Sri Ch. Bharath Kamal

APNE0E0000042015

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):KOTA.

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

PRESENT: SRI. CH.BHARATH KAMAL,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), KOTA.

Tuesday, the 22 nd Day of April, 2025

OS. No.5 of 2015

Between:

1).Peddapalem Koteswari @ Perunduru Koteswari, W/o Peddapalem Venkatasubbaiah, Aged 25 years, 2). Peddapalem Hemanth (minor represented by her mother natural guardian, the first petitioner S/o Venkatasubbaiah, Aged 5 years, Presently residing at he parents house, Saguturu village, Ozili mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Plaintiffs

And

Peddapalem Venkata Subbaiah S/o Yedukondalu, aged 32 years, R/o Saguturu village, Ozili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Defendant

This suit came up for final hearing before me on 22-04-2025 in the presence of Sri N. Madhusuhana Rao, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Sri. L. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the defendant and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant and on perusing the material available on record this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for granting of maintenance of Rs.54,000/- per annum (Rs.30,000/- +Rs.24,000/-) to the first plaintiff and second plaintiff respectively and Rs.24,000/- per annum towards

APNE0E0000042015

2 clothing, Utensils from the year 2014 and Rs.24,000/- per annum for their residence and to pay a sum of Rs.97,500/- towards the past maintenance and past residence allowance for both the plaintiffs in the interest of justice.

2. Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiffs submit that the first plaintiff and the defendant are the wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 09-03-2008 at Tirupathi

Tirumala Devasthanams Kalyanamandapam, Narasinga Rao Peta, Gudur town,

SPSR Nellore District according to Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies prevailing in their community.

The plaintiffs further submit that at the time of the marriage of the first plaintiff with the defendant, the parents of the 1st plaintiff gave Rs.

1,00,000/- as dowry and presented 10 sovereigns of gold and household articles worth about Rs.50,000/- on demand made by the defendant and his parents. The parents of the 1st plaintiff also presented 1½ sovereigns of gold chain and six grams ring presented to the defendant on the demand of the defendant and his parents. Their marriage was consummated and the 1st plaintiff lead happy married life with the defendant and the 1st plaintiff gave birth to a male child by name Hemanth who is the 2nd plaintiff herein.

The plaintiffs further submit that the defendant looked the 1st plaintiff with love and affection till she gave birth to 2nd plaintiff and there by the defendant demanded her to get registration of lands an extent of Ac 5.50 cents which was purchased by her father's brothers in the year 1998 which is in

APNE0E0000042015

3 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the father of the 1st plaintiff. Then the 1st plaintiff expressed her inability as the said property is her father's own and he already presented sufficiently to the defendant at the time of marriage.

After the birth of second plaintiff, she stayed at her parents house along with her son due to the defendant did not take her and son to the matrimonial house and demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as additional dowry or lands of her father as additional dowry. As she did not comply the demands of the defendant as her father having another unmarried daughter and son who are depending on her father. So the defendant anger on the plaintiffs and left them in the house of the parents of the 1st plaintiff. There were several mediations took place and the same were proved futile and in each and every mediations the defendant and his parents demanded additional dowry and lands of her father. At last the defendant stolen away lands documents from, the house of the 1st plaintiff's father and the petitioner missing due to harassment made by the defendant as he was frequently visited the house of the plaintiff's father. So she gave report to the Ozili Police on 27.03.2010. So the then Sub-Inspector of police called the defendant and his parents and gave warning to them to look well the plaintiffs and not to demand and returned the land documents of the

Sreenivasulu and they agree for the same. But they did not returned the documents and continued to harass the 1st plaintiff for additional dowry. So both the plaintiffs now are in the house of Sreenivasulu and depending upon them.

The plaintiffs have no means to maintain themselves.

APNE0E0000042015

4

The Plaintiffs further submit that the defendant having sufficient means to maintain the plaintiffs and he is having immovable properties of agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.8.00 cents and getting income of

Rs.2,00,000/- besides he is doing his black smith work and earning an amount of

Rs.600/- per day, but the defendant wantonly evades looking after welfare of the plaintiffs without any reasonable cause. But the 1 plaintiff's parents bore all expenses of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are unable to maintain her and doing any work to earn lively hood and her parents’ can not maintain the plaintiffs so long.

As such, the defendant is having sufficient means to maintain the plaintiffs as he was having sufficient landed properties of his own.

The Plaintiffs submit that the 1st plaintiff claiming future maintenance for a sum of Rs.30,000/- per annum having regard to the present cost of living and the 2nd plaintiff is claiming future maintenance for a sum of

Rs.36,000/- per annum regard to the present cost of living and for medical and educational expenses. The plaintiffs are claiming Rs 24,000/- per annum for residence. The plaintiffs are also claiming past maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per annum to 1st plaintiff and Rs.1,000/- to the 2nd plaintiff from November 2011 to

October 2014 totaling an amount of Rs.87,500/- and also past residential maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month totaling Rs. 12,000/-. Now the defendant with a dishonest intention to evade maintenance to the plaintiffs the defendant is trying to alienate the plaint schedule property. As such in view of urgency she has no time to issue legal notice to the defendant and the plaintiffs filed this suit for recovery of future and past maintenance, residential maintenance amount

APNE0E0000042015

5 from the defendant who is her husband and father of the 2nd plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3. The brief averments of the written statement are as follows;-

The defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the material allegations made against the defendant by the plaintiff and submitted that originally this defendant family hails from

Vajjavaripalem village which is the parent's village of the 1st plaintiff. As the father of the plaintiff is unable to live at Vajjavaripalem they shifted the family to

Saguturu for lively hood. This defendant's father and his brothers had some properties at Chittedu Village. When they had shifted the family the father of the plaintiff was asked to cultivate the land on lease. The father of the plaintiff wants to knock away the property. Hence he asked the 1st plaintiff not to join this defendant. Hence the 1st plaintiff not joined this defendant and started pressing this defendant to stay at Chittedu and see that his father sold the property to her father for which this defendant refused. Hence the 1 plaintiff on her own accord refused to join this defendant. This defendant made several mediations which proved futile. The father of the 1st plaintiff came upon this defendant to bet him in the presence of mediator who is none other than the uncle of this defendant and a cousin brother of Sreenivasulu father of the 1st plaintiff. This defendant is still eager to take the plaintiff and his son to his family fold and live with them happily. It is submitted that the father of the 1st plaintiff never purchased the property from the father of this defendant and his brothers in 1998 and this

APNE0E0000042015

6 defendant never demanded the 1" plaintiff to get registration of lands to him. It is submitted that the father of this defendant and his brothers are real owners of the land and where is the question of demanding the father of the 1st plaintiff to get registration of land in favour of this defendant. This defendant never demanded additional dowry. Even now this defendant is ready to take the plaintiffs to his family fold unconditionally. The story of this defendant stolen away the lands documents is a false story created by the father of the 1st plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff, to knock away the lands belonging to the father of this defendant and his brothers. Here it is submitted that already a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale was filed by the father of the 1st plaintiff creating a forged agreement of sale in O. S. No: 64/2015 on the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Gudur and the same is pending for disposal and this defendant and other defendants in the said suit are contesting the said suit and the father of the plaintiff gave a false notice also which was suitably replied. After giving birth to the 2nd plaintiff also the 1st plaintiff joined this defendant and as this defendant refused to shift family to Chittedu and refused to give land to her father, she left the house of this defendant without any information and even leaving the 2nd plaintiff and this defendant intimated the fact to the father of the 1st plaintiff and later on the next day she was found in the house of her father and then she took the child also. Since then, the plaintiffs are living at her parent's house of her own accord without any reasonable cause.

Hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to any maintenance. And the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

APNE0E0000042015

7

4. Basing upon the above pleadings the then Prescribing

Officer framed the following issues for Trial:

1.Whether the defendant harassed the plaintiff and deserted her

wantontly? 2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for maintenance?

3.Whether the court fee is sufficient or deficit court fee is to be

paid? 4.Whether the suit is maintainable? 5.To what relief?

5.During the trial, the 1st plaintiff stepped into witness box as PW.1 and got marked and no documents were marked through them. To support her case, father the 1st plaintiff got examined as PW2. On the other hand, the defendant himself got examined as DW1 and to support his version, DW2 and

DW3 were examined. No documents marked on his behalf.

6.I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant and perused the record.

7. Issues No. 1 & 2:

Issues No.1 & 2 are interlinked, therefore, Issues No.1 & 2 are answered together.

To prove her case, the 1st plaintiff herself entered into the witness box and was examined as PW1. Her chief examination is nothing but a replica of the contents of her plaint, wherein she reiterated the same allegations and reliefs. Hence, to avoid repetition, the same is not reproduced here. In her cross- examination, PW1 admitted that she is living separately from her husband due to a land dispute between her father and the defendant. She stated that she

APNE0E0000042015

8 refused to return to the matrimonial home unless 5.50 acres of land was registered in her father's name. She admitted that the said land is not in her father's name but stands in the name of the defendant’s grandfather, and that a civil suit is pending in relation to the said property.

She denied that she has any source of income or that she is capable of maintaining herself. She also deposed that the defendant has not paid any maintenance to her or her minor son after the separation. However, she did not depose that she was subjected to physical or mental harassment by the defendant in connection with the land dispute or otherwise. No evidence was brought on record to support the allegations of cruelty or dowry harassment mentioned in the plaint. Thus, her cross-examination shows that the real cause for living separately is the land dispute, and not any proven acts of cruelty or neglect at the time of separation.

8.To support the evidence of PW1, her father was examined as PW2.

His chief examination is nothing but a repetition of the version stated in the plaint and by PW1, particularly regarding the marriage, alleged dowry, and the events leading to separation. Hence, to avoid repetition, the same is not reproduced here. In his cross-examination, PW2 admitted that the only reason for separation between the plaintiff and the defendant was the land dispute. He stated that the land in question, measuring 5.50 acres, was not registered in his name, but stood in the name of the defendant’s grandfather. He also admitted that a civil suit for specific performance is pending between the families

APNE0E0000042015

9 regarding the said property. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff filed this case only to exert pressure over the land matter. He did not depose that the defendant harassed PW1 either mentally or physically. Hence, his evidence does not support PW1’s claim that she was harassed or ill-treated.

However, PW2 also deposed that after the separation, the defendant completely neglected his responsibility towards his minor son. He stated that the child was living with the plaintiff, and that the father neither paid any maintenance nor contributed to the child’s care or education. This part of

PW2’s testimony remained consistent and unshaken in cross-examination.

9.In view of the discussion this court holds that the plaintiff side evidence weakens the claim of harassment or cruelty, but is credible regarding the non-maintenance of the minor child. To rebut the plaintiffs’ case, the defendant entered into the witness box and was examined as DW1, and he further examined DW2 and DW3 in support of his defense.

10.To support his defense, the defendant entered into the witness box and was examined as DW1. In his chief examination, he repeated the contents of his written statement. He stated that the plaintiff left the matrimonial home on her own, and that the real cause of separation was a dispute regarding 5.50 acres of land, which the plaintiff’s family wanted registered in their name. He denied the allegations of dowry demand or cruelty. As the chief is a replica of the written statement, it is not reproduced here to avoid repetition.

APNE0E0000042015

10

In cross-examination, DW1’s version that the separation occurred due to the land dispute was not challenged, and it is found to be consistent with the admissions made by PW1 and PW2. This supports the defendant’s stand that the wife left voluntarily and not due to any harassment. However, DW1 also admitted in cross-examination that he has never paid maintenance to his wife or minor son, and that he failed to comply with a prior maintenance order in favour of the child. He further admitted that he had no contact with his son, and had not made any efforts to support him financially, emotionally, or otherwise. Though he claimed to be a daily wage worker, he admitted to spending around

Rs.5,00,000/- on legal expenses, which weakens his claim of financial inability.

Thus, while DW1’s evidence supports the defense regarding the wife's unjustified separation, it also reveals willful neglect of the minor child.

11.To further support his version, the defendant examined DW2 and

DW3, who are known to him. The chief examination of both witnesses is in line with the version stated by DW1, namely that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant was a love marriage, no dowry was given or demanded, and the 1st plaintiff chose to live separately due to a land dispute. As their evidence merely repeats the stand already taken by the defendant in his written statement, the same is not reproduced here to avoid repetition.

In their cross-examinations, both DW2 and DW3 admitted that they had no personal knowledge of the internal disputes between the plaintiff and the

APNE0E0000042015

11 defendant. DW2 admitted that he was illiterate and signed his affidavit without understanding its contents. DW3 admitted that he did not know whether the defendant paid any maintenance to his wife or child.

12.Though the evidence of DW2 and DW3 supports the version of DW1 to the extent that the reason for separation was the land dispute, their depositions also indirectly reveal that the defendant completely neglected his minor son. Both witnesses admitted that they had no knowledge of the defendant ever providing maintenance, and they did not speak to any efforts made by him to support, visit, or care for the child.

Their evidence further confirms that the defendant had no involvement in the upbringing or welfare of the child after separation. This aspect of their testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination. Hence, while

DW2 and DW3 lend support to the defendant’s defense regarding the wife’s separation, their depositions clearly reflects that DW1 failed in his legal and moral duty as a father towards his son.

13.Now it is time to discuss whether the defendant harassed the plaintiff and deserted her wantontly and whether the 1st plaintiff is entitled for maintenance. In the present case, the 1st plaintiff alleged in her plaint that she was harassed for dowry and was not maintained by the defendant. However, during her cross-examination, she clearly admitted that the only reason for living separately was the land dispute between her father and the defendant's family.

She stated that she refused to return to the matrimonial home unless 5.50 acres

APNE0E0000042015

12 of land was registered in her father's name. Her father, examined as PW2, also confirmed that the dispute between the parties arose only in connection with the said land, and that the property was still in the name of the defendant’s grandfather. He further admitted that a civil suit was pending regarding the said property.

It is also not the case of the plaintiff that due to the land dispute, the defendant harassed her either mentally or physically. Nowhere in her chief or cross-examination has she stated that the defendant abused, threatened, or treated her with cruelty as a result of the disagreement. No complaint, medical record, or supporting evidence was filed to show that the land issue led to any form of harassment. Even DW2 and DW3, though not witnesses to the internal dispute, confirmed that the reason for separation was purely the land issue, and that they were not aware of any incidents of cruelty or abuse.

14.In view of the above, this Court finds that the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew from cohabitation due to a civil property dispute, and has not proved any sufficient or justifiable cause under Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and

Maintenance Act, 1956. The existence of a family land dispute, without any supporting evidence of cruelty, desertion, or neglect at the time of separation, is not enough to entitle the wife to maintenance under law.

15. Whether 2 nd plaintiff (minor son) is entitled for maintenance?

APNE0E0000042015

13

Under Section 20(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a Hindu father has a statutory obligation to maintain his legitimate minor child, as long as the child is unable to maintain himself. This obligation is absolute, and it does not depend on whether the father is living with the child’s mother or is separated from her.

In the present case, the 2nd plaintiff is the minor son of the defendant, born during the valid subsistence of marriage. The defendant has not disputed paternity. There is no suggestion or evidence to show that the minor has any source of income or is capable of maintaining himself.

It is undisputed that after separation, PW1 has been solely taking care of the 2nd plaintiff ( minor son )shelter, education, and day-to-day needs, and that the defendant has not paid any amount for his maintenance. During his cross-examination, the defendant admitted that he never paid any maintenance for the minor child, and did not take any interest in his health, education, or welfare. He also admitted that he did not comply with a prior court order passed in favour of the child. In view of these facts, the Court finds that the defendant has willfully neglected his legal duty to maintain his minor son. The child is lawfully entitled to be maintained by his father, and no legal defence has been raised to defeat this entitlement. Therefore, this Court holds that the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to maintenance under Section 20 of the Act, and the defendant is liable to provide for his minor son’s needs in accordance with law. Accordingly, issues No. 1 & 2 are answered.

APNE0E0000042015

14

16. Issue No.3:

Whether the court fee is sufficient or deficit court fee is to be paid?

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant again raised the objection regarding deficit court fee. This Court notes from the record that the defendant had already raised this issue in his written statement and further filed IA No. 248 of 2023 seeking rejection of the plaint for non-payment of proper court fee. In reply, the plaintiff filed a counter and prayed that, if permitted, he would pay the deficit court fee. Accordingly, the Court permitted the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee.

Despite such permission, the plaintiff did not pay the deficit court fee prior to or during the trial. Even at the stage of final arguments, when the defendant’s counsel reiterated the objection, the plaintiff’s counsel did not respond or take any steps to pay the deficit court fee.

However, considering that the deficit court fee is only Rs.80/- and not a substantial sum, and in order to prevent denial of substantive relief on a mere technicality, this Court directs that the plaintiff shall pay the deficit court fee of Rs.80/- at the time of drafting the decree, so that the relief granted is enforceable in law. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered.

17. Issue No.4:

Whether the suit is maintainable?

APNE0E0000042015

15

The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the present suit is not maintainable, as the 1st plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration of her right to maintenance, rather than a suit for direct recovery. He submitted that the suit, as framed, is procedurally defective and is therefore liable to be dismissed.

However, this Court finds no merit in the said argument. The Hindu

Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provides a clear and enforceable right to a wife and minor child to claim actual maintenance from the husband or father.

Denying such relief on the ground that only declaratory relief can be sought would defeat the object of the statute and render the right ineffective.

Hence, this Court holds that the suit, as framed, is legally maintainable.

Accordingly, issue No.4 is answered.

Further, this court also considered the relief claimed for creation of charge over the schedule property. In the plaint, the plaintiff sought for a charge over the schedule property for securing the maintenance amount.

However, the plaintiff has not filed any documents or evidence to prove that the schedule property actually belongs to the defendant. No revenue records, title deeds, or any independent evidence regarding ownership were produced, nor were any questions put to the defendant on this point in cross-examination. In these circumstances, the Court is unable to grant the relief of charge over the schedule property at this stage. However, the plaintiff is at liberty to seek

APNE0E0000042015

16 appropriate remedies during execution proceedings, if the decree remains unsatisfied and the defendant is found to own attachable property.

18. Issues No:5: To what relief?

In view of the above said discussions, the suit is partly allowed.

In the result, the suit is partly allowed.

i). The claim of the 1st plaintiff for maintenance is dismissed.

ii).The 2nd plaintiff (minor son) is declared, entitled to maintenance at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month, payable by the defendant, from the date of suit till the minor attains majority, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

iii).The plaintiff is directed to pay the deficit court fee of Rs.80/-

before preparation of the decree.

iv). The relief of charge over the schedule property is not granted, as no proof of ownership was filed. However, the plaintiff is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies in execution proceedings, in accordance with law.

v).There shall be no order as to costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

Civil Judge ( Junior Division),

Kota.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioners: Respondent:

PW.1:Peddapalem Koteswari @ DW.1:P. Venkata Subbaiah Perunuru Koteswari

PW.2:Peruduru SreenivasuluDW.2: Madanambeti Munirathnam

DW.3: Bellam Venkateswarlu Naidu

APNE0E0000042015

17

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

-NIL-

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

Civil Judge ( Junior Division),

Kota.

APNE0E0002282017

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION): KOTA

PRESENT : Sri. Ch. Bharath Kamal

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

Tuesday, the 22 nd day of April, 2025

Original Suit No.67/2017

Between:

Pitti Muni Krishnaiah, S/o Yellaiah, Hindu, aged 49 years, Cultivation, Residing at BC colony, Vakadu village & mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Plaintiff

And

1). Pitti Chandraiah, aged 54 years, 2). Pitti Lokaiah, aged 53 years, 3). Pitti Munaiah, aged 48 years, All are sons of Munuswamy, Residing at Pittivanipalli village, Chittamuru mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Defendants 1 to 3

This suit came on 22-04-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. B.

Sanjeevaiah, Advocate for the defendants 1 to 3 and having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants and having perused the entire material having stood over for consideration till this date, the court delivers the following:

APNE0E0002282017

2

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 for the relief of grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2. Brief averments appended to the plaint are:-

The plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and his ancestors, who have been in possession and enjoyment of the same since time immemorial. In the fair adangal, the name of the plaintiff’s father was recorded. After his father’s death, the revenue records changed to reflect the plaintiff’s mother’s name. Subsequently, the plaintiff’s mother executed a registered settlement deed dated 09-11-2016 (document No.

1245/2016) in favour of the plaintiff and delivered possession of the suit schedule property to him. Since then, the plaintiff has been in continuous, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property without interruption from any person.

The plaintiff relies upon the registered settlement deed, which is filed along with the plaint, and requests that its contents be treated as part and parcel of the plaint. Recognizing the rights and title of the plaintiff’s mother, the

APNE0E0002282017

3 revenue authorities entered her name in the 1B register and adangal, and relevant documents are filed herewith. However, the plaintiff’s name was not mutated, though he applied for change of name in the records and for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed. That application is still pending with the

Tahsildar, Chittamuru. Despite this, the plaintiff continues to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, thereby holding title and possession over the same to date. The defendants, who are relatives of the plaintiff with the same surname, have no manner of right whatsoever over the suit schedule property. The defendants previously requested the plaintiff’s mother to sell the land to them on the ground that they owned adjacent land, but, being unsuccessful, they have started interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment, attempting to occupy the property by force. About a week before filing this suit, the defendants attempted to take possession, but were resisted by the plaintiff with the support of local ryots. The plaintiff contends that the defendants are bent on using force and violence, and, unless restrained by court order, the plaintiff may not be able to resist further high- handed acts. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

APNE0E0002282017

4

3. Having received the summons, the defendant filed thier written statement.

The brief averments in the written statement in precise are as follows:

The defendants initially denied all the material allegations made by the plaintiff in his plaint, except those are specifically admitted by him as true and correct. The defendants submit that the father of the plaintiff and the father of the defendants are brothers, and the plaintiff is the only son to his father. The defendants, along with two others, are sons of Pitti China Munuswamy, who had five sons, namely Pitti Krishnaiah, Pitti Chandraiah, Pitti Lokaiah, Pitti Venkatesu, and Pitti Munaiah. The defendants further submit that the suit schedule property originally stood in the name of Pitti Venkatesu, who is the brother of the defendants. His name was mutated in the old Pattadar Pass Book with respect to the suit schedule property, and he paid tax receipts to the revenue authority. His father's name was also entered in Settlement Form-21B.

The defendants contend that, in the partition of the properties among the brothers of the defendants, the suit schedule land fell to the share of the third defendant, who has since then been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and continues to be in possession. The defendants allege that the plaintiff and his mother fabricated the registered document and

APNE0E0002282017

5 manipulated the revenue authorities to enter their names in the adangals only for the purpose of the suit schedule property. It is specifically denied by the defendants that the plaintiff and his mother were ever in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants submit that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as there is no cause of action. They further assert that the alleged cause of action has been created only for the purpose of the present suit. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings and upon hearing on both sides, the following issues have been settled for trial:

Issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent

injunction?

3)To what relief?

5.During the course of trial plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A14. To support the case of the plaintiff, PW2 and PW3 examined. On the other hand, defendant No.2 got examined himself as DW1 and one Pitti Gangaiah and one Pitti Praveen Kumar examined as DW2 and DW3 and got marked Exs. B1 to B10.

APNE0E0002282017

6

6. Heard the learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendants perused the material available on record.

7. Issues No. 1 and 2:

Issue Nos 1 & 2 are interlinked, therefore, issue Nos.1 & 2 are answered together.

To prove his case, the plaintiff himself entered the witness box and was examined as PW1. He got marked the following exhibits:

Ex.A1 is the registered settlement deed dated 09.11.2016, executed by the plaintiff’s mother in his favor. Exs.A2 to Ex.A11 are the certified copies of revenue records, fair adangals, 1B ROR, showing pattadar entries in the names of his father and subsequently his mother. Ex.A12 is the cist receipt showing payment of land revenue tax by the plaintiff’s mother. Ex.A13 and

Ex.A14 are the documents relating to subsequent mutation proceedings initiated by the plaintiff.

PW1’s chief affidavit is nothing but a replica of the plaint, and to avoid repetition, the same is not produced here. In cross-examination, PW1 admitted the family relationship, confirmed mutation proceedings in his mother’s

APNE0E0002282017

7 name, and candidly admitted the pendency of mutation in his name due to objections by the defendants. He denied any agreement of sale by his mother to the third defendant or manipulation in the revenue records. PW1 also denied the defendants’ possession or cultivation, insisting that he or his lessees had always been in possession.

To further support his case, the plaintiff examined PW2 and PW3, both neutral, independent cultivators. Their chief examinations, being supportive of the plaintiff’s version, are not produced to avoid repetition. PW2 deposed that he cultivated the property on lease from the plaintiff in 2018, confirming plaintiff’s possession. PW3 likewise deposed to cultivating the land as a lessee of the plaintiff. In cross-examination, both admitted there was no written lease and limited knowledge of family partitions but denied deposing falsely and confirmed the plaintiff’s authority over the property. Thereby, the plaintiff, by examining himself and supporting witnesses PW2 and PW3 and by producing the documentary evidence, has initially proved his version of possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

8.Now it is for the defendants to rebut the plaintiff's case in terms of their written statement.

To rebut the plaintiff’s version, the second defendant was examined as DW1 and got marked the following exhibits:

APNE0E0002282017

8

Ex.B1 is Settlement form 21-B. Ex.B2 is the old pattadar passbook.

Exs.B3 to Ex.B7 are tax receipts for payment of land revenue. Ex.B8 is Adangal copy obtained from the panchayath Secretary of Pittivanipalli village. Ex.B9 is 1B copy obtained from the panchayath secretary of Pittivanipali village. Ex.B10 si the statement encumbrance certificate of the S.No.97/2011 obtained from the

SRO, Kota.

The chief affidavit of DW1 is a verbatim reproduction of the written statement and to avoid repetition is not separately reproduced. In cross- examination, DW1 admitted that the documents produced by the defendants did not specifically mention the survey number or extent of the suit schedule property, and that no partition deed, valid document of transfer, or mutation in their favor was produced. He further admitted the old pattadar passbook was not updated and that no steps had been taken to obtain a fresh passbook or challenge the plaintiff’s documents.

To support their claim, the defendants examined DW2 and DW3, surname relatives to both plaintiff and defendants but not parties to the suit.

Their chief affidavits, being replicas of the defendants' stand in the written statement, are not separately reproduced. In cross-examination, both DW2 and

DW3 admitted that their knowledge was primarily based on family tradition and hearsay and they had no direct or documentary evidence of the defendants'

APNE0E0002282017

9 exclusive possession or enjoyment of the suit schedule property. They could not reference any specific acts of management, cultivation, or control exercised by the defendants, nor produce any documents evidencing exclusive possession.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff has established his lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property through oral and documentary evidence. The registered settlement deed (Ex.A1), its recitals, and the consistent entries in the revenue records and cist receipts (Ex.A2 to Ex.A12), as well as the mutation records (Ex.A13 and Ex.A14), all support his case. It was argued that PW2 and PW3, being neutral cultivators, confirm the plaintiff's actual possession, and that the defendants' allegations of manipulation are unsupported by any administrative or legal challenge. The defendants’ documentary evidence is outdated, vague, and not property-specific.

Their oral evidence from DW2 and DW3, being relatives and not independent, cannot outweigh the plaintiff’s evidence. As the plaintiff is in possession and faces a genuine threat of interference by the defendants, he is entitled to permanent injunction.

10.The learned counsel for the defendants contended that the property is ancestral and after partition fell to the defendants' branch, which has always enjoyed and cultivated it. The plaintiff’s mother managed to enter her name in the records by influence and the settlement deed did not transfer possession.

APNE0E0002282017

10

The mutation application remains pending due to the defendants’ objections. The old pattadar passbook and tax receipts support their claim, and DW2 and DW3’s evidence is consistent with their long-standing possession. The plaintiff has failed to prove exclusive possession or enjoyment, and is not entitled to relief.

11.The plaintiff has deposed that the suit schedule property, admeasuring Ac.0.84 cents in Survey No. 97/11, is his ancestral property. He stated that this property initially belonged to his father, who was recorded as the pattadar in the revenue records. Upon the death of his father, the suit schedule property was mutated in favor of his mother, who continued in enjoyment and possession. Subsequently, the plaintiff’s mother executed a registered settlement deed (Ex.A1) dated 09.11.2016 in favor of the plaintiff, thereby transferring possession and title to him. In support of this version, the plaintiff has filed certified copies of revenue records, including the 1B ROR and adangals (Ex.A2 to

Ex.A11), which reflect the names of his father and mother at various times as the recorded pattadars, and these entries were in force at the time of the execution of Ex.A1.

12.The main contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s father and the defendants’ father are brothers, and the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of both branches. According to the defendants, the property originally stood in the name of Pitti Venkatesu, the brother of the defendants,

APNE0E0002282017

11 whose name is reflected in the old pattadar passbook (Ex.B2) and in the settlement form 21-B (Ex.B1). The defendants have also filed tax receipts (Ex.B3 to Ex.B7) in support of their claim of enjoyment and payment of land revenue.

However, it is observed that none of these receipts or documents specify the relevant survey number or land extent pertaining to the suit schedule property, and as such, these documents do not conclusively establish the defendants’ exclusive possession.

13.On the other hand, the plaintiff’s revenue records and adangals (Ex.A2 to Ex.A11) clearly relate to the suit schedule property and demonstrate that the name of his mother was entered as pattadar after the death of his father. The 1B ROR extracts and adangals stand in the name of the plaintiff’s mother, and this position is further corroborated by the subsequent execution of

Ex.A1. The cist receipts (Ex.A12) also show the payment of land revenue by the plaintiff’s family. In cross-examination, DW1 (the 2nd defendant) admitted that the defendants did not attempt to obtain new pattadar passbooks or to secure mutation of the property in their names. He further admitted that he has no evidence to show that the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of the 3rd defendant, and that there is no documentary proof to establish that a partition was ever effected among the previous generation.

APNE0E0002282017

12

In cross-examination, PW1 deposed that the survey number of the suit schedule property as per the fair adangal is R.S. No. 97/7, which is also reflected in Ex.A2, the fair adangal copy. He denied suggestions that the source of title for the suit property is unknown, as allegedly indicated in Ex.A3, and maintained that the revenue entries and settlement deed evidence his lawful possession.

14.The Court notes that in suits for permanent injunction, the essential question is whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property on the date of the suit. As per the entries in Ex.A1 to Ex.A11, the factum of possession is established in favor of the plaintiff, or through his predecessor, as on the date of the latest 1B ROR and adangal entries. In contrast, the defendants have produced Ex.B1 to Ex.B7, none of which show the relevant survey number or directly relate to the suit schedule property, nor do they record any acts of possession by the defendants as pattadars or cultivators. The mere existence of old passbooks or vague tax receipts cannot outweigh the specific and official records relied on by the plaintiff.

15.Moreover, if the defendants were truly in possession of the suit property, there is no explanation for why they did not attempt to secure a pattadar passbook, title deed, or seek mutation in their own names, or why they failed to take any steps to cancel the settlement deed (Ex.A1) or challenge the

APNE0E0002282017

13 revenue entries in any competent forum. The law attaches a presumption of truth to records of rights and revenue entries, and such presumption can be rebutted only by evidence of fraud in the entry, surreptitious entry, or violation of prescribed procedure. No such plea or evidence has been produced by the defendants in this case.

16.It is not permissible to rely on uncorroborated oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption attaching to official records; the credibility of oral evidence, particularly when coming from interested parties, is generally of lesser weight compared to the reliability of documentary and public records. Although revenue entries do not, in themselves, confer title, they are presumed to reflect the correct state of possession until the contrary is proved or new entries are lawfully made.

17.In the present case, the defendants have not produced any revenue entries, records, or administrative documents for the relevant period to show their possession of the suit property. Their oral claims are unsupported by reliable, independent, or contemporaneous documentation. The plaintiff, on the other hand, relies on a registered settlement deed, a consistent and unbroken chain of revenue entries, cist receipts, and the absence of any effective challenge to his or his predecessor’s possession.

APNE0E0002282017

14

18.Additionally, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 neutral third parties who cultivated the land as lessees of the plaintiff further supports the plaintiff’s actual enjoyment of the property. The evidence of DW2 and DW3, who are surname relatives to both sides, does not independently corroborate the defendants’ exclusive possession; both their testimonies were general, based on family understanding and hearsay, and lacked reference to specific acts of cultivation or management by the defendants. Neither could point to direct or documentary evidence of exclusive or settled possession.

It is further noted that the plaintiff faced objections and acts of interference by the defendants in the course of mutation proceedings, which constitutes a real and credible threat to his continued possession and necessitated the filing of the present suit. The Court is satisfied that the interference or threatened interference from the defendants is not illusory but genuine.

19.In view of the above, it is a settled legal principle that a person who proves actual, settled, and peaceful possession as on the date of suit, and faces a real threat of dispossession or interference, is entitled to protection by way of injunction, irrespective of the ultimate question of title.

Accordingly, the plaintiff having proved, by credible, consistent, and contemporaneous evidence, that he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of

APNE0E0002282017

15 the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit, and the defendants having failed to rebut the statutory and factual presumptions or to show a superior right, both Issue Nos. 1 (lawful possession) and Issue No. 2 (entitlement to permanent injunction) are answered in favor of the plaintiff.

20. Issue No. 3:

In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for. The defendants, their men and followers claiming through them, are permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, more fully described as Ac.0.84 cents in Survey No. 97/11, Pittivanipalli

Village except under due process of law. No order as to costs.

Directly typed in my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kota.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendants:

PW.1 :Pitti Muni KrishnaiahDW1:Pitti Lokaiah PW.2 :Bandili NarasaiahDW2:Pitti Gangaiah PW.3 :Karavalla VenkatakrishnaiahDW3:Pitti Praveen Kumar

APNE0E0002282017

16

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1 is original registered settlement deed dated 09-11-2016 in my favour executed by his mother.

Ex.A2 is the copy of fair adangal for plaint schedule property obtained under RTI in the name of the his father.

Ex.A3 is the 1B (ROR) copy for plaint schedule property obtained from Mee Seva in the name of the my mother.

Ex.A4 is the adangal for plaint schedule property for fasali 1420 in the name of his mother obtained from Mee Seva.

Ex.A5 is the adangal for plaint schedule property for fasali 1421 in the name of his mother obtained from Mee Seva.

Ex.A6 is the adangal for plaint schedule property for fasali 1422 in the name of his mother obtained from Mee Seva.

Ex.A7 is the adangal for plaint schedule property for fasali 1423 in the name of his mother obtained from Mee Seva.

Ex.A8 is the adangal for plaint schedule property for fasali 1424 in the name of his mother obtained from Mee Seva.

Ex.A9 is the adangal for plaint schedule property for fasali 1425 in the name of his mother obtained from Mee Seva.

Ex.A10 is the adangal for plaint schedule property for fasali 1426 in the name of his mother obtained from Mee Seva.

Ex.A11 is the adangal for plaint schedule property for fasali 1427 in the name of his mother obtained from Mee Seva.

Ex.A12 is the cist receipt dated 15.09.2009 paid by Pitti Subbamma his mother for the plaint schedule property.

APNE0E0002282017

17

Ex.A13 is certified copy of the computer adangal for fasali 1420 for plaint schedule property in the name of Pitti Subbamma for plaint schedule property obtained under RTI to the year 2011-12.

Ex.A14 is certified copy of the computer adangal for fasali 1428 for plaint schedule property in the name of Pitti Subbamma for plaint schedule property obtained under RTI to the year 2019.

Exhibits marked for defendants

Ex.B1:Settlement form obtained from Deputy Tahsildar, Chittamur under RTI. Ex.B2:Old pass stands in the name of brother of the defendants. Ex.B3:Receipt bearing No.454645. Ex.B4:Receipt bearing No.197057. Ex.B5 is the receipt bearing No.213423. Ex.B6:Receipt bearing No. 4758898. Ex.B7:Receipt bearing No.4758877. Ex.B8:Adangal copy obtained from the Panchayath Secretary of Pittivanipalli village. Ex.B9:1B copy obtained from the Panchayath Secretary of Pittivanipalli village. Ex.B10:Statement encumbrance certificate of the S.No.97/2011 obtained from the SRO, Kota.

C.J (JD)/Kota.

APNE0E0000492015

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR DIVISION) : KOTA

PRESENT : SRI CH.BHARATHKAMLA

CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR DIVISION),

KOTA

Tuesday, the 22 nd day of April, 2025

Original Suit No.40/2015

Between: Vemasani Naresh Naidu, S/o Krishneswara Naidu, Hindu, aged 32 years, Cultivation, Residing at Maddali village, Kota mandal, SPSR Nellore Dsitrict.… Plaintiff

And

1).Kattina Yasoda, W/o late Ratnaiah, Aged 40 years 2).Darla Chamudeswari W/o Nagaraju, House wife, Aged 20 years, 3).Kattina Bhavani, D/o late Ratnaiah Aged 18 years, All are Hindus,

Defendants 1 & 3 are residing At Maddali, Kota mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Defendant No.2 is Budlapadu Village, Narukuru panchayath, Nellore Rural mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Defendants 1 to 3

APNE0E0000492015

2

This suit came on 22-04-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri B.Sanjeevaiah, Advocate for the defendant No. 1 and defendants No.2 & 3 remained exparte, and having heard the learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, the court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.43,500/- (Rupees Forty Three thousand Five hundred only) being principal and interest due under suit promissory note dated 20-09-2012 executed by the husband of the first defendant and father of the defendants No.2 & 3 for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Five thousands only) upon suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a with future interest and with costs from the defendant.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff, Vemasani Narendra Naidu, son of Krishneswara Naidu and a resident of Maddali Village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, instituted the present suit for recovery of money. He averred that the husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3, namely Kattina Ratnaiah, borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from him on 20-09-2012 for his family expenses. In consideration thereof, he executed a promissory note on the same date in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per

APNE0E0000492015

3 annum, either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The said promissory note was produced and marked as Ex.A1.

The plaintiff further pleaded that, despite repeated oral demands,

Kattina Ratnaiah did not repay the debt under the suit promissory note. It was asserted that Kattina Ratnaiah died intestate in the year 2014, leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. The plaintiff contended that the defendants are presently in possession and enjoyment of the estate of the deceased, and as such, are liable to discharge the debt incurred by Kattina Ratnaiah.

Despite repeated demands and issuance of a registered notice

dated 20-08-2015, the defendants failed to repay the debt. The plaintiff stated

that the first defendant responded with false allegations, while defendants 2 and 3 failed to reply. Consequently, the plaintiff was compelled to file the present suit for recovery of the amount due under the promissory note, along with interest and costs.

3. The first defendant, Kattina Yasoda, wife of late Rathnaiah, filed a written statement denying the maintainability of the suit either in law or on facts, and prayed for its dismissal. The defendant categorically denied all the allegations made in the plaint, except those specifically admitted, and put the plaintiff to strict proof of her claims. The defendant asserted that it is false to allege that her husband borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff on 20- 09-2012 and executed the suit promissory note, agreeing to repay the said

APNE0E0000492015

4 amount with interest at 24% per annum. She further denied the plaintiff’s version that the debt remained unpaid despite repeated demands.

The defendant submitted that her husband died in the year 2014, and there was no mention of any such debt either before or after his demise. She contended that her husband had no necessity to borrow such an amount from the plaintiff. Further, she submits that her husband had worked under the plaintiff for a long period and due to misunderstandings and disputes between her husband and the plaintiff, ill-will developed between the parties. The defendant alleged that, in order to take revenge and secure wrongful gain, the plaintiff fabricated the promissory note in collusion with her husband, and forged the signatures of the defendant’s late husband. The defendant reiterated that the suit promissory note is a forged document, and that there is no valid cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. She claimed that the suit was instituted only to harass her due to the disputes between herself and the plaintiff and to obtain wrongful gain. In light of these contentions, the defendant prayed that it may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.Basing on the above pleading the following issues were settled by the then Presiding Officer for trial:-

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

the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount?

3. To what relief?

APNE0E0000492015

5

5.During the course of trial the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. To support his case, PW2 & PW3 were examined.

On the other hand defendant No.1 got examined herself as DW1 and no documents were marked on their behalf. Through Advocate Commissioner,

Handwriting expert was examined and got marked Exs. X1 to X4.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant and perused the material available on record.

7. Issue Nos.1 & 2:

To prove his case, the plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box and was examined as PW1. His chief examination is nothing but a verbatim reproduction of the contents of the plaint, and therefore, the same is not reproduced here to avoid repetition. In cross-examination, he deposed that he sent legal notices to the defendants demanding repayment of the suit amount borrowed under Ex.A1 by the deceased Kattina Ratnaiah, and to substantiate the same, he filed Exs.A2 to A5. He further deposed that the 1st defendant was also present at the time of execution of Ex.A1. He denied the suggestions that the year column in Ex.A1 was corrected from 2011 to 2012 by altering the digit “1” to “2,” and that the month figure “1” was altered to “9.” He also denied the suggestion that the deceased Ratnaiah worked under him and, due to disputes,

Ex.A1 was fabricated by him for the purpose of the suit.

APNE0E0000492015

6

8.To support his claim, the plaintiff examined PW2 and PW3, who are the attesters to the suit promissory note marked as Ex.A1. Their chief examinations are on similar lines as that of PW1, affirming that the deceased

Kattina Ratnaiah borrowed Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 in their presence. Hence, to avoid repetition, their chief depositions are not reproduced herein. In cross-examination, PW2 denied the suggestion that there were any corrections or alterations in Ex.A1. PW3 similarly deposed that he did not observe any corrections in the year mentioned in the said promissory note.

9.Therefore, by examining himself as PW1 and producing PW2 and

PW3 as attesting witnesses, the plaintiff has proved the execution of the suit promissory note, Ex.A1, on the face of the record. Their depositions collectively support the case that the deceased Kattina Ratnaiah borrowed Rs. 25,000/- and executed the said promissory note in the presence of PW2 and PW3. In view of this oral and documentary evidence, the initial burden cast upon the plaintiff stands discharged. Consequently, the burden now shifts to the defendants to rebut the presumption arising out of the execution of Ex.A1, in accordance with their pleadings in the written statement.

10.To disprove the case of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant entered the witness box and was examined as DW1. Her chief examination is nothing but a reproduction of the contents of her written statement, and therefore, the same is not reproduced here to avoid repetition. In cross-examination, she deposed that her deceased husband Ratnaiah used to work under the plaintiff. However, she

APNE0E0000492015

7 expressed her inability to identify or point out where exactly the corrections were made in Ex.A1 promissory note. She denied the suggestion that there were no disputes between her husband and the plaintiff. She also maintained her version that the promissory note is a fabricated document brought into existence due to misunderstandings between her husband and the plaintiff.

11.To prove her case, the 1st defendant filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking expert opinion on the alleged alterations in the suit promissory note. Pursuant to the said petition, this Court referred Ex.A1 to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (APFSL), Mangalagiri. An expert opinion was received in response, and the handwriting expert who furnished the report was examined as a Court Witness as CW1 through Advocate

Commissioner.

12.In his chief examination, he deposed that he has been working as

Assistant Director at the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (APFSL),

Mangalagiri, since January 2019. He stated that he is a science postgraduate and has undergone formal training in Handwriting Examination under senior officers and Government Examiners of Questioned Documents, Ministry of Home Affairs,

Government of India, Hyderabad. He further deposed that he possesses thirty years of experience in forensic document examination.

He stated that on 23.01.2020, the department received a reference from the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kota, in O.S. No. 40 of 2015, along with a

APNE0E0000492015

8 promissory note for forensic examination and opinion. The disputed portions of the document were marked by him as Q1 to Q4.

Upon examining the original promissory note using appropriate scientific instruments, he gave the following opinion:

1. There is alteration in the red-enclosed portion marked Q1 - numeral ‘1’ is altered to numeral ‘9’.

2. There is overwriting in the red-enclosed portion marked Q2 - the original numeral could not be deciphered.

3. There is alteration and overwriting in the red-enclosed portion marked Q3 - numeral ‘1’ is altered to numeral ‘2’.

4. There is no sign of tampering in the red-enclosed portion marked Q4.

He further deposed that he submitted three photo charts along with his opinion. His opinion was marked as Ex.X1, issued under FSL File Number

DCV/12/2020, dated 18.05.2020. Ex.X2 is the photo chart of the questioned portion Q1, containing three photographs. Ex.X3 is the photo chart of Q2, containing two photographs. Ex.X4 is the photo chart of Q3, containing three photographs. He clarified that he was not asked to examine the signatures on the promissory note, and therefore did not express any opinion regarding the same.

In cross-examination, the expert stated that by observing the different commencement and finishes of the circular part of the numeral “9,” he concluded that numeral “1” was altered to numeral “9” in portion Q1. He denied the suggestion that he was not trained to determine the age of ink but admitted that he did not mention the age of the ink in Ex.X1, as he was not asked to do so.

APNE0E0000492015

9

He confirmed that the questioned portions Q1 to Q4 were marked by him based on the directions of the Hon’ble Court.

He denied the suggestion that there was no difference in the age of ink used in Ex.A1 at portions Q1 to Q4. However, he admitted that he did not offer any finding on the age of ink in his report and reiterated that he was not in a position to comment on the present age of ink. He further stated that in portions Q1 to Q4, there was overwriting in the numerals, and in Q2 specifically, the numeral was completely overwritten and indecipherable. He admitted that there was no overwriting on the numeral “9” in Q1. He clarified that he could not identify the author of the alteration in Q1 and could not say whether the alteration and original entry were made at the same time. He denied the suggestion that there was no overwriting in portions Q1 and Q2 and rejected the implication that his opinion regarding Q1 and Q2 was based on assumptions.

13.From the evidence available on record, it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit promissory note was executed on 20.09.2012, and that the suit was instituted on 21.09.2015, which according to him falls within the prescribed limitation period. However, the 1st defendant specifically challenged the genuineness of the date mentioned in Ex.A1 and contended that the actual date of execution was 20.01.2011, and that the year and month were deliberately altered to make it appear as if the suit was filed within the statutory time frame.

In support of this contention, the 1st defendant relied on the expert opinion

APNE0E0000492015

10 obtained through the Court, which confirmed material alterations in the date portion of Ex.A1.

14.In this context, a crucial legal issue arises for determination— whether the suit is barred by limitation in view of the alterations detected in

Ex.A1, and whether such tampering affects the enforceability of the document.

The answer to this issue necessarily involves an examination of the relevant provisions under the Limitation Act, 1963, in light of the factual matrix established through the evidence on record.

15.As per Article 35 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for filing a suit based on a promissory note payable on demand is three years from the date of execution of the instrument. In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed that the deceased Kattina Ratnaiah executed the suit promissory note on 20.09.2012, and the suit was instituted on 21.09.2015. If this version were to be accepted, the suit would appear to fall within the statutory period of limitation.

However, the handwriting expert's report marked as Ex.X1, along with corroborating evidence in Exs.X2 to X4, clearly establishes that the original date of execution of Ex.A1 was 20.01.2011, and that both the month and year were materially altered - “1” being changed to “9” in the month, and “1” changed to “2” in the year. These alterations were made to give the appearance that the note was executed on 20.09.2012, thereby artificially extending the period of limitation.

APNE0E0000492015

11

It is settled law that material alteration in an instrument without consent of the parties renders the document void and unenforceable. Further, when the date of execution is altered to bring a suit within limitation, such correction cannot be considered immaterial. The very foundation of the plaintiff’s claim is the date of the promissory note. Once it is shown that the original date was tampered with, the claim collapses both on the ground of limitation and lack of genuineness.

Thus, applying the limitation law to the proven facts of the case, the

Court concludes that the cause of action arose on 20.01.2011, and the suit should have been filed on or before 20.01.2014. Since the suit was filed on 21.09.2015, it is clearly barred by limitation, and the alterations made to the document only reinforce the conclusion that the suit was filed on the basis of a fabricated and time-barred claim.

16.Though the plaintiff initially discharged the burden of proving execution of Ex.A1 by examining himself and the attesting witnesses as PWs 1 to 3, the 1st defendant has successfully rebutted the presumption arising from such execution. The expert opinion obtained through the Court and marked as Ex.X1, along with supporting photographic charts Ex.X2 to Ex.X4, clearly established that the year “2011” was altered to “2012” and the month “1” was altered to “9.” These alterations were intended to present the suit as being within the statutory period of limitation.

APNE0E0000492015

12

The findings of the handwriting expert remained consistent and unshaken during cross-examination and confirm that the date of execution was materially altered. Such alteration, without the consent of the parties, goes to the root of the document and renders it unenforceable in law. The defendant has therefore discharged the burden of rebuttal, and the plaintiff has failed to establish that Ex.A1 is genuine and legally enforceable. Accordingly, this Court finds that the suit is not only barred by limitation but also founded on a materially altered and unreliable document. The plaintiff shall bear the costs incurred by the defendant in defending this suit. Accordingly Issue Nos 1 & 2 are answered in favour the defendants against the plaintiff.

17. Issue No.3

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

Civil Judge ( Junior Division),

Kota.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW1:V.Naresh Naidu DW1:Kattina Yasodamma PW2:G.Lingama Naidu PW3:K. Sreekanth Reddy

APNE0E0000492015

13

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1:Original suit promissory note dt:20-09-2012 executed by the husband of the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2:Office copy of legal notice dt:20-08-2015

Ex.A3:Postal receipt addressed to the 3rd defendant

Ex.A4:Reply notice dt:02-09-2015 on behalf of 1st defendant

Ex.A5:Reply notice dt:02-s09-2015 on behalf of 2nd defendant

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

Exhibits marked on behalf of Court Witness

Ex.X1:FSL File Number DCV/12/2020, dated 18.05.2020.

Ex.X2:Photo chart of the questioned portion Q1, containing three photographs.

Ex.X3:Photo chart of Q2, containing two photographs.

Ex.X4:Photo chart of Q3, containing three photographs.

C.J. (J.D).,

Kota.

APNE0E0001002016

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR DIVISION) : KOTA

PRESENT : SRI CH.BHARATHKAMLA

CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR DIVISION),

KOTA

Tuesday, the 22 nd day of April, 2025

Original Suit No.37/2016

Between: Vemasani Anasuyamma, W/o Krishneswara Naidu, Hindu, aged 52 years, House wife, Residing at Maddali village, Kota mandal, SPSR Nellore Dsitrict.… Plaintiff

And

1).Kattina Yasoda, W/o late Ratnaiah, Aged 40 years 2).Darla Chamudeswari W/o Nagaraju, House wife, Aged 20 years, 3).Kattina Bhavani, D/o late Ratnaiah Aged 18 years, All are Hindus,

Defendants 1 & 3 are residing At Maddali, Kota mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Defendant No.2 is Budlapadu Village, Narukuru panchayath,

APNE0E0001002016

2

Nellore Rural mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Defendants 1 to 3

This suit came on 22-04-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri B.Sanjeevaiah, Advocate for the defendants 1 to 3, and having heard the learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, the court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,58,500/- (Rupees Two lakh Fifty

Eight thousand Five hundred only) being principal and interest due under suit promissory note dated 05-08-2013 executed by the defendant for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh Fifty thousand only) upon suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a with future interest and with costs from the defendant.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff, Vemasani Anasuyamma, wife of Krishneswara Naidu and a resident of Maddali Village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, instituted the present suit for recovery of money. She averred that the husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3, namely Kattina Ratnaiah, borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her on 05.08.2013 for his family expenses. In consideration thereof, he executed a promissory note on the same date in favour

APNE0E0001002016

3 of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum, either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. The said promissory note was produced and marked as Ex.A1.

The plaintiff further pleaded that, despite repeated oral demands,

Kattina Ratnaiah did not repay the debt under the suit promissory note. It was asserted that Kattina Ratnaiah died intestate in the year 2014, leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. The plaintiff contended that the defendants are presently in possession and enjoyment of the estate of the deceased, and as such, are liable to discharge the debt incurred by Kattina Ratnaiah.

Despite repeated demands and issuance of a registered notice

dated 09.07.2016, the defendants failed to repay the debt. The plaintiff stated

that the first defendant responded with false allegations, while defendants 2 and 3 failed to reply. Consequently, the plaintiff was compelled to file the present suit for recovery of the amount due under the promissory note, along with interest and costs.

3. The first defendant, Kattina Yasoda, wife of late Rathnaiah, filed a written statement denying the maintainability of the suit either in law or on facts, and prayed for its dismissal. The defendant categorically denied all the allegations made in the plaint, except those specifically admitted, and put the

APNE0E0001002016

4 plaintiff to strict proof of her claims. The defendant asserted that it is false to allege that her husband borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.08.2013 and executed the suit promissory note, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum. She further denied the plaintiff’s version that the debt remained unpaid despite repeated demands.

The defendant submitted that her husband died in the year 2014, and there was no mention of any such debt either before or after his demise. She contended that her husband had no necessity to borrow such an amount from the plaintiff. She further submitted that her husband had worked under the plaintiff for a long period and due to misunderstandings and disputes between her husband and the plaintiff, ill-will developed between the parties. The defendant alleged that, in order to take revenge and secure wrongful gain, the plaintiff fabricated the promissory note in collusion with her husband, and forged the signatures of the defendant’s late husband. The defendant reiterated that the suit promissory note is a forged document, and that there is no valid cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. She claimed that the suit was instituted only to harass her due to the disputes between herself and the plaintiff and to obtain wrongful gain. In light of these contentions, the defendant prayed that it may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

APNE0E0001002016

5

4.Basing on the above pleading the following issues were settled by the then Presiding Officer for trial:-

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

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. To support her, PW2 and PW3 were examined. On the other hand defendant No.1 got examined herself as DW1 and no documents were marked on their behalf.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant and perused the material available on record.

7. Issue Nos.1 & 2:

Issue Nos 1 & 2 are interlinked, therefore, issue Nos.1 & 2 are answered together.

To establish her case, the plaintiff entered the witness box and was examined as PW1. In her chief examination, she reiterated the contents of her plaint, deposing that the husband of the first defendant, Kattina Ratnaiah, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her on 05.08.2013 and executed a promissory note in her favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24%

APNE0E0001002016

6 per annum. She further stated that despite repeated demands, the amount remained unpaid and that after the death of Kattina Ratnaiah in 2014, the defendants, as his legal heirs, failed to discharge the liability. She also referred to her issuance of a legal notice and the lack of any proper response from the defendants.

In cross-examination, PW1 deposed that the husband of the first defendant died in 2014 and admitted that the suit promissory note (Ex.A1) was executed in 2013 when he was alive. She stated that she made oral demands for repayment of the money during his lifetime. PW1 further deposed that she owns ten acres of land and her son runs a restaurant on the national highway. She admitted that she had obtained two promissory notes from the husband of the first defendant. She explained that Ex.A1 was scribed by Suneel, and at the time of its execution, the first defendant, the plaintiff, her son, the scribe, and witnesses were present. She denied any suggestion that the promissory note was fabricated or contained any corrections. Throughout her cross-examination, no material contradictions or admissions that would weaken her case were elicited. Thus, the evidence of PW1 is clear and remains consistent with the version set out in her plaint.

8.To further support her case, the plaintiff examined PW2 and PW3. In their chief examinations, both witnesses reiterated the contents of the plaint,

APNE0E0001002016

7 confirming their presence at the time of execution of the suit promissory note and supporting the plaintiff’s version in all material aspects.

In cross-examination, PW2 deposed that Ex.A1 was executed at the house of the plaintiff, and upon being confronted with Ex.A1, he admitted his signature as an attesting witness on the document. Similarly, PW3 stated that in 2013, he affixed his signature on Ex.A1 as an attesting witness and confirmed that K. Suneel Kumar acted as the scribe of the document. Both witnesses maintained that the husband of the first defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note in their presence. No material contradictions or admissions detrimental to the plaintiff’s case were elicited from either witness during their cross-examinations. Thus, the evidence of PW2 and

PW3 fully corroborates the case of the plaintiff.

9.To rebut the version of the plaintiff, the first defendant entered the witness box and was examined as DW1. In her chief examination, she deposed that her husband never borrowed any amount from PW1 and that the suit promissory note, Ex.A1, was a forged and fabricated document brought into existence due to disputes between her husband and the plaintiff’s family. She further stated that her husband merely worked as a coolie under the plaintiff and, following some disputes, stopped working for her.

APNE0E0001002016

8

In cross-examination, DW1 stated that her husband used to attend coolie work for PW1 whenever required, along with other workers. She deposed that she did not know about any disputes between her husband and PW1 and could not recall when her husband ceased working for PW1. She denied the presence of corrections in Ex.A1 and could not specify any details regarding such corrections. DW1 further denied the suggestion that her husband never borrowed any amount from PW1 or executed Ex.A1, adding that if her husband had borrowed any money, he would have informed her. She also denied the suggestion that there were any disputes intended to avoid payment under Ex.A1 and reiterated that it was not true to suggest that her husband, in her presence, borrowed money from PW1 and executed Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff.

10.The evidence of DW1 primarily consists of her denial of the plaintiff’s claim and her assertion that the suit promissory note, Ex.A1, is a forged and fabricated document. In her chief examination, DW1 maintained that her husband never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and that the suit was filed out of animosity stemming from prior disputes between the families. She also asserted that her husband merely worked as a coolie under the plaintiff.

However, in her cross-examination, DW1 admitted that her husband used to attend coolie work for PW1 along with other workers, but she expressed ignorance regarding the existence of any disputes between her husband and the

APNE0E0001002016

9 plaintiff. She was unable to specify the nature or particulars of the alleged corrections in Ex.A1 and could not give any substantial details to support her claim of forgery. DW1 also stated that if her husband had borrowed any money from PW1, he would have informed her, but she did not have any direct knowledge regarding such transaction. Furthermore, she categorically denied the suggestion that her husband executed Ex.A1 in her presence.

To support her claim, the defendant did not examine any other witness apart from herself. No independent or corroborative evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendant to substantiate her version or to disprove the execution of the suit promissory note by the husband of the first defendant.

11.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the oral and documentary evidence on record clearly establish the case of the plaintiff. It was contended that the husband of the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.

1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note, Ex.A1, in the presence of attesting witnesses, who have been examined as PWs 2 and 3. The plaintiff further relied on the corroborative statements of these attesting witnesses, who fully supported the execution of Ex.A1 and affirmed their signatures thereon. The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the consistent version of all the plaintiff’s witnesses, coupled with the absence of any material contradictions in cross-examination, lends full credibility to their testimony. It

APNE0E0001002016

10 was also argued that the defendant failed to produce any convincing evidence to rebut the case of the plaintiff or to establish the alleged forgery or fabrication of

Ex.A1. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s counsel prayed that the suit be decreed as prayed for, against the defendants.

12.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that the suit promissory note, Ex.A1, is a fabricated and forged document, brought into existence solely to harass the defendant and extract wrongful gain, following disputes between the families. The defendant’s counsel pointed out that DW1 categorically denied the execution of Ex.A1 by her husband and asserted that no such transaction took place. It was further submitted that there are corrections and suspicious circumstances in Ex.A1, which were not adequately explained by the plaintiff. The defendant’s counsel argued that the plaintiff failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and that no independent or corroborative evidence was brought on record to support the plaintiff’s version. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed with exemplary costs.

13.After careful examination of the evidence and the arguments advanced by both parties, the Court finds that the plaintiff has successfully proved her case. The plaintiff’s testimony, supported by the consistent and corroborative evidence of PWs 2 and 3, clearly establishes that the husband of

APNE0E0001002016

11 the first defendant borrowed Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note, Ex.A1, in the presence of attesting witnesses. There are no material contradictions in their evidence, and their version has remained unshaken in cross-examination.

14.On the other hand, the first defendant, apart from making general denials and alleging forgery, has not produced any independent or credible evidence to disprove the plaintiff’s claim or to show that Ex.A1 was fabricated.

DW1, in her cross-examination, admitted that her husband worked as a coolie for the plaintiff but expressed ignorance regarding the alleged disputes or the particulars of any corrections in Ex.A1. No other witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendant to support her version. In view of the above, the Court finds that the plaintiff has proved the due execution of Ex.A1 by the husband of the first defendant. Accordingly, issues No. 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

15. Issue No.3

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the

plaintiff and against the estate of the deceased Kattina Ratnaiah - which is

in the hands of the defendants 1 to 3 for an amount for Rs.2,58,500/-

(Rupees Two lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Only) with

APNE0E0001002016

12

subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit

till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6%

per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal

amount Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty Thousands Only)

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

Civil Judge ( Junior Division),

Kota.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW1:V.Anusuyamma DW1:Kattina Yasodamma PW2:G.Jagadiswara Naidu PW3:G.Koteswara Naidu

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1:Original suit promissory note dt:05-08-2013 executed by the husband of the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/-.

Ex.A2:Office copy of legal notice dt:09-07-2016

Ex.A3:Served copy of reply notice issued on behalf of 1st defendant dt:18-07- 2016.

Ex.A4:Postal acknowledgment showing service of notice to the 2nd defendant

dt:19-07-2016.

APNE0E0001002016

13

Ex.A5:Refused postal cover address to the 3rd defendant dt:15-07-2016.

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

C.J. (J.D).,

Kota.

APNE0E0000752016

1

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :KOTA.

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

PRESENT: SRI. CH.BHARATH KAMAL,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOTA.

Tuesday, the 22 nd Day of April, 2025

O.S. No. 24 of 20 16

Between :

Konduru Prasuna, S/o Sangeeth Rao, Aged 50 years, Chittetu village, Kota mandal, SPSR Nellore District.… Plaintiff

And

Vadlamudi Srinivasulu, S/o Vadlamudi Ramaiah, Aged 35 years, Business, D.No.U-479, Prakasam colony, Vidyanagar, Kota mandal, SPSR Nellore district. … Defendant

This suit came up for final hearing before me on 22-04-2025 in the presence of Sri P.Srinivasulu, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri

A. Mohan, learned Counsel for the defendant and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant and on perusing the material available on record this Court delivered the following:

APNE0E0000752016

2

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,57,090/- (Rupees One

Lakh Fifty Seven thousand Ninety only) being principal and interest due under four suit promissory notes executed by the defendant for

Rs.1,09,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Nine thousand only) upon suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a with future interest and with costs from the defendant.

2. Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.

45,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.24,000/- on 01-05-2014, 15-05- 2014, 15-06-2014 and 15-07-2015 respectively from the plaintiff and executed a four demand promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff on the even date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to her or to her order on demand.

In spite of demands, the registered notice was issued on 30-05-2015 to the defendant and he refused the same. Hence, the suit.

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

APNE0E0000752016

3

The defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the material allegations made against the defendant by the plaintiff and further stated that the defendant is doing milk business daily in vidyanagar centre the plaintiff regularly came to the vidyanagar center, she doing Tandal business in vidynagar surrounding area basic on Rs10/- (ten rupees only) interest per month per Rs 100/-(Per

Hundred rupees only) without any valid permission from the government.

The plaintiff also doing private chits business, the defendant also one of the chit member in her chit. she has given some amount to her chits members the defendant also borrowed amount form the plaintiff basic on said Tandal business and she regularly collect the said amount from her borrowers. Due to financial crises the defendant on 20-11-2012 borrowed

Rs 20.000/- from the plaintiff on Tandal Basic. In general at the time borrowed person received amount from the plaintiff on Tandal basic. The plaintiff obtained the signatures from their borrowers on empty promissory notes on the spot without fulfill the promissory notes. The defendant also Due to his un-seasonal business time i.e. on 20-11-2012 he borrowed Rs 20.000/- from the plaintiff on said terms and condition the defendant also signed empty promissory notes without fulfill the said

APNE0E0000752016

4 promissory notes. Thereafter the defendant regularly paid amount to the plaintiff tandal basic.

The defendant submits that the defendant and the plaintiff some ill- feelings in-between them the plaintiff filed this suit for wrongful gain. The defendant completely discharged the said debt and promissory notes was cancelled and stamps on the promotes the plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory note and the plaintiff filed the unjust suit forgot wrong fuli gain and harassing him mentally and physically. As such the suit promissory note is created by the plaintiff. So the suit promissory note is forged document. This defendant is no way concern to the alleged promissory notes. So the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing upon the above pleadings the then Prescribing Officer framed the following issues for Trial:

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

2. To what relief?

5.During the course of Trial, the plaintiff got examined herself as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On the other hand, in spite of several

APNE0E0000752016

5 opportunities, the defendant failed to adduce evidence on his behalf and that defendant evidence treated as nil. Hence defendant side evidence was closed.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record.

7. In order to answer the issues framed, the reasoning for said issue as follows:-

Issue No.1:

a) In order to prove that the defendant borrowed amount from her, plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing her chief affidavit which is nothing but replica of the plaint. P.W.1 in her chief examination reiterated the contents of the plaint and further deposed that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,09,000/- (Rs.45,000/-+Rs.20,000/- +Rs.20,000/-+Rs.24,000/-) on on 01-05-2014, 15-05-2014, 15-05-2014 and 15-07-2015 respectively from her agreeing to repay the same with interest and executed the suit promissory notes in her favour and same are marked as Exs.A1 to A4 P.W.1 further stated that in spite of repeated oral demands the defendant has failed to repay the suit debt. Thereafter, she got issued legal notice is marked as Ex.A5. Ex.6 is unserved cover.

APNE0E0000752016

6

b) P.W.1 in her cross examination stated that he is working as a PET (Physical Education Teacher). She is residing at Vidyanagar in a rented house. She knows the defendant who supply milk to thier house from the year 2012 to 2014 June. On 1.5.2014 at her house in the following dates she has given an amount of Rs.40,000/-, on 15.5.2014 he has given an amount of Rs.20.000/- and 15.6.2014, she has given an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and 15.7.2015 and also given an amount of

Rs.24,000/- to the defendant. When she was giving said amounts to the defendant, one M.Srinivasulu who is also working as a teacher in their school was present. The Said Srinivasulu is the native of kothapalem village and he is residing at vidyanagar in a rented house. The Ex.A1 to

A4 were scribed by the defendant and one witness i.e, M.Srinivasulu was attested his signature as a witness.

She further deposed in her cross examination each pronote (Ex.A1 to A4) contains one stamp and two signatures. It is true Exs.A1 to

A4 are not executed on same dates and in the four pronotes the

M.Srinivasulu was the attestor. When she was giving amount to the defendant she called the M.Srinivasulu to act as a witness. It is true there is a difference in the signatures affixed on the stamp and beneath the stamp in Ex.A1. There is over written in the amount column in Ex.A4 in

APNE0E0000752016

7 line number 9. All the amounts under Ex.A1 to A4 are correct. There is a difference in the amount column 17th in Ex.A2 and it is appeared as 29.

witness volunteers that due to adding the cama(,) to the zero it is appearing 29 instead of 20. In only one promissory note there is difference in the signature not in all the promissory notes. It is not true to suggest i am doing the chits and thandal business.

Prior to Ex.A1 to A4 there is no other money transactions between

PW1 and defendant or any other persons. PW1 denied the all the suggestions put to him by the defendant.

8. On the other hand the defense of the defendant is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. However, in spite of several opportunities the defendant did not turn up before this court and did not choose to adduce evidence on his side and that the defendant evidence treated as nil and hence defendant side evidence was closed.

9.On perusing of oral and documentary evidence available on record it is established that the defendant borrowed amount from plaintiff under Exs.A1 to A4 suit promissory notes and accordingly executed the same, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on demand to

APNE0E0000752016

8 the plaintiff. Exs.A1 to A4 promissory notes clearly discloses that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.1,09,000/- from the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendant failed to elicit any evidence in favour of the defendant during the cross examination of P.W.1. Moreover, the defendant failed to adduce any evidence in order to rebut the evidence of

P.W.1. Simply filing the written statement and cross examining PW1 without coming forward, to establish that the Exs.A1 to A4 are not executed by the defendant and some ill feelings arose between the PW1 and defendnat, PW1 filed this false for wrongful gain, by producing proper, cogent oral or documentary evidence. The defendant simply stands away from the doors of the court just by filing the written statement and he did not turned up, to adduce any evidence or entered into witness box to speak about the facts known to him.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 in between Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao & anr. :Their Lordships held that, “ where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Counsel, moreover if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would

APNE0E0000752016

9 give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, the court can drew a presumption under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box. Hence as per the conduct of the defendant who did not turned up, to adduce evidence on his behalf, can be treated as admitting the plaintiff's contention”.

11.Under present circumstances and of case in hand and by applying law laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court can take adverse inference against the defendant, who abstains from entering the witness box. Similarly, the court can draw a presumption under Section 114 of the

Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box.

Hence, as per the conduct of defendant, who did not turned up to adduce any evidence on his behalf and entered into witness box, can be treated as admitting the plaintiff case. Hence, as per the evidence of PW1 and available documentary evidence on record and on conjoint reading of the written statement court observed that the defense taken by the defendant against the plaintiff is nothing but the allegations against the plaintiff without any proof.

12. As the defendant failed to prove his case and as per the evidence of PW1 and available documentary evidence and as per the cross examination of P.W.1 by the learned counsel of the defendant, the

APNE0E0000752016

10 plaintiff proved the execution of Exs.A1 to A4 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, Exs.A1 to A4 are true, valid and binding upon the defendant. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

13. Issue No.2:

Plaintiff established her case by examining herself as P.W.1 along with Exs.A1 to A6.

14.The defendant only made allegations relating to non execution of Exs.A1 to A4. The learned defendant counsel failed to elicit any evidence in favour of defendant in his cross examination. The defendant did not take any steps to establish his defense and failed to produce any evidence i.e., oral or documentary to succeed his case.

Hence plaintiff has succeeded in proving her case by examining herself as

PW1 to substantiate her contention and by marking Exs.A1 to A6. Hence plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed by him accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

14. Issue No.3:-

APNE0E0000752016

11

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,57,090/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven thousand Ninety only) with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,09,000/- (Rupees One lakh Nine thousand only).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kota.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 :Konduru Prasuna -None-

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1:Original Promissory note dt:01-05-2014 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2:Original Promissory note dt:05-05-2014 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A3:Original Promissory note dt:15-06-2014 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A4:Original Promissory note dt:15-07-2015 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A5:Legal notice dt:30-05-2016

APNE0E0000752016

12

Ex.A6:Unserved cover

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kota.