D.Yedukondalu

O.S.No.84/20131/8 26.04.2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUDUR

Present: Sri D. Yedukondalu,

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2017

O.S. No.84/2013

Gali Vinod…Plaintiff

Vs.

Kodamala Vandanam…Defendant

This suit is coming on 19.04.2017 before me in the presence of Sri M. Soma Sekhar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri V. Munikrishna Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of

Rs.6,80,000/- basing on the promissory note dated 19.03.2010 with future interest; and costs of the suit.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:- The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.03.2010 on execution of a promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order, on demand. Subsequently, the defendant did not repay any amount in-spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 12.06.2011 and the defendant also got issued a reply notice on 19.06.2011. Hence, the suit.

3) The defendant filed his written statement. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:- He specifically denied the allegations in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff was a student as on 19.03.2010 and he had no capacity to lend such huge amount mentioned in the promissory note. The plaintiff's mother namely G. Girija was doing money lending business with the highest rate of interest of

Rs.30/- per month per Rs.100/- and created promissory note with forged signatures of the defendant in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's mother with the help of one

Sundaram was doing unlawful acts and also abused the defendant and his wife with their caste. The defendant and his family belong to schedule caste. The plaintiff and his mother were harassing the defendant in several times. The plaintiff sent a stereo typed notice without date by filling the blanks. The defendant got issued a reply notice requesting the defendant's Advocate to send Xerox copy of the promissory note. The plaintiff or his Advocate did not send the Xerox copy of the promissory note. So, the

O.S.No.84/20132/8 26.04.2017

suit promissory note was not ready as on the date of reply notice dated 19.06.2011.

The plaint was presented on 18.07.2011. In the relief column also, the date was mentioned as “ .07.2011” without putting the date. After the reply was sent, the plaintiff and his mother filled the date and executed the alleged promissory note for the purpose of filing the suit on 18.07.2011 which was mentioned in the relief and on verification after the signature of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not submit income tax returns. The plaintiff's mother filed another suit in O.S.No.92/2011 on the file of Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Sullurpet for recovery of a sum of Rs.97,250/-. She also filed a

promissory note on Rs.100/- Non-judicial stamp papers wherein the defendant signatures were admitted. The signatures in the suit promissory note and on the stamped promissory note are different. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

4) Basing on the above pleadings, as there were no elements of settlement, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

(i) Whether the suit promissory note dated 19.03.2010 is true, valid and supported by consideration?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

5) To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself gave evidence as

PW1 and he also examined one Ragi Sundara Rajan as PW2 on his behalf. Exs.A1 to

A4 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant himself gave evidence as DW1 and Exs.B1 to B3 are marked on behalf of the defendant.

6) Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant.

7) ISSUE No.1:- In a suit for recovery of money basing on a promissory note, the burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to prove that the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for consideration, especially, when the defendant denied the execution of the promissory note by taking a plea of forgery. In order to prove the fact that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour, the plaintiff relied upon his own evidence as PW1 and the evidence of PW2 Sundara Rajan coupled with Exs.A1 to A4. According to the evidence of PW1 Vinod coupled with Ex.A1 promissory note, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from him on 19.03.2010 and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum either to him or to his order, on demand. The learned counsel for the defendant cross-examined PW1 Vinod. During the cross-examination,

O.S.No.84/20133/8 26.04.2017

PW1 Vinod categorically denied a suggestion that he was a student as on the date of

Ex.A1. He voluntarily deposed that he was working as Assistant Professor as on the date of Ex.A1 and he can produce the document prove that he was working as

Assistant professor as on the date of Ex.A1 if it is required. He also deposed that he can also produce documents such as bank statements and his income tax returns to prove that he was having capacity to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as on Ex.A1. Though the learned counsel for the defendant elicited that he did not file his income tax returns

before the Court as on the date of his cross-examination, he did not insist PW1 Vinod

to produce bank statement and income tax returns to prove his capacity to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant as on the date of Ex.A1. Hence, it is clear that the plaintiff was having capacity to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as on the date of Ex.A1.

PW1 Vinod further categorically deposed that his mother is not doing money lending business on higher rates of interest, but, she used to lend money and recover the same. More over, he pleaded ignorance as to filing of a suit by his mother in

O.S.No.92/2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Sullurpet against the

defendant herein, because, he is resident of Chennai and he used to come to his mother once in a week. So, the plaintiff might not have knowledge over filing of the suit by his mother in O.S.No.92/2011 against the defendant, especially, in the light of his evidence that his mother used to lend money and recover the same. However, the learned counsel for the defendant further elicited from the cross-examination of PW1

Vinod that he got issued a legal notice and the defendant got issued a reply. So, there is no dispute about the fact that Ex.A2 legal notice was served on the defendant, he acknowledged the same under Ex.A3 and got issued Ex.A4 reply notice. PW1 Vinod also admitted that the defendant requested to send a Xerox copy of the promissory note and he instructed his Advocate to send Xerox copy of promissory note, but, he does not know whether it was sent or not. So, the plaintiff fairly instructed his Advocate to send Xerox copy of the promissory note to the defendant and it appears that the

Advocate for the plaintiff did not send the same. So, the plaintiff cannot be found fault and the same is not a ground for dismissal of a suit as the defendant was not precluded from taking any defence as he was supplied with the copy of the plaint along with the Xerox copy of the promissory note at the time of service of suit summons. So, the failure on the part of the plaintiff or his Advocate to supply a Xerox copy of promissory note is not a ground to dismiss the suit or to presume that Ex.A1 promissory note is a fabricated document.

7.2) However, the learned counsel for the defendant further elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 Vinod that the plaint was presented on 18.03.2013, but not, on 18.07.2011. The defendant specifically raised a plea at Para No.9 of his written statement that the plaint was presented on 18.07.2011 by keeping the date blank and

O.S.No.84/20134/8 26.04.2017

mentioning the month and year as “ .07.2011” and so, the promissory note was fabricated after receipt of Ex.A4 reply notice dated 19.06.2011. In this regard, PW1

Vinod categorically deposed that the plaint was presented on 18.03.2013, but not, on 18.07.2011. I have gone through the plaint/s on record. Once the plaintiff presented the plaint, he shall present the plaint and the plaint in duplicate as required U/Sec.26 r/w

Order 4 Rule 1 (1) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The plaintiff presented two copies of the plaints without mentioning ‘plaint in duplicate’ on the 2nd copy. In one of the copies, at the relief portion, he kept the suit amount blank and mentioned the date as “ .07.2011” and subsequently mentioned the suit amount as “Rs.6,80,000” and mentioned the date as “18” and corrected the month as “03”. He omitted to correct the year and left the year as “2011”. So, the date became as “18.03.2011” instead of “18.03.2013”. Similarly, at the verification, the date was mentioned as “ .07.2011” and corrected as “18.03.2013”. But, upon going through the second copy of the plaint, the suit amount is mentioned as Rs.6,80,000/- and the date is mentioned as 18.03.2013 in the relief portion and it is computer generated copy without any wrtings as in first copy, except at the interest portion as 12%. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that a copy of the plaint was prepared and by mistake the year was not corrected in the relief portion and subsequently, the fair copy of the plaint was taken and both the plaints as plaint and plaint in duplicate were filed before the Court. Surprisingly, the

Superintendent of the Court did not take any objection. Both the plaints were presented on 18.03.2013 and the suit was numbered on the same day without any return. But, as argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in Ex.A2 itself, the date of the promissory note was mentioned as 19.03.2010. So, it cannot be presumed that the suit promissory note was not in existence as on the date of issuing Ex.A4 reply and it was subsequently prepared. In other words, there is no nexus between the correction of the date in the relief column and at the verification in one of the plaint copies and the date mentioned in Ex.A1. So, the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendant is of no use. The learned counsel for the defendant confronted the signatures of the defendant available in Exs.A1 and A3 to PW1 Vinod and he deposed that there is no difference among the signatures of the defendant in Exs.A1 and A3.

Admittedly, the defendant signed Ex.A3 on receipt of Ex.A2 legal notice. Upon comparing the signatures in Exs.A1 and A3, I do not find much difference except the natural variations. It may not be out of place to mention that there are some variations in writing the last letter of “m” at the end of the signature of the defendant in Ex.A1 itself. Such natural variations are found in the other admitted signatures of the defendant available on record. But, there are no dis-similarities as argued by the learned counsel for the defendant. PW1 Vinod categorically denied a suggestion that his mother bore grudge against the defendant and created Ex.A1 with his help.

O.S.No.84/20135/8 26.04.2017

Admittedly, the plaintiff's mother filed a suit in O.S.No.92/2011 for recovery of money against the defendant. So, the question of bearing grudge against the defendant does not arise. PW1 Vinod categorically deposed that PW2 Sundarm/Sundara Rajan is the scribe and he also deposed that Ex.A1 was executed at about 7-00 p.m or 7.30 p.m.

He also deposed the presence of defendant's wife and one Siva Prasad at the time of money transaction. Nothing is elicited from his cross-examination to disprove the money transaction or to prove that Ex.A1 is a fabricated document, except the facts referred supra. Basing upon the above said facts, I cannot come to a just conclusion that Ex.A1 is fabricated document, more particularly, in view of the alleged grudges between the plaintiff's mother and the defendant.

7.3) The plaintiff also examined PW2 Sundara Rajan who is the scribe of Ex.A1 to prove that the defendant executed the same for consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. He filed his chief-affidavit supporting the version of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendant cross-examined PW2 Sundara Rajan. During the Cross-examination, he admitted that he also gave evidence in O.S.No.92/2011 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Sullurpet on behalf of the plaintiff's mother. As argued by the learned

counsel for the plaintiff, since PW2 Sundara Rajan scribed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff's mother, he might have been called for scribing the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff as well. Since the defendant is common in both the money transactions, it does not mean that PW2 Sundara Rajan is a stock witness to the plaintiff. More over, he categorically deposed that the plaintiff studied M.Tech and he is doing employment since long time. He also deposed the time of Ex.A1 promissory note. It may not be out of place to mention that there is no denial as to the fact that the defendant's wife also attested Ex.A1 promissory note though PW2 Sundara Rajan categorically stated the same in his chief-affidavit. Hence, nothing is elicited from his cross-examination as well to disprove the money transaction under Ex.A1. Hence, the plaintiff by giving evidence as PW1 and by examining the scribe as PW2 and also by producing Ex.A1 promissory note discharged the burden of proof lies upon him. The plaintiff being discharged the burden of proof lies upon him, the onus of proof shifts upon the defendant to prove otherwise. More over, once the execution of promissory note is proved, this Court shall draw a presumption U/Sec.118 (a) of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 that Ex.A1 is supported by consideration. Hence, it is for the defendant to rebut the presumption drawn U/Sec.118 (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

7.4) In order to prove the fact that Ex.A1 promissory note is fabricated document, the defendant relied upon his own evidence coupled with Exs.B1 to B3. The defendant filed his chief-affidavit narrating the contents of his written statement in his

O.S.No.84/20136/8 26.04.2017

chief-affidavit and those need not be reproduced once again. The learned counsel for the plaintiff cross-examined DW1 Vandanam. During the cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know whether the plaintiff is working as a Lecturer in a private Engineering College, Chennai, without denying the same. More over, he himself deposed that he does not know PW2 Sundara Rajan who is the scribe of Ex.A1 for the reasons best known to him. He further admitted that he got mentioned in his chief- affidavit that the plaintiff's mother was doing unlawful acts with the help of one

Sundaram and he does not know the said Sundaram. If the version of the defendant is true that the plaintiff's mother was doing such unlawful acts with the help of the said

Sundaram, the said Sundaram shall be a known to the defendant. But, for the reasons best known to him, he himself deposed that he does not know the said Sundaram. But, he pleaded that the plaintiff's mother was doing unlawful acts with the help of the said

Sundaram. So, the evidence of DW1 Vandanam is self inconsistent. More over, he categorically deposed that K. Suseelamma is his wife. Upon going through the contents of Ex.A1, one K. Suseelamma attested the same as first attestor. But, DW1 Vandanam deposed that he cannot identify her signature in Ex.A1 promissory note. The defendant can say that the signature belongs to his wife or it does not belong to his wife. So, it is clear that he purposefully stated that he cannot identify the signature of his wife. More over, he deposed that he takes steps to call for the records containing his signatures from SHAR. Admittedly, the defendant was a SHAR employee and he could have signed in certain records as on the date of Ex.A1. Though he undertook to take steps to call for the records containing his signatures, he did not take any steps, but, he filed

Exs.B1 to B3 which are the certified copy of promissory note on Non-judicial stamp paper dated 15.01.2009 executed in favour of the plaintiff's mother, certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.92/2011 and certified copy of the written statement. There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff's mother filed O.S.No.92/2011 and the defendant filed his written statement. Exs.B1 and B3 contained the signatures of the defendant. Upon comparison of his signatures in Ex.B1 with his signatures in Ex.B3, there are some natural variations. When his signatures in Ex.B3 are compared with the disputed signatures in Ex.A1, there is no much difference except the natural variations. Such natural variations are found when the signatures of the defendant in the written statement in this suit are compared with his signatures in his chief-affidavit and cross- examination. The signatures in his chief-affidavit and cross-examination appears some what different from his signatures in the written statement. So, there are considerable natural variations from one signature to another. Except those natural variations, I do not find any difference in the admitted signatures and disputed signatures. So, there is no sufficient evidence on record to come to a just conclusion that Ex.A1 is fabricated document whereas the plaintiff proved that the defendant executed the same for

O.S.No.84/20137/8 26.04.2017

consideration. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8) ISSUE No.2: - In view of my findings in issues No.1, Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration. According to the evidence of PW1 Vinod coupled with Ex.A2, in-spite of issuing legal notice, the defendant did not repay the amount by issuing Ex.A4 reply. So, the defendant is liable to repay the suit amount.

However, the plaintiff also claimed the rate of interest at 12% per annum from the date of Ex.A1 till the date of filing the suit. As such, I am inclined to grant interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree on principal sum and interest thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization as required U/Sec.34 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit along with interest and costs accordingly.

9) ISSUE No.3:- In view of my findings in issues No.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount with costs and interest referred supra.

10) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.6,80,000/- (Rupees six lakhs eighty thousands only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree on principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and interest thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, on this the 26th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: Gali VinodDW1: Kodamala Vandanam

PW2: Ragi Sundara Rajan

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Exhibit DateDescription of document

A119.03.2010 : Promissory note

A212.06.2011: Office copy of legal notice

A3---: Postal acknowledgment

A419.06.2011: Reply notice

O.S.No.84/20138/8 26.04.2017

For Defendant:

Exhibit DateDescription of document

B115.01.2009 : Certified copy of Promissory note on Non-judicial stamp paper

B2---: Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.92/2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge's Court, Sullurpet.

B3---: Certified copy of written statement in O.S.No.92/2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge's Court, Sullurpet.

Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

O.S.No.53/20141/6 26.04.2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUDUR

Present: Sri D. Yedukondalu,

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2017

O.S. No. 53/2014

Yelluru Mallikarjuna Rao…Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Bandi Bhagyalakshmi

2. Bandi Mahesh Kumar Reddy…Defendants

This suit is coming on 20.04.2017 before me in the presence of Sri S. Srinivasulu, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M. Srinivasulu, Advocate for the defendant and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants 1 and 2 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,18,860/- out of the estate of the deceased Bandi Prasad Reddy (Amended as per orders in I.A.No.139/2016 dated 13.12.2016) basing on a promissory note dated 13.12.2011 with future interest; and costs of the suit.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:- The deceased Bandi Prasad

Reddy borrowed a sum of Rs.78,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.12.2011 for his necessities and duly executed a promissory note on the same day with his own handwriting in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order, on demand. In-spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the said Prasad Reddy failed to discharge the above debt and he died leaving behind him the defendants 1 and 2 as wife and son and legal representatives. The plaintiff also made several demands to the defendant and issued registered notice dated 28.12.2013. The defendants received the notice and sent a reply on 15.01.2014 with false and frivolous allegations. The defendants 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the assets of the deceased Prasad Reddy. Hence, the suit.

3) The defendants filed their written statement. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:- They specifically denied the allegations in the plaint and submitted that the said Prasad Reddy died leaving behind him the defendants as his wife and son as legal heirs and legal representatives. The said Prasad Reddy never borrowed a sum of Rs.78,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.12.2011 and he never executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. They never succeeded the estate of the

O.S.No.53/20142/6 26.04.2017

deceased Prasad Reddy as legal heirs. The said Prasad Reddy addicted to alcohol, womanizing, playing cards, etc., from the year 2004 till his death in the month of July, 2013. He misused the entire salary for his bad vices. The defendants having no other alternative started running a small mess in a rented house and they have eking out their livelihood. So, they have no personal obligation to pay the suit amount. They got issued a detailed reply for the notice issued by the plaintiff. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit against the defendants; and they prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

4) Basing on the above pleadings, as there were no elements of settlements, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

(i) Whether the suit promissory note dated 13.12.2011 is true, valid and supported by consideration?

(ii) Whether the defendants are personally liable to discharge the debt of the deceased Bandi Prasad Reddy?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed for?

(iv) To what relief?

5) To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself gave evidence as

PW1 and he examined one Gadithoti Madhusudhan Rao as PW2 on his behalf. Exs.A1 to A3 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the first defendant herself gave evidence as DW1 and no document is marked on behalf of the defendant.

6) Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants.

7) ISSUE No.1:- In a suit for recovery of money basing on a promissory note, the burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to prove that the deceased Prasad Reddy borrowed a sum of Rs.78,000/- from him on 13.12.2011 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note for consideration, especially, when the defendants denied the execution of the promissory note. In order to prove the fact that the deceased Prasad

Reddy executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied upon his own evidence along with the evidence of PW2 Madhusudhana Rao coupled with

Exs.A1 to A3. According to the evidence of PW1 Mallikarjuna Rao coupled with Ex.A1, the deceased Prasad Reddy borrowed a sum of Rs.78,000/- from him and executed

Ex.A1 on 13.12.2011 with his own handwriting at Gudur town agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to him or to his order, on demand. Of course, the plaintiff also got issued Ex.A2 legal notice to the defendants and the defendants got issued Ex.A3 reply notice denying the execution of Ex.A1 by

O.S.No.53/20143/6 26.04.2017

the deceased Prasad Reddy and their liability. The learned counsel for the defendants cross-examined PW1 Mallikarjuna Rao. During the cross-examination, it is elicited that he did not obtain succession certificate to recover the debt under Ex.A1. The said answer was recorded subject to explaining the relevancy at the time of arguments. If the plaintiff filed the suit basing on promissory note executed in favour of his mother or father after death claiming succession, the plaintiff has to apply and obtain the succession certificate to recover the debt of the deceased father or mother. In the present suit, the plaintiff filed the suit basing on a promissory note executed in his favour against the estate of the deceased Prasad Reddy and so he is not recovering the debt of the deceased person and as such, he need not apply for succession certificate. So, the said answer is completely irrelevant. Except the fact that the plaintiff got the amount of Rs.78,000/- out of his sentry business, lease amount and agriculture, nothing is elicited from her cross-examination to disprove the money transaction under

Ex.A1. It may not be out of place to mention that though PW1 Mallikarjuna Rao categorically stated that the deceased Prasad Reddy is the self scribe of Ex.A1, the same is not denied by the defendants expect making a suggestion that the deceased

Prasad Reddy did not execute Ex.A1. The execution is different from scribing the promissory note. So, nothing is elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 Mallikarjuna

Rao to disprove the money transaction under Ex.A1 promissory note.

7.2) The plaintiff not only gave evidence as PW1, but also, examined PW2

Madhusudhana Rao on his behalf. PW2 Madhusudhana Rao also filed his chief- affidavit stating that the deceased Prasad Reddy borrowed a sum of Rs.78,000/- on 13.12.2011 from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour. He also categorically stated that the deceased Prasad Reddy was the self scribe of Ex.A1 and he attested the same. The learned counsel for the defendant cross-examined PW2

Madhusudhana Rao. During the cross-examination, he categorically deposed that he was present along with the plaintiff and the deceased Prasad Reddy at the time of execution of Ex.A1. Of course, it is elicited from the cross-examination that he came to the Court to give evidence at the request of the plaintiff. According to Order 16 Rule 1A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, any party to the suit may bring any witnesses to give evidence without any summons from the Court. So, there is nothing wrong on the part of PW2 Madhusudhana Rao to come to the Court at the request of the plaintiff and to give evidence as he attested Ex.A1 promissory note. Nothing is elicited from his cross- examination to disprove his attestation or the money transaction under Ex.A1 promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff by giving evidence as PW1 and by examining the attestor as PW2 and by producing Exs.A1 to A3 discharged the burden of proof lies upon him. The plaintiff being discharged the burden of proof lies upon him, the onus of

O.S.No.53/20144/6 26.04.2017

proof shifts upon the defendants to prove otherwise. More over, once the execution of promissory note is proved, this Court shall draw a presumption U/Sec.118 (a) of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that Ex.A1 is supported by consideration. Hence, it is for the defendants to rebut the presumption as well.

7.3) in order to prove the fact that the deceased Prasad Reddy did not execute

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, the first defendant filed her chief- affidavit as DW1 narrating the contents of their written statement and those need not be reproduced once again. During the cross-examination, she made a fatal admission that she does not know the contents of her chief-affidavit. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that DW1 Bhagyalakshmi made the said admission due to ignorance of the Court proceedings. But, as argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, she made another fatal admission as if she does not know whether her husband borrowed a sum of Rs.78,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.12.2011 and he executed Ex.A1 promissory note with his own handwriting. It is specific version of the defendants in their written statement and specific version of DW1 Bhagyalakshmi in her chief-affidavit that the deceased Prasad Reddy never borrowed the amount of Rs.78,000/- on 13.12.2011 and he never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. But, for the reasons best known to her, she pleaded ignorance as to borrowing amount and execution of Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff with the own handwriting of the deceased

Prasad Reddy. So, it is clear that the defendants intended to take a false plea and consequently, they got issued Ex.A3 reply notice with false contents, as alleged by the plaintiff. More over, the defendants also did not produce the admitted handwriting and signatures of the deceased Prasad Reddy even for the purpose of comparison. Hence, there is no sufficient evidence on behalf of the defendants to prove that the deceased

Prasad Reddy did not execute Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for consideration whereas the plaintiff proved that the deceased Prasad Reddy executed the same in his favour for consideration. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

8) ISSUE No.2:- As argued by the learned counsel for the defendants, there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendants and as such, the defendants are not personally liable to discharge the debt of the deceased Prasad Reddy. More over, there is no law in India making the defendants liable to discharge the debts of the deceased Prasad Reddy. However, the plaintiff originally filed the suit against the defendants directing them to discharge the debt of the deceased Prasad Reddy.

However, subsequently, he moved an application vide I.A.No.139/2016 seeking the amendment to the relief and it was allowed on 13.12.2016. As per orders in the said application, the plaintiff amended the relief directing the defendants to pay the suit

O.S.No.53/20145/6 26.04.2017

amount out of the estate of the deceased Prasad Reddy in their hands. So, the defendants are liable to pay the suit amount out of the estate of the deceased Prasad

Reddy and they are not personally liable to discharge the suit amount. This issue answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

9) ISSUE No.3: - In view of my findings in issue No.1, I came to a conclusion that Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration. In view of my findings in issue No.2, the defendants are liable to pay the suit amount out of the estate of the deceased Prasad Reddy and they are not personally liable to pay the same.

However, the learned counsel for the defendants while cross-examining PW1

Mallikarjuna Rao, it is elicited that he did not make the mother and daughter of the deceased Prasad Reddy as parties to the suit. It is an admitted fact that the first defendant is the wife and the 2nd defendant is the son of the deceased Prasad Reddy and it is sufficient to make them as parties to the suit to represent the estate being legal representatives, not as legal heirs. In this regard, I relied upon a decision of Hon'ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kurnool Chit Funds (Petitioner) ... vs P. Narasimha

S/O. Posanna 1 , at Para No.10, it was held as hereunder:

“D.W.1 who is D3 deposed that he stood as surety regarding the chit amount paid to D1 and his liability in case of default to be committed by D1 in the payment of the amount. D1 and his father V.Lakshamn Raju, who is one of the sureties died in the year 1998 leaving behind him his wife and three sons including him and his other two brothers namely Satyanarayana Raju and Sreedhar Raju. He further stated that unless all the remedies against D1 are exhausted he is not liable to pay the suit debt. The appellate Court observed that all the legal representatives of the surety Lakshamn Raju were not impleaded as party to the suit. The appellate Court also observed that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of other legal representatives of late Lakshman Raju. The estate of V.Lakshman Raju is sufficiently represented by D3 who is one of the sons, and D4 that is the wife of late Lakshman Raju. When the estate is sufficiently represented by the legal representatives on record, the non impleading of other legal representatives cannot be a ground for dismissal of the suit. The lower Court erred in holding that due to non-impleading of other legal representatives, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties.”

So, it is clear that when the estate of the deceased is represented by some legal representatives, the suit is not liable to be dismissed for non-impleading the other legal representatives. Hence, the plaintiff can maintain the suit seeking the decree against the estate of the deceased Prasad Reddy now in the hands of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount accordingly. With respect to the future interest is concerned, considering the fact that the plaintiff claimed the interest at 1 AIR 2008 AP 38 = 2008 (1) ALD 574

O.S.No.53/20146/6 26.04.2017

contract rate of 24% per annum till the date of filing the suit, I am inclined to grant interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree on principal amount and interest thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization according to the provisions of Sec.34 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

10) ISSUE No.4:- In view of my findings in issues 1 to 3, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount out of the estate of the deceased Prasad Reddy now in the hands of defendants 1 and 2 with costs and interest referred supra.

11) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the estate of the deceased Bandi Prasad Reddy now in the hands of the defendants 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.1,18,860/- (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousands eight hundred and sixty only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree on principal amount of Rs.78,000/- and interest thereafter, at the rate of 6% p.a., till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, on this the 26th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUDUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: Yelluru Mallikarjuna Rao DW1: Bandi Bhagyalakshmi

PW2: Gadithoti Madhusudhana Rao

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Exhibit DateDescription of document

A113.12.2011 : Promissory note

A228.12.2013: Office copy of legal notice

A615.01.2014: Reply notice

For Defendant:

– NIL –

Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

O.S.No.69/20141/5 27.04.2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUDUR

Present: Sri D. Yedukondalu,

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

O.S. No.69/2014

Yarragunta Subba Reddy…Plaintiff

Vs.

Kollu Sai Prasanna…Defendant

This suit is coming on 24.04.2017 before me in the presence of Sri P.V. Sai Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Y. Aravind, Advocate for the defendant and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of

Rs.8,58,333/- basing on registered simple mortgage deed dated 28.02.2011 with future interest; and costs of the suit.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:- The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 28.02.2011 for her family expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and the defendant executed registered simple mortgage deed on the same day in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendant did not choose to repay any amount due under the mortgage deed in-spite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 19.01.2014, the defendant received the same, but, she neither complied the same nor replied to the same. Hence, the suit.

3) The defendant filed her written statement. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:- She admitted that she borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 28.02.2011. She submitted that she used to pay interest of Rs.10,000/- in every month. But, she did not obtain receipt for payment of interest. Further, she repaid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 25.01.2013 in the presence of one Menta

Venkatarathnam and Gunuputi Venkataswamy of Rapur village. On 19.01.2014, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant. After receiving the same, the defendant asked the plaintiff and then, the plaintiff replied that it was a mistake and he did not proceed further. On hearing the plaintiff, the defendant came back and as such, she did not issue any reply. Later, she received summons from the Court and again she questioned the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff replied that he would intimate about the payment of interest to his counsel and he would ask to make necessary changes in the

O.S.No.69/20142/5 27.04.2017

plaint. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest only from

March, 2014; and she prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

4) Basing on the above pleadings, as there were no elements of settlement, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

(i) Whether the defendant paid interest of Rs.10,000/- in every month?

(ii) Whether the defendant paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 25.01.2013 as mentioned in the written statement?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

(iv) To what relief?

5) To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself gave evidence as

PW1. Exs.A1 to A3 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant herself gave evidence as DW1 and she also examined the said Menta

Venkatarathnam as DW2 on her behalf. No document is marked on behalf of the defendant.

6) Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant.

7) ISSUE No.1:- There is no dispute about the fact that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 legal notice and the defendant acknowledged the same under Ex.A3. The plaintiff while giving evidence as PW1, no where admitted that the defendant paid interest at Rs.10,000/- per month. He categorically stated that the defendant did not pay any amount towards the debt under

Ex.A1. Hence, it is for the defendant to prove that she paid interest at the rate of

Rs.10,000/- in every month. In order to prove the same, the defendant gave evidence as DW1. She stated in her chief-affidavit that she paid interest at Rs.10,000/- every month and she did not obtain any receipt with regard to payment of interest. The learned counsel for the plaintiff cross-examined DW1 Sai Prasanna. During her cross- examination, she denied a suggestion that she did not pay interest at the rate of

Rs.10,000/- per month. But, she admitted that she did not issue any legal notice to the plaintiff calling upon him to issue receipts for payment of interest. If the version of the defendant is true that she paid interest at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, she could have endorsed the same either on the backside of the Ex.A1 or she could have obtained a receipt to that effect. Obviously, there is no endorsement on the backside of

Ex.A1 and she herself stated that she did not obtain any receipt from the plaintiff. The

O.S.No.69/20143/5 27.04.2017

defendant did not assign any reason for not obtaining the receipts for payment of the interest. More over, she herself admitted that she did not issue any legal notice to the plaintiff calling upon the plaintiff to issue receipts for the payments made by her. Except the self serving statement of DW1 Sai Prasanna, there is no other evidence on record.

However, she examined DW2 Venkatarathnam who filed his chief-affidavit stating that the said Sai Prasanna used to pay interest of Rs.10,000/- every month. As argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the defendant never pleaded that she paid the interest in the presence of DW2 Venkatarathnam, but, surprisingly he stated the same in his chief-affidavit itself. He also admitted in the cross-examination that the defendant did not demand the plaintiff to pass receipt for payment of interest of Rs.10,000/- in every month. If the version of DWs.1 and 2 is true the defendant paid interest at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, she could have obtained receipts from the plaintiff or at least she could have made endorsements on the backside of Ex.A1. In the absence of any document, I cannot solely rely upon the oral testimony of the DWs.1 and 2 to prove the alleged payment of interest. Hence, the defendant failed to prove that she paid interest of Rs.10,000/- in every month. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8) ISSUE No.2:- The defendant contended that she also paid a sum of

Rs.3,50,000/- on 25.01.2013 in the presence of DW2 Venkatarathnam and one

Gunuputi Venkataswamy of Rapur village. She stated the same in her chief-affidavit as well. During the cross-examination, she deposed that she did not obtain any receipt for

Rs.3,50,000/- alleged to have paid in the presence of DW2 Venkatarathnam and the said Gunuputi Venkataswamy. She also admitted that she did not file any document evidencing that she was having a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with her as on 25.01.2013. So, admittedly, there is no document evidencing the payment that the defendant had a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as on the date of 25.01.2013. As I earlier discussed, DW2

Venkatarathnam filed his chief-affidavit as if the defendant made the said payment of

Rs.3,50,000/- in his presence. He also denied a suggestion that the defendant did not make any such payment to the plaintiff in his presence. But, he deposed that the plaintiff got issued a demand notice to the defendant and they did not try to obtain any receipt even after receipt of the demand notice. It is the specific case of the defendant that on receipt of Ex.A2 legal notice, she approached the plaintiff and questioned him as to issuance of the legal notice though she made the said payments and then, the plaintiff promised that he would not proceed further. Even after receipt of the legal notice, the defendant could have asked the plaintiff to issue receipts for payments of interest and the huge amount of Rs.3,50,000/- towards the part payment. But, the silence on the part of the defendant indicates that there was no such payment, as

O.S.No.69/20144/5 27.04.2017

argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Mere oral evidence is not sufficient to come to a just conclusion that the defendant made payment of Rs.3,50,000/-, especially, when the debt is evidenced by a document under Ex.A1; and she is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- only with subsequent interest. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9) ISSUE No.3:- In view of my findings in issues No.1 and 2, the defendant failed to prove that she paid interest at Rs.10,000/- in every month and she also paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 25.01.2013 as mentioned in her written statement and as such, the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff. However, considering the fact that the plaintiff claimed the interest at contract rate from the date of Ex.A1 till the date of filing the suit, I am inclined to grant interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree on principal amount and interest thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization as required under Order 34 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

10) ISSUE No.4:- In view of my findings in issues No.1 to 3, the plaintiff is entitled for preliminarily decree for the suit amount from with costs and subsequent interest referred supra.

11) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by way of passing preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay the adjudged sum of Rs.8,58,333/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty eight thousands three hundred and thirty three only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and interest thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization, in default, the plaintiff shall be entitled to apply for a final decree for sale of the plaint schedule mortgaged property after completion of redemption period. The defendant is granted three months time to redeem the mortgage.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1: Yarragunta Subba Reddy DW1: Kollu Sai Prasanna

DW2: Menta Venkatarathnam

O.S.No.69/20145/5 27.04.2017

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Exhibit DateDescription of document

A128.02.2011 : Registered mortgage deed

A219.01.2014: Office copy of legal notice

A3---: Postal acknowledgment

For Defendant:

– NIL –

Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

O.S.No.35/20151/3 25.04.2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUDUR

Present: Sri D. Yedukondalu,

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Tuesday, the 25th day of April, 2017.

O.S. No. 35/2015

Kalthireddy Sudhakar…Plaintiff

Vs.

Kalthireddy Ramu…Defendant

This suit is coming on 17.04.2017 before me in the presence of Sri Jana Suresh, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri C. Raghunadha Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and the defendant remains exparte, and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of

Rs.1,84,000/- basing on a mortgage deed dated 14.07.2011 executed by the defendant with future interest; and costs of the suit.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:- The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 14.07.2011 and executed a registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff by mortgaging the plaint schedule property agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The defendant further agreed to repay the amount as and when demanded by the plaintiff, but, the defendant did not come forward for repayment in-spite of repeated demands and he is trying to alienate the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3) The defendant filed his written statement. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:- He specifically denied the allegations in the plaint and submitted that there were money dealings between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant was in need of money and approached the plaintiff to lend money. The plaintiff obliged the request and asked the defendant to execute a mortgage deed.

Therefore, the defendant executed a registered simple mortgaged deed dated 14.07.2011 in favour of the plaintiff and received Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff.

Subsequently, the defendant paid entire principal amount and interest up to June, 2013 in the presence of elders and requested the plaintiff to forgo the interest for remaining 6 months and to cancel the mortgage deed. The plaintiff did not accept the request and filed the present suit for entire amount. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

O.S.No.35/20152/3 25.04.2017

4) Basing on the above pleadings, as there are no elements of settlement, my learned predecessor framed the following issues for the purpose of trial:

(i) Whether the mortgage deed dated 14.07.2011 is true and valid?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

5) To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself gave evidence as

PW1 and Ex.A1 is marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant neither cross-examined PW1 nor entered into the witness box to adduce evidence.

Hence, he was set exparte. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6) ISSUEs No. I to 3: - According to the version of the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and executed Ex.A1 in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Hence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. According to the evidence of PW1 Sudhakar coupled with

Ex.A1, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and executed Ex.A1 in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Though the defendant denied the execution of Ex.A1 in Para No.3 of his written statement, he admitted the same in Para No.4 of the written statement and took a plea of discharge in

Para No.5 of the written statement. If the version of defendant is true that he discharged the principal amount with interest up to June, 2013, as pleaded by him, he could have cross-examined PW1 Sudhakar and could have lead evidence on his behalf. For the reasons best known to him, he remained exparte. The evidence of PW1

Sudhakar coupled with Ex.A1 remains unchallenged as the defendant was set exparte.

Hence, the plaintiff proved the suit claim and he is entitled for preliminary decree for suit amount. With regard to the interest is concerned, as the plaintiff claimed the interest prior to filing of the suit at the rate of 24% per annum. I am inclined to grant the future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization, on

principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- according to the provisions of Order 34 Rule 11 of Civil

Procedure Code, 1908. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

7) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by way of passing preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay the adjudged sum of Rs.1,84,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty four thousands only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and interest thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization, in default, the plaintiff shall be entitled to apply for a

O.S.No.35/20153/3 25.04.2017

final decree for sale of the plaint schedule mortgaged property after completion of redemption period.

The defendant is granted three months time to redeem the mortgage.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 25th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUDUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: Kalthireddy Sudhakar – EXPARTE –

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Exhibit Date Description of document

A114.07.2011 :Registered Simple Mortgage deed

For Defendant: – NIL –

Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

OS.No.241/20161/2 25.04.2017

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUDUR.

PRESENT: - SRI D.Yedukondalu,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUDUR.

Tuesday, on this the 25th day of April, 2017

O.S.No. 241/2016

Pedamallu Ramana Reddy... PLAINTIFF

Vs.

Puli Venkateswarlu ... DEFENDANT

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Gopal Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri S.Gangi Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and the defendant is called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of

Rs.4,81,250/- basing on a Promissory note dated 09.12.2013 with future interest; and costs of the suit.

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

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 09.12.2013 and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order, on demand. Thereafter, the defendant failed to repay the amount despite repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3) The defendant remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself gave evidence as PW1 and Ex.A1 is marked.

4) Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

5) POINT: As per the evidenceof PW1 Pedamallu Ramana Reddy, coupled with

Ex.A1, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and executed Ex.A1 in his favour. As per the evidence of PW1 Pedamallu Ramana Reddy, in spite of repeated oral demands made by him, the defendant did not pay the amount due under Ex.A1. The

OS.No.241/20162/2 25.04.2017

evidence of PW1 Pedamallu Ramana Reddy coupled with Ex.A1 remains unchallenged.

As such, the plaintiff is entitled for decree. In respect of the interest is concerned, since the plaintiff claimed the same @ 24% per annum prior to the date of filing the suit, this

Court inclined to grant the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and interest thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realisation on

principal amount, according to the provisions of Sec.34 of the Civil Procedure Code,

1908. The point is answered accordingly.

9) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.4,81,250/- (Rupees four lakhs eighty one thousands two hundred and fifty only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree on principal sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and interest thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 25th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUDUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: Pedamallu Ramana Reddy-- Exparte –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

ExhibitDateDescription of document A109.12.2013:Promissory note

FOR DEFENDANT:

--Nil--

SCJ, GUDUR