarajulu Naidu vs B.Vijayanrangareddy	23 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100035/2012	G.Nagaiah died vs Anjappa Gowdu	19 Dec 2016	Order	—
OS/522/2010	D.Vimal vs Ramu @ Ramana	16 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/358/2013	P.Rajendra vs The Executive officer,	15 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100186/2016	B.E.Siva Kumar vs A.S.Arumugam	13 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100019/2016	M.Krishnaiah vs P.Narayanaswamy	08 Dec 2016	Order	—
OS/401/2014	S.Saraa Thulasamma vs S.Vijaya Kumari	08 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/412/2014	P.Krishnaiah Naidu vs K.Venkatarama Reddy	08 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100610/2016	N.Madhu Sudhan Reddy vs C.Sankaraiah	08 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100693/2016	P.Babu Reddy vs P.Chinnarajulu	07 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100079/2014	Kapil Chit Funds pvt., Ltd., Chittoor vs Thalapannu Sujana	06 Dec 2016	Order	—
OS/250/2014	Kapil Chit funds Pvt. Ltd. Chittoor vs B.Venkatesh	06 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/18/2015	Kapil Chit funds Pvt. Ltd., vs T.Krishnamoorthy	05 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/257/2008	M.Venkatesulu vs C.Ramamoorthy	05 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/526/2012	parvathamma vs The District collector and 3 others.,	02 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—

Showing 100 of 603 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2017		1
Apr 2017		14
Mar 2017		28
Feb 2017		23
Jan 2017		15
Dec 2016		20
Nov 2016		29
Oct 2016		12
Sep 2016		17
Aug 2016		45
Jul 2016		29
Jun 2016		16

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.Ch.Ashalatha handled?

Smt.Ch.Ashalatha has handled 618 court orders since 2014 at Prl District Courts, Chittoor. The average disposal rate is 16 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.Ch.Ashalatha hear?

Based on available records, Smt.Ch.Ashalatha primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Prl District Courts, Chittoor.

Where is Smt.Ch.Ashalatha currently posted?

Smt.Ch.Ashalatha is posted as PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt.Ch.Ashalatha available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Smt.Ch.Ashalatha are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.Ch.Ashalatha dispose cases?

Smt.Ch.Ashalatha disposes approximately 16 cases per month, based on 618 orders handled over their tenure at Prl District Courts, Chittoor.

Since when is Smt.Ch.Ashalatha serving?

Smt.Ch.Ashalatha has been serving at Prl District Courts, Chittoor since 2014.

Case Types

OS 90%

EP 10%

Posting History

Mar 2017 — May 2017

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 25 orders
Oct 2016 — Apr 2017

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 116 orders
Feb 2014 — Oct 2016

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 477 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Aruna Sarika

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

373 orders

Sri K.Srinivasa Rao

I ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

0 orders

Sri N.Sreenivasa Rao

VIII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

2 orders

Smt T. Haritha

VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

0 orders

Smt M.V.N. Padmaja

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

883 orders

K Ravi

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

75 orders

Ms. D. Uma Devi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,381 orders

Smt M. Madhavi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,387 orders

Boora Sirisha

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

22 orders

Sri Shaik Babajan

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,433 orders

Smt V Silpa

SPL. JFCM, EXCISE COURT

467 orders

P. Vennela

JFCM, SPL. MOBILE COURT

552 orders

← View all judges at Prl District Courts, Chittoor

Smt.Ch.Ashalatha

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR

JUDGMENT

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2

consideration as pleaded by the defendant?"

"Whether cheque dated 15­04­2015 is supported by

consideration of Rs.1 lakh only as pleaded by the

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

II A.J.C.J.,

J U D G M E N T

Issue No. 2

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined.

I A.J.C.J.,CTR.

J U D G M E N T

Issue No. 2

Appendix of evidence

witnesses examined

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff:­

STATEMENT OF COSTS

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR

JUDGMENT

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

II A.J.C.J.,

J U D G M E N T

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

"Whether cheque dated 15042015 is supported by

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff: