O.S.No.106 of 20231 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR
DIVISION) :: ONGOLE :: DIVISION) :: ONGOLE ::
PRESENT:: SRI CH.V.RAMAKRISHNA PRESENT SRI CH.V.RAMAKRISHNA
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole.
Thursday, this the 7thThursday, this the 7th day of May, 2026. day of May, 2026.
Original Suit No.106 of 2023 Original Suit No.106 of 2023
BETWEEN : : BETWEEN Thummapudi Yedukondalu, S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 53 years,Thummapudi Yedukondalu, S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 53 years, Hindu, Provisions, Business, Rajarajeswari Street, Ranguthota, OngoleHindu, Provisions, Business, Rajarajeswari Street, Ranguthota, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. Town, Prakasam District. …PLAINTIFF …PLAINTIFF
A N D A N D
Kankipati Venkata Ravi Kumar, S/o Visveswara Rao, Hindu, aged aboutKankipati Venkata Ravi Kumar, S/o Visveswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Business, R/o H.No. MIG-I-358, Housing Board Colony, Ongole48 years, Business, R/o H.No. MIG-I-358, Housing Board Colony, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.Town, Prakasam District. (Note: Name of the defendant amended from “Kankipati Ravi Kumar” to(Note: Name of the defendant amended from “Kankipati Ravi Kumar” to “Kankipati Venkata Ravi Kumar” as per orders in I.A.No.742/2023, dt.04-“Kankipati Venkata Ravi Kumar” as per orders in I.A.No.742/2023, dt.04- 03-2024) 03-2024)
...DEFENDANT ...DEFENDANT
- 0 – 0 – 0 -- 0 – 0 – 0 - This suit came up for hearing before me on 22.04.2026, in theThis suit came up for hearing before me on 22.04.2026, in the presence of Sri P.V.Srinivasa Guptha, Advocate for Plaintiff; and Sri R.presence of Sri P.V.Srinivasa Guptha, Advocate for Plaintiff; and Sri R.
Venkata Swamy, Advocate for Defendant; and upon hearing both sidesVenkata Swamy, Advocate for Defendant; and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the material on record and this matter having stoodand upon perusal of the material on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
////J U D G M E N T// J U D G M E N T//
This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.28,62,000/-, being the principalThis suit is filed for recovery of Rs.28,62,000/-, being the principal and interest due on two (2) promissory notes dated 01.08.2022 forand interest due on two (2) promissory notes dated 01.08.2022 for
Rs.15,00,000/- and dated 10.08.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/- executed byRs.15,00,000/- and dated 10.08.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/- executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amountsdefendant in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amounts together with interest at 12% per annum either to the plaintiff or to histogether with interest at 12% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and for costs. order on demand and for costs.
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 20232 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
2.2.The averments, in brief, of the plaint are that the defendantThe averments, in brief, of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.08.2022 forborrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.08.2022 for his business purposes and, on the same day, executed a promissory notehis business purposes and, on the same day, executed a promissory note at Ongole in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amountat Ongole in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest at 12% per annum either to the plaintiff, or to histogether with interest at 12% per annum either to the plaintiff, or to his order on his demand in presence of attestors and scribe. Subsequently,order on his demand in presence of attestors and scribe. Subsequently, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff onthe defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.08.2022 for his business purposes and on the same day he executed10.08.2022 for his business purposes and on the same day he executed promissory note at Ongole in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the saidpromissory note at Ongole in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest at 12% per annum either to the plaintiff, oramount together with interest at 12% per annum either to the plaintiff, or to his order on his demand in presence of attestors and scribe.to his order on his demand in presence of attestors and scribe.
Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded the defendant number of timesSubsequently, the plaintiff demanded the defendant number of times personally and through mediators for discharge of the debt due under thepersonally and through mediators for discharge of the debt due under the promissory notes. The defendant promised to pay the said debt, butpromissory notes. The defendant promised to pay the said debt, but postponing the same on some pretext or the other without any reasons.postponing the same on some pretext or the other without any reasons.
The plaintiff came to know that the defendant has been trying to alienateThe plaintiff came to know that the defendant has been trying to alienate his schedule property to third parties and wants to leave the jurisdiction ofhis schedule property to third parties and wants to leave the jurisdiction of this Court with a view to evade the debt due to the plaintiff. Hence, thethis Court with a view to evade the debt due to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit. suit.
3.The defendant filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint, as not true and not correct, except those that are specifically admitted to be true and correct and the rest of averments and allegations are put to strict proof by the plaintiff. It is contended that theIt is contended that the plaintiff did not state in the plaint as to what business the defendant wasplaintiff did not state in the plaint as to what business the defendant was carrying on. It is most unbelievable and untrustworthy to believe that thecarrying on. It is most unbelievable and untrustworthy to believe that the plaintiff lent Rs.25,00,000/- to the defendant within a gap of one week.plaintiff lent Rs.25,00,000/- to the defendant within a gap of one week.
The defendant has no necessity at all to borrow such huge amount from aThe defendant has no necessity at all to borrow such huge amount from a
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 20233 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
petty trader. The defendant and the plaintiff are distant relatives. Therepetty trader. The defendant and the plaintiff are distant relatives. There are disputes in between the two families since longtime. Taking undueare disputes in between the two families since longtime. Taking undue advantage of the disputes between the two families, the plaintiff took anadvantage of the disputes between the two families, the plaintiff took an unholy attitude and also gained the signature of defendant and filed theunholy attitude and also gained the signature of defendant and filed the suit to have an advantage by putting him the defendant in troubles and bysuit to have an advantage by putting him the defendant in troubles and by causing inconvenience to the defendant without any basis. There arecausing inconvenience to the defendant without any basis. There are absolutely no grounds to file the suit. The plaintiff is not entitled to getabsolutely no grounds to file the suit. The plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.any relief. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. Based on the above pleadings and documents, the following issues have been settled for trial:
1. Whether the suit promissory notes Dt.01.08.2022 and Dt.10.08.2022 are true, valid and binding on the defendant ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for ?
3. To what relief ?
5.In support of his case, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and he got examined another as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.
Per contra, in support of his case, the defendant got himself examined as
DW1, but no documentary evidence is adduced on his behalf.
6. Heard the learned counsels for both sides at length. The learned counsel for the defendant filed written arguments. Perused the material on record.
7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on a decision of the
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in Ponuganti Subba
Rao vs. Sikhakollu Pulla Rao [1999(3) ALT 144 AP] wherein it was observed as follows:
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 20234 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
“The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of a debt on the basis of a pro-note dated 5-5-1992 executed by the defendant-petitioner. The original pro-note was executed for
Rs.2,000/- and it was agreed that the interest shall be paid at the rate of 24% per annum. The rate of interest claimed in the suit however was 12½%. It was claimed in the suit that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.05.1992 and a promissory note had been executed. The defendant in his written statement denied borrowing of any loan from plaintiff and executing the pro-note. It was stated that the plaintiff had fabricated the promissory note with an ante date.
The plaintiff examined himself and a witness. The plaintiff, according to the judgment, had initially proved that the document had been executed. The defendant however took a stand that he had not put any signatures on the pro-note and the signature was forged. The learned Judge relied on a judgment of this Court being B.Mallamma v. V. T. V.
Rangachary, 1997(3) APLJ 39 (SN), whereby it has been laid down that after the initial burden of proving the document is discharged by the plaintiff the onus of proving the document otherwise shifts to the defendant. Section 118 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act lays down the conditions in which the presumptions shall be made. Under Section 118(g) there is a presumption in favour of the plaintiff that lie is the holder in due course unless proved contrary and the presumption shall not survive if it is proved that the document was with the holder by means of offence or fraud or had been obtained from the maker
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 20235 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud. In a judgment by the Supreme Court in Bharat Barrel and Drum
Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal, 1999 (2) Supreme 187, while interpreting Section 118(a) the Court held that, after the initial burden is discharged by the plaintiff of showing that the document was executed the burden shifts to the defendant.
In the present case also the initial burden was discharged by the plaintiff and the burden shifted to the defendant to prove that the document was forged. Since he has not discharged that burden therefore the trial Court was right in decreeing the suit.” (Emphasis supplied by me)
8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied on a decision of
Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Kanuganti
Ramu vs. Samala Praveen Kumar [2024(6) ALD 485 (TS)], wherein it was observed as follows:
“5. The defendant filed written statement denying the transaction. He contended that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time much less on 25.08.2009.
He contended that the plaintiff was not having capacity to advance such huge amount. The plaintiff forged and fabricated the promissory note and filed the suit. The alleged witnesses were set up persons. The plaintiff in collusion with witnesses filled and fabricated the promissory note. The plaintiff took advantage of the past loan transaction of Rs.1.00 lakh with one
Samala Venu, who took totally four (04) signed blank promissory notes as a security. The same were repaid. Having
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 20236 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
blank promissory notes, the said Samala Venu (the plaintiff in
O.S.No.140 of 2012) in collusion with the plaintiff in the present
suit filled and filed the suit for an undue amount.
… … ...
17. Learned counsel for the appellant in his written submissions contended that the suit was filed for unaccounted transactions, which was not reflected in the Income Tax returns of the plaintiff, as admitted by him. … … ...
23. Except his self serving testimony, the defendant had not adduced any other evidence to prove that consideration was not passed under Ex.A1. The plaintiff had adduced evidence by examining himself and one of the attestors of the promissory note and by filing the promissory note marked as Ex.A1 and the receipt signed by the defendant to show that consideration was passed under the promissory note. … … …
27. With regard to the contention of the appellant - defendant that the respondent-plaintiff was not having financial capacity to lend the amount, he admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know whether the plaintiff was financially sound to lend money. The appellant - defendant had not stated that the plaintiff was not financially sound, but only stated that he was not aware of the financial capability of the plaintiff. The contention of the appellant about the respondent - plaintiff failed to file his Income Tax returns to show that he lent the said amount was in-consequential, as it was for the Income Tax
Department to initiate proceedings against the respondent -
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 20237 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
plaintiff, if the said transaction was not reflected in the Income
Tax returns. But, the appellant - defendant could not take advantage of it. … … ….” (emphasis supplied by me)
9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied on a decision of
Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Modugu
Veeraiah vs. Medarametla Vanajakshi [2025(1) ALD 142 (TS)], wherein it was observed as follows:
“13. It is the specific case of the defendant that he has not issued any promissory note and that the signature in Ex.A1 does not belongs to him and thus, contended that the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish that defendant got issued Ex.A1 promissory note. … … … There is absolute no doubt that the burden initially rests on the plaintiff, who has to prove that the promissory note was executed by the defendant and on its proof, the rule of presumption under Section 118 [a] of the
Evidence Act helps him to shift the burden on the defendant. In the above said decision it is clearly mentioned that when the defence of forgery is taken by the defendant in a suit based on a promissory note, the burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff to establish that the suit promissory note is executed by the defendant because he would fail if no evidence is adduced on either side. But in the case on hand, the plaintiff discharged the initial burden by adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence to establish that the defendant has executed Ex.A1 promissory note. Accordingly, the burden shifted on to the defendant to rebut the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. In
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 20238 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
order to discharge the burden, the defendant also adduced oral and documentary evidence to substantiate that he has not executed promissory note. When both the sides have adduced oral and documentary evidence, the principle laid down in the above said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand. … … ….
20. On the other hand, the plaintiff has not only examined herself as PW1 but also examined the scribe of Ex.A1. It is the contention of the plaintiff that Ex.A1 was scribed by one T.V.
Krishna Rao, who is examined as PW2 and he supported the case of the plaintiff by stating that Ex.A1 contains signature of the defendant. In the cross examination PW2 identified his signature as scribe in Ex.A1 and also identified the signature of defendant and other attestors in Ex.A1. However, PW2 could not turn up for cross examination for the reasons best known to him. But, the attestors, who were examined on behalf of defendant, admitted in their cross examination that the scribe of
Ex.A1 is PW2. Hence, PW2 not turning up for his cross examination is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff. Thus, the oral evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff coupled with documentary evidence in the form of Ex.A1 amply establishes the case of the plaintiff that defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and failed to repay the same. The learned trial
Court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff against defendant”.
EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES:
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 20239 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
10.The plaintiff, as PW1, in his chief-examination affidavit, reiterated all the averments made in the plaint. He got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.
Ex.A1 is Promissory Note dt.01.08.2022 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.15,00,000/-. Ex.A1 is Promissory Note dt.01.08.2022 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.15,00,000/-
11.In cross-examination, PW1 stated that he is doing rice and provisions business for the last 35 years under the name and style ‘Naga
Sai Baba General Stores’ at Gandhi Road, Ongole, so also doing real estate business. He had not mentioned in his plaint and chief-affidavit that he is doing real estate business. He has been submitting all the returns to the concerned GST authorities. He had not submitted any documents of his business before the Court. The name of defendant is
Kankipati Venkata Ravi Kumar. PW1 added to say that at first instance in the plaint the name of defendant was shown as Kankipati Ravi Kumar but subsequently he got amended the same to Kankipati Venkata Ravi
Kumar. The defendant is his relative. He did not mention in his plaint and chief-affidavit that the defendant is his relative. He had sent legal notice to the defendant demanding to discharge the debt. He does not remember the date when he had issued legal notice but it is in the year 2023. He had not produced the said legal notice before the Court as a document. The defendant is doing hotel business and also running curries point and that he had not mentioned the same in his plaint and chief-affidavit. He filed two promissory notes before the Court. One is
dated 01.08.2022 for Rs.15,00,000/- and other is dated 10.08.2022 for
Rs.10,00,000/-. PW1 denied the suggestion that both promissory notes were written with same ink pen. On confrontation of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2,
PW1 stated that both are not written with same ink pen. When PW1 was
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 202310 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
questioned whether there are any corrections in any of the promissory notes, PW1 answered that there was a correction in one promissory note.
PW1 stated that in date column amount was mentioned and in amount column date was mentioned. PW1 added to say that in that regard he got mentioned the words for the amount in figures in the middle portion of the promissory note. On confrontation of Ex.A2, PW1 stated that the mentioning of the words for the amount itself is correction in his opinion.
The name of attestor is Ramanaboina Venkateswarlu. The attestor is a labour worker and he is available in that area and used to deliver provisions to him. The same attestor attested for the two promissory notes and both promissory notes were written in his shop. One
Thummapudi Buchi Babu is his brother.
12.PW2-Ramanaboina Venkateswarlu, who is attestor of Ex.A1 and
Ex.A2, in his chief-examination affidavit, supported the version of
Plaintiff/PW1. In cross-examination, PW2 stated that he is working as labour leader and their union is ‘Thalluri mutha’ under CITU organization.
At the time of scribing of promissory note, in all five persons viz., plaintiff, wife of plaintiff, defendant, friend of defendant and himself were present.
He knows the defendant who is residing in Housing Board colony in
Ongole but he cannot say the specific address of defendant, but the defendant appears for most of the times in a hotel which he is running.
The defendant has been running one hotel at Nellore Bus Stand in
Ongole, another hotel at RTC Bus Stand depot in Ongole and two curry points in Mangamoor road in Ongole. He does not know the name of the father of defendant. The plaintiff gave Rs.15,00,000/- on 01.08.2022 and
Rs.10,00,000/- on 10.08.2022 to the defendant to meet the business needs of the defendant. The amounts were given in Rs.500/-
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 202311 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
denomination, but he cannot say the number of bundles given. The defendant subscribed his two signatures each in two promissory notes.
He subscribed his two signatures in two promissory notes. The scribe also subscribed his one signature each in two promissory notes. PW2 denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were written on the same day.
13.13.The defendant, as DW1, in his chief-examination affidavit,The defendant, as DW1, in his chief-examination affidavit, reiterated all the averments made and the contentions taken in his writtenreiterated all the averments made and the contentions taken in his written statement. In cross-examination, DW1 stated that he can read Telugu,statement. In cross-examination, DW1 stated that he but cannot write Telugu. The plaintiff is his relative through his wife. The plaintiff is his father-in-law by relation, but not his own father-in-law. DW1 admitted that himself and the plaintiff are not neighbours and that he did did hotel business and the plaintiff is doing provisions business. DW1 stated that he has no disputes with the plaintiff. He had not filed any civil or criminal cases against the plaintiff. DW1 admitted that the plaintiff filed the present suit and one creditor insolvency petition against him vide
I.P.No.20/2023 on the file of this Court. There are in all five cases pending against him at present in various Courts including the present suit and the creditor insolvency petition in this Court and one among them is under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and one Kasukurthi Sivaji, President of
Pasukuduru village of Tangutur Mandal filed the said case alleging that when he demanded repayment of the amount borrowed and due by him to him, he had abused him touching his caste name. DW1 admitted that in the present suit and the two suits filed by the brother and the sister-in- law of the plaintiff against him for recovery of money based on promissory notes, he has been contending that all such promissory notes are forged
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 202312 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
by fabrication. DW1 admitted that earlier he did hotel business under the name and style Anand Bhavan in Nellore Bus Stand, Ongole, and also at
RTC Depot, Ongole. DW1 claimed that his relative did such business with his hotel name. DW1 admitted that he did hotel business by recruiting the concerned staff. DW1 stated that he had closed the hotel business about three years ago. DW1 admitted that the plaintiff’s shop is situated in Gandhi Road, Ongole. The plaintiff has two sons. He does not know whether the two sons of the plaintiff are software employees and whether they are earning Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.18,00,000/-, respectively. DW1 stated that he is residing in Hyderabad for the last three years. In his chief-examination affidavit he has shown his residence address as at Ongole. DW1 admitted that the address shown by him in his chief-examination affidavit is the property allegedly sold away by him in the year 2023. He does not remember whether the name of his vendee is Devu Durgamma. He does not remember the number of promissory notes issued by him by subscribing his signatures as blank signed promissory notes. In that connection, DW1 added saying that he might have issued two or three blank signed promissory notes and he does not remember in whose favour those blank signed promissory notes were issued. He cannot say from whom the plaintiff allegedly secured his signatures for him to forge the said signatures, as per his chief- examination affidavit and also his written statement. He does not know the documents produced by the plaintiff in the suit. DW1 adds that he came to know that the plaintiff filed promissory notes. He has seen the photocopy of promissory notes while they were supplied to him along with summons in the suit. He has no proof to show that the plaintiff earlier filed false suits against him or anybody. He does not know whether any
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 202313 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
other witnesses like attestor were examined on behalf of the plaintiff or not. DW1 stated that Ex.A1 and EX.A2 are the promissory notes based upon which the plaintiff filed the present suit. DW1 adds saying that the signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 do not belong to him. On confrontation of
Written Statement of defendant, the witness denied his signatures thereon. DW1 denied the suggestion that he borrowed amounts from the plaintiff for his business necessity and executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in favour of the plaintiff and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were scribed by his friend himself. He does not know whether the plaintiff possessed ancestral property and the same is available in Ranguthota area in Ongole. He does not know whether during pendency of the present suit, the plaintiff had purchased a flat in an apartment in Sathapeta area, Ongole, and now residing in that flat. He does not remember whether he got mentioned in his written statement so also in his chief-evidence affidavit that the plaintiff has no means capacity to lend such amounts to him. amounts to him.
ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:
14.14.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, these twoIn view of the facts and circumstances of the case, these two issues need to be dealt with and considered together and, hence, theyissues need to be dealt with and considered together and, hence, they are taken up together for consideration.are taken up together for consideration.
15.15.In his written statement the defendant never in a straight awayIn his written statement the defendant never in a straight away manner claimed that the signatures of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are not that ofmanner claimed that the signatures of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are not that of him. It is only claimed in the written statement that the plaintiff being hishim. It is only claimed in the written statement that the plaintiff being his relative took an undue advantage of their family disputes and also tookrelative took an undue advantage of their family disputes and also took unholy attitude and gained unholy attitude and gained the signatures of the defendant and filed thethe signatures of the defendant and filed the suit. Such allegation does not per se straight away mean that the plaintiffsuit. Such allegation does not per se straight away mean that the plaintiff forged the signatures of the defendant on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Suchforged the signatures of the defendant on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Such
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 202314 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
allegation can also be treated as the plaintiff obtained the signatures ofallegation can also be treated as the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendant on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in a fraudulent manner. Whatever bethe defendant on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in a fraudulent manner. Whatever be the circumstance, the defendant failed to prove that the signatures onthe circumstance, the defendant failed to prove that the signatures on
Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are not that of him or that they are the forged signaturesEx.A1 and Ex.A2 are not that of him or that they are the forged signatures and thereby Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are fabricated documents. Further, in hisand thereby Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are fabricated documents. Further, in his written statement the defendant claimed that it is unbelievable that thewritten statement the defendant claimed that it is unbelievable that the plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to him within a gap of one week.plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to him within a gap of one week.
But when the defendant failed to disprove his signatures on Ex.A1 andBut when the defendant failed to disprove his signatures on Ex.A1 and
Ex.A2, he cannot make such claim.Ex.A2, he cannot make such claim.
16.16.The plaintiff, in his cross-examination, categorically stated that heThe plaintiff, in his cross-examination, categorically stated that he filed two (2) promissory notes before the Court, one is dt.01.08.2022 forfiled two (2) promissory notes before the Court, one is dt.01.08.2022 for
Rs.15,00,000/- and the other is dt.10.08.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/-. To aRs.15,00,000/- and the other is dt.10.08.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/-. To a question posed to him that whether there are any corrections in any of thequestion posed to him that whether there are any corrections in any of the promissory notes, the plaintiff stated that there was a correction in onepromissory notes, the plaintiff stated that there was a correction in one promissory note in the date column and further stated that in the datepromissory note in the date column and further stated that in the date column amount was mentioned and in the amount column date wascolumn amount was mentioned and in the amount column date was mentioned. On confrontation of Ex.A2, PW1 stated that the mentioning ofmentioned. On confrontation of Ex.A2, PW1 stated that the mentioning of amount for words itself is correction in his opinion. In fact, either in Ex.A1amount for words itself is correction in his opinion. In fact, either in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 there are no corrections. There is only one attestor and oneand Ex.A2 there are no corrections. There is only one attestor and one scribe for the two (2) promissory notes and two signatures of thescribe for the two (2) promissory notes and two signatures of the defendant are appearing in each promissory note on the stamp anddefendant are appearing in each promissory note on the stamp and underneath the stamp. Of-course, the plaintiff claimed that he does notunderneath the stamp. Of-course, the plaintiff claimed that he does not have any proof much less documentary proof to show that he hashave any proof much less documentary proof to show that he has
Rs.25,00,000/- with him in cash for him to lend the amount to theRs.25,00,000/- with him in cash for him to lend the amount to the defendant by the dates of suit promissory notes. PW1 claimed that hedefendant by the dates of suit promissory notes. PW1 claimed that he had shown the amounts under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in his income tax returns.had shown the amounts under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in his income tax returns.
However, he again stated that he does not remember the exact amountsHowever, he again stated that he does not remember the exact amounts
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 202315 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
shown by him in that regard. Of-course, PW1 also stated that he did notshown by him in that regard. Of-course, PW1 also stated that he did not mention about the first promissory note in the second promissory note. Inmention about the first promissory note in the second promissory note. In that regard, it is to be noted that there is no hard and fast rule that thethat regard, it is to be noted that there is no hard and fast rule that the previous debts or previous transactions to be mentioned in a subsequentprevious debts or previous transactions to be mentioned in a subsequent promissory note. In view of such evidence of the plaintiff, this Court is ofpromissory note. In view of such evidence of the plaintiff, this Court is of the humble opinion that nothing was elicited from the cross-examinationthe humble opinion that nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 to disbelieve his evidence so also to disbelieve Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.of PW1 to disbelieve his evidence so also to disbelieve Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.
17.17.From the cross-examination of PW2, who is the only attestor forFrom the cross-examination of PW2, who is the only attestor for
Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, it is very much clear that at the time of execution of theEx.A1 and Ex.A2, it is very much clear that at the time of execution of the two promissory notes in all five (5) persons were present viz., plaintiff,two promissory notes in all five (5) persons were present viz., plaintiff, wife of plaintiff, defendant, friend of defendant and PW2 himself werewife of plaintiff, defendant, friend of defendant and PW2 himself were present. PW2 categorically stated the address and avocation of thepresent. PW2 categorically stated the address and avocation of the defendant. PW2 categorically stated that the plaintiff gave Rs.15,00,000/-defendant. PW2 categorically stated that the plaintiff gave Rs.15,00,000/- on 01.08.2022 and Rs.10,00,000/- on 10.08.2022 to the defendant toon 01.08.2022 and Rs.10,00,000/- on 10.08.2022 to the defendant to meet the business needs of the defendant and the amount was given inmeet the business needs of the defendant and the amount was given in
Rs.500/- denomination. PW2 stated that the defendant subscribed hisRs.500/- denomination. PW2 stated that the defendant subscribed his two signatures each in two promissory notes. PW2 stated that himselftwo signatures each in two promissory notes. PW2 stated that himself and the scribe subscribed their signatures in the two promissory notes.and the scribe subscribed their signatures in the two promissory notes.
Nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PW2 to disbelieve hisNothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PW2 to disbelieve his evidence. evidence.
18.18.From the cross-examination of DW1, it is clear that the plaintiff isFrom the cross-examination of DW1, it is clear that the plaintiff is father-in-law of DW1 by relation. The defendant stated that he has nofather-in-law of DW1 by relation. The defendant stated that he has no disputes with the plaintiff. This evidence of DW1 is contrary to hisdisputes with the plaintiff. This evidence of DW1 is contrary to his averments in his written statement. DW1 admitted that the plaintiff filedaverments in his written statement. DW1 admitted that the plaintiff filed the present suit and creditor insolvency petition against him videthe present suit and creditor insolvency petition against him vide
I.P.No.20/2023 on the file of this Court. DW1 also admitted that, in theI.P.No.20/2023 on the file of this Court. DW1 also admitted that, in the
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 202316 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
present suit and two other suits filed by the brother and sister-in-law ofpresent suit and two other suits filed by the brother and sister-in-law of the plaintiff against him for recovery of money based on promissorythe plaintiff against him for recovery of money based on promissory notes, he has been contending that all said promissory notes are forgednotes, he has been contending that all said promissory notes are forged and fabricated. When there are three suits for recovery of money filed byand fabricated. When there are three suits for recovery of money filed by three different persons and one Insolvency Petition filed by the plaintiffthree different persons and one Insolvency Petition filed by the plaintiff herein are pending, the defendant shall prove that all such transactionsherein are pending, the defendant shall prove that all such transactions are forged and fabricated. But, the mere contention that all suchare forged and fabricated. But, the mere contention that all such transactions of such suits are forged and fabricated cannot be believedtransactions of such suits are forged and fabricated cannot be believed without adducing any relevant evidence. DW1 also stated that he doeswithout adducing any relevant evidence. DW1 also stated that he does not remember the number of blank signed promissory notes issued bynot remember the number of blank signed promissory notes issued by him. However, DW1 again stated that he might have issued two or threehim. However, DW1 again stated that he might have issued two or three blank signed promissory notes and he does not remember in whoseblank signed promissory notes and he does not remember in whose favour those promissory note were issued. So, it is clear that thefavour those promissory note were issued. So, it is clear that the defendant is in the habit of borrowing amounts and issuing promissorydefendant is in the habit of borrowing amounts and issuing promissory note, may be either filled or blank, but duly signed by him. If that is so,note, may be either filled or blank, but duly signed by him. If that is so, the defendant is expected to properly disprove the signatures on Ex.A1the defendant is expected to properly disprove the signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 as not that of him but he is not expected to make mereand Ex.A2 as not that of him but he is not expected to make mere allegation that they are forged and fabricated. DW1 also stated that heallegation that they are forged and fabricated. DW1 also stated that he cannot say from whom the plaintiff allegedly secured his signatures forcannot say from whom the plaintiff allegedly secured his signatures for him to forge his signatures. So, this statement of DW1 falsifies hishim to forge his signatures. So, this statement of DW1 falsifies his contention in his written statement that the plaintiff gained his signaturescontention in his written statement that the plaintiff gained his signatures on the suit promissory notes and as such the suit promissory notes areon the suit promissory notes and as such the suit promissory notes are fabricated. DW1 stated that he has no proof to show that the plaintifffabricated. DW1 stated that he has no proof to show that the plaintiff earlier filed false suits against him or not and he does not know whetherearlier filed false suits against him or not and he does not know whether any other witnesses like attestor were examined on behalf of plaintiff orany other witnesses like attestor were examined on behalf of plaintiff or not. Though the only attestor was examined as PW2, the defendant isnot. Though the only attestor was examined as PW2, the defendant is unable to say that the plaintiff examined the attestor. Of-course, theunable to say that the plaintiff examined the attestor. Of-course, the
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 202317 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
defendant denied his signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 when thosedefendant denied his signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 when those documents are confronted to him. But, such mere denial without proofdocuments are confronted to him. But, such mere denial without proof cannot be accepted. For the reasons best known to the defendant, he didcannot be accepted. For the reasons best known to the defendant, he did not make any attempt to send Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 to the expert fornot make any attempt to send Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 to the expert for comparison and opinion.comparison and opinion.
19.19.So, it is clear that by producing Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and by adducingSo, it is clear that by producing Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and by adducing the evidence of plaintiff himself as PW1 and also by examining thethe evidence of plaintiff himself as PW1 and also by examining the attestor as PW2, the plaintiff succeeded to prove the transactions underattestor as PW2, the plaintiff succeeded to prove the transactions under
Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Further, when the signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 areEx.A1 and Ex.A2. Further, when the signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are proved, the presumption under section 118(a) and (b) of the Negotiableproved, the presumption under section 118(a) and (b) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, will come into play which deals with date andInstruments Act, 1881, will come into play which deals with date and consideration. Further, by virtue of Section 118(g) of the Negotiableconsideration. Further, by virtue of Section 118(g) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, there is a presumption that the holder of aInstruments Act, 1881, there is a presumption that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course. Unless proved contrary,negotiable instrument is a holder in due course. Unless proved contrary, those presumptions are available in favour of the plaintiff. The defendantthose presumptions are available in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant failed to adduce any evidence contrary to the presumptions in sectionfailed to adduce any evidence contrary to the presumptions in section 118(a), (b) and (g) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 118(a), (b) and (g) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
20.20.Hence, it can be safely held that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 true, valid andHence, it can be safely held that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 true, valid and binding on the defendant. So, the defendant is liable to discharge the suitbinding on the defendant. So, the defendant is liable to discharge the suit debt to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suitdebt to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for. These two issues areamount from the defendant, as prayed for. These two issues are accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.3 : : ISSUE No.3
21.21.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendantIn the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.28,62,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eightto pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.28,62,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight
Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand only) together with interest at 12% per annumLakhs Sixty Two Thousand only) together with interest at 12% per annum
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 202318 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
from the date of suit till the date of decree on the principal amount offrom the date of suit till the date of decree on the principal amount of
Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.15,00,000/- + Rs.10,00,000/-) (Rupees Twenty FiveRs.25,00,000/- (Rs.15,00,000/- + Rs.10,00,000/-) (Rupees Twenty Five
Lakhs only) and, thereafter, together with future interest at 6% per annumLakhs only) and, thereafter, together with future interest at 6% per annum till the date of realization on the said principal amount.till the date of realization on the said principal amount.
Dictated to the Stenographer of this Court, transcribed and typed byDictated to the Stenographer of this Court, transcribed and typed by
him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me, in open court, on this thehim, corrected, signed and pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 77thth day of May, 2026. day of May, 2026.
Sd/- Ch.V.Ramakrishna Sd/- Ch.V.Ramakrishna
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Ongole Ongole
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW1 – Thummapudi YedukondaluDW1: Kankipati Venakta Ravi Kumar
PW2 - Ramanaboina Venkateswarlu
Documents Marked
For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Promissory Note dt.01.08.2022 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.15,00,000/-.
Ex.A2: Promissory Note dt.01.08.2022 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.15,00,000/-.
For Defendant: - NIL -
Sd/- Ch.V.Ramakrishna
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Ongole Ongole
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 202319 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR
DIVISION) :: ONGOLE :: DIVISION) :: ONGOLE ::
PRESENT:: SRI CH.V.RAMAKRISHNA PRESENT SRI CH.V.RAMAKRISHNA
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole.
Thursday, this the 7thThursday, this the 7th day of May, 2026. day of May, 2026.
Original Suit No.106 of 2023 Original Suit No.106 of 2023
BETWEEN : : BETWEEN Thummapudi Yedukondalu, S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 53 years,Thummapudi Yedukondalu, S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 53 years, Hindu, Provisions, Business, Rajarajeswari Street, Ranguthota, OngoleHindu, Provisions, Business, Rajarajeswari Street, Ranguthota, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. Town, Prakasam District. …PLAINTIFF …PLAINTIFF
A N D A N D
Kankipati Venkata Ravi Kumar, S/o Visveswara Rao, Hindu, aged aboutKankipati Venkata Ravi Kumar, S/o Visveswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Business, R/o H.No. MIG-I-358, Housing Board Colony, Ongole48 years, Business, R/o H.No. MIG-I-358, Housing Board Colony, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.Town, Prakasam District. (Note: Name of the defendant amended from “Kankipati Ravi Kumar” to(Note: Name of the defendant amended from “Kankipati Ravi Kumar” to “Kankipati Venkata Ravi Kumar” as per orders in I.A.No.742/2023,“Kankipati Venkata Ravi Kumar” as per orders in I.A.No.742/2023, dt.04.03.2024) dt.04.03.2024)
...DEFENDANT ...DEFENDANT
This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.28,62,000/-, being the principalThis suit is filed for recovery of Rs.28,62,000/-, being the principal and interest due on two (2) promissory notes dated 01.08.2022 forand interest due on two (2) promissory notes dated 01.08.2022 for Rs.15,00,000/- and dated 10.08.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/- executed byRs.15,00,000/- and dated 10.08.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/- executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amountsdefendant in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amounts together with interest at 12% per annum either to the plaintiff or to histogether with interest at 12% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and for costs. order on demand and for costs.
CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action for the suit arose onCAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 01.08.2022 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-01.08.2022 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and dated 10.08.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/-, from the plaintiff and executedand dated 10.08.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/-, from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% pertwo promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum in favour of the plaintiff, when the defendant did not choose toannum in favour of the plaintiff, when the defendant did not choose to repay the debt with a view to evade the debt, the transaction took place atrepay the debt with a view to evade the debt, the transaction took place at Ongole, which is within the Jurisdiction of Ongole. Ongole, which is within the Jurisdiction of Ongole. Valuation and Court Fee : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction,Valuation and Court Fee : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs.28,62,000/- (Rs.17,19,000/- + Rs.11,43,000/-)the suit is valued at Rs.28,62,000/- (Rs.17,19,000/- + Rs.11,43,000/-) being principal and interest on the suit promissory note, on which a courtbeing principal and interest on the suit promissory note, on which a court fee of Rs.33,552/- (Rs.19,626/- + Rs.13,926/-) is paid under Section 20 offee of Rs.33,552/- (Rs.19,626/- + Rs.13,926/-) is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F and S.V Act. A.P.C.F and S.V Act.
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE
O.S.No.106 of 202320 ACJ(SD)C, ONGOLE
Plaint presented on : 20.10.2023 and filed on : 28.10.2023Plaint presented on : 20.10.2023 and filed on : 28.10.2023
This suit came up for hearing before me on 22.04.2026, in theThis suit came up for hearing before me on 22.04.2026, in the presence of Sri P.V.Srinivasa Guptha, Advocate for Plaintiff; and Sri R.presence of Sri P.V.Srinivasa Guptha, Advocate for Plaintiff; and Sri R. Venkata Swamy, Advocate for Defendant; and upon hearing both sidesVenkata Swamy, Advocate for Defendant; and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the material on record and this matter having stoodand upon perusal of the material on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree :over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree :
(1) that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay to the(1) that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.28,62,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Sixty Twoplaintiff a sum of Rs.28,62,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand only) together with interest at 12% per annum from the date ofThousand only) together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs.25,00,000/-suit till the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.15,00,000/- + Rs.10,00,000/-) (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) and,(Rs.15,00,000/- + Rs.10,00,000/-) (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) and, thereafter, together with future interest at 6% per annum till the date ofthereafter, together with future interest at 6% per annum till the date of realization on the said principal amount.; andrealization on the said principal amount.; and (2) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,21,664/-(2) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,21,664/- and do bear his own costs;and do bear his own costs;
Given under my hand the seal of the court, this the 7th Given under my hand the seal of the court, this the 7th day of May, 2026. day of May, 2026.
Sd/- Ch.V.Ramakrishna
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Ongole Ongole
Table of Costs Table of Costs
For Plaintiff : For Defendant :For Plaintiff: For Defendant : Stamp on Vakalat…Stamp on Vakalat… Rs. 2-00 Rs. 2-00 Stamp on plaint...Stamp on plaint... 33,552-00 33,552-00 Stamp process… 50-00 (C.M & F.C. Not filed)Stamp process… 50-00 (C.M & F.C. Not filed) Advocate fee…Advocate fee… 87,560-00 87,560-00 Typing charges…Typing charges… 500-00 500-00 ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- ------------------------ Total…Total… Rs.1,21,664-00 NIL Rs.1,21,664-00 NIL ----------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------
Sd/- Ch.V.Ramakrishna
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Ongole Ongole
ACJ(SD), ONGOLE