d.sreenivasulu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

MADANAPALLE:

PRESENT:- Sri D.Srinivasulu,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Wednesday, the 11 th (Eleventh) day of March, 2020

O.S.No. 32 OF 2018

Appiredi Lakshmidevi, W/o A.Damodhar Reddy, aged about years, Hindu, residing at D.NO. 3-145-4-3, A.V.Naidu Colony, Madanapalle.

... Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Kurakula Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Late. K.Babu, Hindu, residing at D.No.6/237/G/8/48/1, Temple Street, Madanapalle.

2. Kurakula Rajasekhar, aged about 26 years, S/o Late. K.Babu, Hindu, Business, D.No.6/237/G/8/48/1, Temple Street, Madanapalle.

3. Kurakula Sudharani, aged about 24 years, D/o Late. K.Babu, Hindu, residing at D.No.6/237/G/8/48/1, Temple Street, Madanapalle.

... Defendants

This suit is coming on 05-03-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Amaranatha Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Kanchi Manjunatha Reddy, Advocate for Defendants and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGEMENT

T

01. The suit for recovery of Rs.4,44,136/- being the balance of the principal and interest due on a Registered

Simple Mortgage Deed dt. 24.01.2014 executed by one K.Babu in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,50,000/- repayable with interest at 24% PA and subsequently the said K.Babu died without 2 discharging the said debt and that the defendants being the

Class Legal Heirs of said K.Babu also failed to discharge debt on repeated demands made by the plaintiff and on that plaintiff got issued legal notices on 22.12.2017 and on 08.01.2018 but they failed to discharge the same and now the plaintiff is claiming the same contract rate of interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and for passing preliminary decree against the defendants for realization of the suit amount and in default the mortgage property be sold in public auction for realization of the suit amount by passing final decree.

02. The brief facts of the plaint allegations are as follows:

That husband of defendant NO.1 and father of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by name Kurakula Babu has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 28.10.2014 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% PA., towards meeting the mortgage expenses of the defendant No.3. As a security for the said loan borrowed by the said K.Babu, he has mortgaged the property more fully described in the schedule hereunder and herein after called as the plaint schedule property by executing Registered Simple Mortgage Deed bearing No.6023/2014 of SRO, Madanapalle in favour of the plaintiff dt. 28.10.2014. The simple mortgage deed is attested by the two witnesses as required under law and registered with accordance with the Registration Act. The original mortgage deed executed K.Babu in favour of the plaintiff is filed herewith and its contents may be read as part and parcel of the 3 plaint pleadings. The particulars of mortgage are furnished hereunder.

The particulars of the mortgage are as follows:- i. Name of the Mortgager : Kurakula Babu ii. Name of the Mortgagee : Appireddi Lakshmidevi iii. Mortgage amount : Rs.2,50,000/- iv. Interest : 24% PA v. Nature of the Mortgage : Simple Mortgage vi. Property Mortgaged : Vide separate schedule.

03. It is further submitted that subsequently the mortgagor K.Babu died without discharging the mortgage debt.

After death of the mortgagor the plaint schedule property was devolved upon the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 as the defendants

Nos. 1 to 3 are class-I legal heirs to the mortgagor. As the plaint schedule property was mortgaged by he said Babu, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the debt by proceeding against the mortgaged property i.e., the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further states that after death of the mortgagor, the plaintiff demanded the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on number of occasions to discharge the amount due under the mortgage deed. Earlier the plaintiff issued notices was to discharge the debt. But the defendants did not repay the same and postponing on some pretext or the other.

4

04. Therefore the plaintiff issued a legal notice dt.

22.12.2017 to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 through Registered

Post demanding them to pay the mortgage debt. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dt. 08.01.2018 to the defendant NO.1 through registered post demanding her to pay the mortgage debt. The office copies of the legal notices along with postal acknowledgments under which the defendants have received the legal notices are herewith filed. Though the defendants have received the legal notice the defendants neither discharged the mortgage debt nor issued any reply notice to the legal notices of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

05. The defendant filed written statement denied the plaint averments;

The defendant submits the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Except the allegations that are admitted herein this defendant does not admit the rest of the allegations mentioned in the plaint and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The allegations mentioned in para

NO.3, 4 and 5 are all false. The defendants further submits that the defendant has received legal notice dt. 8.1.2018. After receiving of the legal notice this defendant has personally approached the plaintiff and questioned her about the contents of notice and the plaintiff has not properly replied. This defendant and her children are only having the house property which is shown in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff taking advantage of sudden death of K.Babu and helplessness of this defendant and her children has filed the above suit with all false allegations. The signatures in the suit registered mortgage 5 deed are not belongs to Late.K.Babu. This defendant's husband has never borrowed any amount and he never executed the alleged suit mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff only in order to knock away the suit property of this defendant has filed the above suit with al false allegations. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief against this defendant and her children. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit against this defendant and the alleged cause of action mentioned in para NO.9 of the plaint are not correct. The particulars of valuation mentioned in para NO.10 of the plaint are not correct. Hence, prays this court to dismiss the suit.

06. Basing on the said pleadings, the following Issues was settled on 04-12-2019.

1. Whether the suit document i.e., Registered Simple Mortgage Deed dt. 28.10.2014 is true,

valid and binding on the defendants?

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

3.To what relief?

07. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff

PW1 & PW.2 examined and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 got marked. On behalf of the defendants DW-1 was examined and no documents were marked.

08. Heard the arguments on both sides.

Issues Nos. 1 to 2::::

09.

In order to prove that the mortgage deed (

Ex.A-1) is a genuine document the plaintiff stepped into the 6 witness box, examined herself as PW-1 and examined of the attestors by name- S.Khaleel as PW-2.

10. The plea of the defendants is that the suit document i.e., Mortgage Deed dt. 28.10.2014 ( Ex.A-1) is a forged document and the deceased Late. K.Babu had never executed the said document. None of the defendants who are the legal heirs of Late. K.Babu, who is alleged mortgagor, have entered into the witness box. As seen from the cross- examination of the PW-1 and PW-2, it is clear that it was suggested to PW-1 that neither herself nor her husband

Damodhar Reddy has acquaintance with Late. K.Babu prior to the date of Ex.A-1, but they got acquaintance with Late.

K.Babu on the date of Ex.A-1 itself through the said S.Khaleel (PW-2) and the said fact was admitted by PW-1. During the cross-examination of PW-2 also, it was suggested to him that there was no prior acquaintance between the plaintiff and the deceased Late. K.Babu prior to the date of suit document and it was PW-2 himself introduced the plaintiff to the deceased

Late. K.Babu, the mortgagor. Hence from the said suggestion put to PW-1 and PW-2 by the learned counsel for the defendants, it appears that the defendants appear to have admits the acquaintance in between PW-2-S.Khaleel and Late.

K.Babu. Further it is clear from the cross-examination of PW-2 that it was suggested to him that in the other mortgage deed executed by Late. K.Babu in favour of one Harika, relative of the plaintiff herein, PW-2- S.Khaleel himself is the attestor.

Simply for the reasons that PW.2-S.Khaleel happened to be 7 attestor for the suit document i.e., Ex.A-1 herein and the other mortgage deed allegedly executed by Late. K.Babu in favour of said Harika, PW-2-S.Khaleel cannot be said to have made false attestation much particularly in view of the admission of the factum of acquaintance between PW-2-S.Khaleel and the deceased Late. K.Babu, mortgagor.

11. Apart from the above suggestions, nothing much substantial cross-examination was done and nothing was elicited from PW-1 and PW-2 to disbelieve their evidence.

Moreover, though the burden lies on the defendants to disprove the case of the plaintiff, none of the defendants have placed any evidence before this court. No witness is examined and no document marked on behalf of the defendants. For the said reasons coupled with the other reasons discussed above, the defendants can be held to have failed to disprove the plaintiff's case and the plaintiff can be said to have proved her case. Hence issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

12. Issue No.3::

To What relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.4,44,136/- together with interest at the rate of 12% PA from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% PA till the date of realization on the principal 8 amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. Time for redemption is three months.

Accordingly, a preliminary decree is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and Pronounced by me in the open court this the 11 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-D.Srinivasulu

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff

PW1: A.Lakshmi Devi PW2: S.Khaleel

Defendants:

DW1: K.Vijaya Lakshmi

Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiff

Ex.A-1 : Original Registered Simple Mortgage deed dt. 28.10.2014 executed by Kurakula Babu in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A-2 : Office copy of legal notice dt. 22.12.2017 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3.

Ex.A-3 : Postal acknowledgments ( 2 in number) dt. 27.12.2017.

Ex.A-4 : The office copy of legal notice dt. 08.01.2018 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1.

Ex.A-5 : Postal acknowledgment dt. 09.01.2018.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendants

- NIL-

Sd/-D.Srinivasulu

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

MADANAPALLE:

PRESENT:- Sri D.Srinivasulu,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.

Wednesday, the 11 th (Eleventh) day of March, 2020

O.S.No. 32 OF 2018

Appiredi Lakshmidevi, W/o A.Damodhar Reddy, aged about years, Hindu, residing at D.NO. 3-145-4-3, A.V.Naidu Colony, Madanapalle.

... Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Kurakula Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Late. K.Babu, Hindu, residing at D.No.6/237/G/8/48/1, Temple Street, Madanapalle.

2. Kurakula Rajasekhar, aged about 26 years, S/o Late. K.Babu, Hindu, Business, D.No.6/237/G/8/48/1, Temple Street, Madanapalle.

3. Kurakula Sudharani, aged about 24 years, D/o Late. K.Babu, Hindu, residing at D.No.6/237/G/8/48/1, Temple Street, Madanapalle.

... Defendants

Plaint presented on 25.01.2018 and filed on 25.01.2018.

Cause of action for the suit arose at Madanapalle within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court on 28.10.2014 when K.Babu borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% PA when the said Babu executed Registered Simple Mortgage Deed in favour of the plaintiff on the same date and the said K.Babu died without discharging the debt and when the mortgage schedule property was devolved upon the defendants being class-I legal heirs of K.Babu and when the plaintiff demanded the defendants to discharge the amount due under the mortgage deed and when the defendants did not pay the same and when the plaintiff issued legal notices dt.22.12.2017 and 8.1.2017 calling upon the defendants to discharge the principal and interest due under the registered simple mortgage and when the defendants received the said notice, but when the defendants neither paid the amount nor replied for the said notices.

2

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION

Mortgage amount Rs.2,50,000-00

Interest at 24% PA from 28.10.2014 to 22.01.2018 Rs.1,94,136-00 ---------------------

Total:- Rs.4,44,136-00 ---------------------

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction of Rs.4,44,136-00 and a court fee of Rs.6,876/- is paid U/sec. 31 of APCF Act. The suit for recovery of Rs.4,44,136/- being the balance of the principal and interest due on a Registered Simple Mortgage Deed dt. 24.01.2014 executed by one K.Babu in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,50,000/- repayable with interest at 24% PA and subsequently the said K.Babu died without discharging the said debt and that the defendants being the Class Legal Heirs of said K.Babu also failed to discharge debt on repeated demands made by the plaintiff and on that plaintiff got issued legal notices on 22.12.2017 and on 08.01.2018 but they failed to discharge the same and now the plaintiff is claiming the same contract rate of interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and for passing preliminary decree against the defendants for realization of the suit amount and in default the mortgage property be sold in public auction for realization of the suit amount by passing final decree.

This suit is coming on 05-03-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Amaranatha Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Kanchi Manjunatha Reddy, Advocate for Defendants and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and pass preliminary decree as follows:-

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to this the 11th day of March, 2020 is the sum of Rs.4,44,136 /- being the suit amount, a sum of Rs.1,13,252/- being the interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit i.e., 25.01.2018 till the date of decree i.e., 11.03.2020, a sum of Rs.6,660/- being the interest at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of redemption i.e., 10.06.2020 on the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and a sum 3 of Rs.21,028/- towards costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, making in all the sum of Rs.5,85,076/-.

2. And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:

i That the defendant do pay into Court on or before the 10th day of June, 2020 (i.e., the date of redemption) or any later date up to which time for payment may be extended by the Court, the said sum of Rs. 5,85,076/-, in default, the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- shall carry further interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from 11.06.2020 till the date of realization.

ii That, on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such amount as the court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11, of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned, and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant, or to such person as he appoints, and the Plaintiff shall, if so required, re-convey and re-transfer the said property free from the said mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrances created by the Plaintiffs or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall, if so required, deliver up to the defendant quiet and peaceable possession of the said property.

3. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that in default of payment as aforesaid, the Plaintiffs may apply to the court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and on such application being made, the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof shall be directed to be sold and for the purposes of such sale, the Plaintiffs shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

4. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the Plaintiffs under this decree and under any further order that may be passed in 4 this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the Plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under

Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the balance if any, shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same.

5. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the Plaintiffs as aforesaid, the Plaintiffs shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by any Law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance; and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the court from time to time as they may have occasion, and on such application or otherwise, the court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 11 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-D.Srinivasulu

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE

S C H E D U L E

Chittoor District –Madanapalle Sub District, Madanapalle

Municipal Area, Madanapalle Revenue Village, Madanapalle

Town, Ward No.9, subsequently declared by Municipality as

Ward No.6, Penchupadu Road Extension, related to Devalam

Street, Survey No.91, RCC House bearing D.No.6-237-G-8-48.

Bounded On :

East : 20 feet width road,

West : Vacant site earlier owned by Boyapati Reddeppa

Reddy and now the house of others.

North : Vacant site earlier owned by Boyapati Reddeppa

Reddy and now the house of Masthan.

South : House of Basinikonda Rajanna.

5

Within the said boundaries property measuring East –

West : 45 feet or 13.72 meters on both sides, North – South on both sides 18 feet or 5.49 meters, totally measuring 815 Sq feet or 90 Sq. Yards with floor area Paiki half share i.e., 45 Sq .

Feet RCC Building Half share i.e., 405 Sq. feet RCC Building joint.

First floor 810 Sq. Feet RCC Building Paiki half share i.e., 405

Sq. Feets RCC Building joint, 2nd floor 810 Sq. Feet RCC

Building Paiki half share i.e., 405 Sq. Feets RCC Building joint with doors, door frames, windows, almarahs, roof, floor electrical appliances, stair case, walls on four sides with full right, municipal water tap connection, electricity meter half share joint.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

S.No. Particulars Plaintiff Defendants Rs. Rs. 1 Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 Cost memo not filed. Hence cost 2 Stamp on plaint 6,926 -00 not certified.

3 Advocate 14,000-00 4 Typing charges 100-00

Total 21,028 -00

Id/-D.S ASCJ/MDL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AT MADANAPALLE.

Present :- Sri. D.Sreenivasulu,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Madanapalle.

Monday, the Eighteenth (18th) day of May, Two Thousand and Twenty.

O.S. No. 164 of 2018

J.Govindu, S/o Gopalu, Hindu, aged about 52 years, residing at Kothapeta Street of B.Kothakota.

.. PLAINTIFF.

// VERSUS //

Y.Sreenivasulu, S/o Mariyappa, Hindu, aged about 45 years, residing at Venkateswara Extension DVG Main Road of Sreenivaspur of Karnataka State.

.. DEFENDANT.

This Suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri Subrabhi Rama Gopal Rao, Advocate for the

Plaintiff and Sri D.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) This is a suit for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- being the

principal due on a cheque bearing No.303536 dt. 13.03.2018 drawn

2 on State Bank of India, Srinivasapur Branch of Kolar District by the defendant for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, being the amount borrowed from the plaintiff in January, 2018 as hand loan by the defendant and issued post dated cheque dt. 13.03.2018 and on repeated demands made by the plaintiff presented the cheque into Saptagiri Grameena Bank, B.Kothakota on 13.03.2018 and the same is dishonoured on 21.04.2018 as insufficient funds and the fact also intimated to the defendant through legal notice dt.

28.04.2018 but he evaded to receive the same.

2) The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiff submits that the defendant is known to the plaintiff and living by doing business and for the sake of the business, the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff in the month of January, 2018 at B.Kothakota as hand loan by promising that he will discharge the same within short time as he is expecting amount from outside and the defendant has not come for word to discharge the same inspite of his demand and at last the defendant has give post dated cheque with date of 13.03.2018 of SBI of Sreenivasapuram by promising that he will adjust the amount in the bank.

3

The plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff has accepted the said cheque bearing No. 303536 and as per the wrod of the defendant, the plaintiff has send the said cheque for collection through Sapthagiri Bank of B.Kothakota and the same was returned on 24.04.2018 with an endorsement of "funds insufficient" in his account and immediately the plaintiff has initiated the same to the defendant, but no response from the defendant and the plaintiff got issued Registered Legal notice to the defendant on 28.04.2018 by demanding him to s discharge the same and the same was returned with an endorsement of that the defendant has refused to receive the same. Hence the plaintiff constrained to file the suit for recovery of the same. Hence the suit.

3) The written statement of the defendant in brief is as follows:- The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and it is liable to be dismissed in limini. The allegations set out by the plaintiff in paras Nos. 3 and 4 are false in correct which are specifically admitted by the defendant herein and the rest of the allegations are false and incorrect. The allegations mentioned in para Nos. 2 and 3 of the written statement are all false. The defendant submit that the plaintiff running a unauthorized chits for monthly.

4

The defendant is one of the subscribers in the said chit run by plaintiff for sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendant is the highest bidder for the 15th month in the year 2017 at the time of disbursement of price money the plaintiff obtained one empty signed cheque from the defendant for collateral surety only.

The defendant only signatory only and he do not know the reading and writing of the Telugu and English languages. After completion of the chit period the defendant orally demanded to the plaint to return the said cheque to the defendant, but the plaintiff told the said cheque is misplaced in his house whenever the said cheque found and same to be return to the defendant.

The defendant believed the sweet words of the plaintiff and keep silent for all these days. After lapse of prescribed period the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant taking the advantage of empty signed cheque and filed present suit against the defendant for unlawful gain for sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. The plaintiff never paid single pie to the defendant under the alleged cheque at any point of time. The plaintiff has no capacity to let out the huge amounts much less than the suit amount to the defendant under a hand loan and that the defendant has no need of the huge amount to borrow from the plaintiff no notice is served to the defendant so far. After receipt of summons from this 5 court the defendant wondered and astonished how the plaintiff filed the present suit. There is no transaction in between the plaintiff and defendant except the chit transaction only. Hence prays this court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. On the above pleadings, this court settled the following issues for trial on 06.11.2019 :

1) Whether the plaintiff advanced hand loan of

Rs.8,00,000/- to the defendant in January,

2018?

2) Whether the cheque in question i.e., the suit

document is supported by cash consideration?

3)

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the

suit claim? 4) To what relief ?

5) The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A.4.

6) Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

7) Issue Nos. 1 to 3 :

It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed hand-loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on one day in the month of January, 2018 and for repayment of the said debt/hand-loan of Rs.8,00,000/-, some time after borrowing the defendant herein has issued a postdated cheque dt. 30.03.2018 6 and bearing No.303536 and the same was dishonoured in April, 2018 and hence for recovery of the said Rs.8,00,000/-.

8) The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff used to run unauthorized chits and the defendant was member of one such chit of Rs.1,00,000/- and in the 15th month of the said chit i.e., in the year 2017, when he became highest bidder and was receiving the bid amount , the defendant obtained signed blank cheque for collateral purpose and that the defendant paid all the installments of the said chit and when he demanded the plaintiff for repayment of the empty signed cheque and defendant evaded to return it on the pretext of misplacing.

9) In view of the contention of the defendant, that for collateral purpose for alleged chit transaction towards collateral security. The defendant issued a empty signed cheque to the plaintiff, the burden lies on the defendant to prove the alleged chit transaction himself and the plaintiff and issuance of empty signed cheque as collateral security. But during the cross- examination of PW-1 the defendant did not even put any suggestions relating to the alleged chit transaction. Apart from that, the defendant did not step into the witness box in order to discharge the burden lying on him. It is a well settled principle of law that the party who contest the plea that the particular cheque 7 was given as collateral security has to prove the said factum. As the defendant herein has not stepped into the witness box and not even put suggestions to plaintiff/PW-1 during the cross- examination regarding the so called chit transaction, it can be held that the defendant failed to proved his case. Hence, the issues

Nos. 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

10) Issue No.4 : To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 12% PA from the date of filing the suit to till the date of decree and future interest @ 6 % PA from the date of decree till the date of realization and also costs of the same.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant of this court. Corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 18 th day of May, 2020.

Sd/-D.Srinivasulu

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the plaintiff For the Defendant

Witnesses examined

PW.1 G.Govindu -None- 8

Exhibits marked

For the plaintiff For the Defendant

Ex.A1 Cheque bearing -NIL- No.303536 issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 Return memo issued by the Bank.

Ex.A3 Office copy of the Registered Legal notice issued to the defendant. Ex.A4 Returned cover with refused endorsement by the defendant.

Id/-D.S.

A.S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MADANAPALLE.

Present Sri. D.Sreenivasulu,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Madanapalle.

Monday, the Eighteenth (18 th ) day of May, Two Thousand and Twenty.

O.S. No. 164 of 2018

J.Govindu, S/o Gopalu, Hindu, aged about 52 years, residing at Kothapeta Street of B.Kothakota.

.. PLAINTIFF.

// VERSUS //

Y.Sreenivasulu, S/o Mariyappa, Hindu, aged about 45 years, residing at Venkateswara Extension DVG Main Road of Sreenivaspur of Karnataka State.

.. DEFENDANT.

This is a suit for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- being the principal due on a cheque bearing No.303536 dt. 13.03.2018 drawn on State Bank of India, Srinivasapur Branch of Kolar District by the defendant for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, being the amount borrowed from the plaintiff in January, 2018 as hand loan by the defendant and issued post dated cheque dt. 13.03.2018 and on repeated demands made by the plaintiff presented the cheque into Saptagiri Grameena Bank, B.Kothakota on 13.03.2018 and the same is dishonoured on 21.04.2018 as insufficient funds and the fact also intimated to the defendant through legal notice dt. 28.04.2018 but he evaded to receive the same.

Plaint presented on : 21-06-2018

The cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the 2 plaintiff for his business sake at B.Kothakota in the Month of January,2018 as hand-loan by promising that he will discharge the same short time and as he has not turned up on the demand of the plaintiff, the defendant has issued post dated cheque in the name of the plaintiff, the defendant has issued post dated cheque in the name of the plaintiff for that amount with date of 13.03.2018 of SBI of Sreenivasapuram and when the plaintiff has presented the same and the same was returned and the plaintiff got issued Registered Legal Notice also to the defendant on 28.04.2018 and the same was refused by the defendant and the defendant is the native and resident of Beerangi, shifted his residence to Karnataka due to heavy debts and the transaction held at B.Kothakota within the jurisdiction of this court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION

Amount due under suit cheque is Rs.8,00,000/-

The value of the suit is for the purpose of the court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.8,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.10,426/- is paid hereunder section 20 of APCF Act.

This Suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri Subrabhi Rama Gopal Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri D.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Courtdoth order and decretal order are as follows:

1) That the suit be and same is hereby decreed with

2) costs. That the defendant do pay the plaintiff to pay sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 12% PA from the date of filing the suit to till the date of decree and future interest @ 6 % PA from the date of decree till the date of realization and also costs of the same.

3) That the defendant do also pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 26,328/= towards the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the Seal of the Court, this the 18 th day of May, 2020.

Sd/-D.Srinivasulu

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE.

3

STATEMENT OF COSTS

Sl. For plaintiff For Defendant No Rs. Rs.

1) Stamp on plaint 10,426 =00

2) Stamp for power 10,426=00

3) Advocate's Fee 15,800=00 Cost Memo not filed.

4) Typing Charges 100=00 Hence cost not certified. ---------------

TOTAL 26,328-00 ========

Id/-D.S A.S.C.J. MPL