Ms. E. Annamani

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT : Smt. E. ANNA MANI,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.127 of 2011.

Between:

Uppala Vani W/o Ravi, Aged 24 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o D. No.5-1-51/4, Upparapalem, 6th Ward, Bapatla town. …Plaintiff.

Vs.,

Duddukuri Sailaja W/o Bhaskara Rao, aged 40 years, House wife, 2nd lane, Vijayalakshmipuram, Bapatla town. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on 08-08-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Shaik Z. Basha, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and of Sri P. Raghuram, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her henchmen from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land of the plaintiff which is shown as ABCD as per plaint plan and for costs.

2. The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are that:

The plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff’s father Yemineni Anjaneyulu derived an extent of Ac.1.15 cents of land in S. No.373/1, 2, 5 of Karlapalem

Panchayat of Karlapalem mandal as a share from his ancestral property, he sold away an extent of Ac.0.59 ½ cents of land out of AC.1.15 cents to one Yemineni

Srinivasa Rao S/o Tiripaul under a registered sale deed dated 19-06-2000 and delivered possession to him as shown in the plaint plan, like wise, he sold away

Ac.0.50 cents of land to one Balagani Krishna Veni W/o Venkateswarlu under a registered sale deed dated 09-07-2008. So the remaining extent of Ac.0.05 ½ cents of site was in possession and enjoyment of the real owner Yemineni 2

Anjaneyulu. On measurement the land has come Ac.0.05 cents which is shown as

ABCD as per plaint plan. There is a irrigation canal and sarcar donka on the western side of the ABCD of the schedule land. The said Yemineni Anjaneyulu, out of love and affection towards her daughter who is the plaintiff herein executed a registered gift deed with regard the AC.0.05 cents of land which is shown as ABCD and suit schedule on 17-02-2011 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule land to the plaintiff on the even date. Having accepted the said gift deed, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule since it is a vacant land no tax has been collected by the panchayat.

It is further submitted that the plaintiff came to know that the said

Balagani Krishnaveni sold her land to the defendant a few months back with a wrong boundaries based on that the defendant illegally removed the boundary stones and thereby she wanted to grab the suit schedule land of the plaintiff. For the last four days, the defendant came to the suit schedule and proclaiming in the village that she will construct a house in the suit schedule with the help of money and muscle power. If the act of the defendant will be allowed, it is very difficult for the plaintiff to protect her property. Hence, the plaintiff has constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her henchmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule land of the plaintiff which is shown as ABCD as per plaint plan. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and submitted that the suit schedule is not maintainable according to law and it is liable to be dismissed in limini.

It is further submitted that the plaintiff’s father purchased AC.1.15 cents in the suit survey number from one Yemineni Venkata Ratnam and was in possession of plaint schedule property. He sold Ac.0.50 cents out of Ac.1.15 cents to Bolagani Krishna Veni under a contract of sale dated 05-06-1999 and put her in possession of the same. He executed and registered a sale deed in her favour on 09-07-2008 in pursuance of the earlier contract of sale dated 05-06-1999. Thus 3 the sale in favourr of Bolagani Krishna Veni preceded the sale of Ac.0.59 ½ cents in favour of Yemineni Srinivasa Rao. The said Bolagani Krishna Veni sold the land within four boundaries shown in the Registered Sale Deed in her favour on 09-07-2008 to the defendant. At the time of sale, the land within the four boundaries measured and it came to Ac.0.47 cents only. Bolagani Krishna Veni received sale consideration for the Ac.0.47 cents and registered the same in favour of defendant on 13-09-2010 and since then the defendant is in possession of Ac.0.47 cents of land sold to her. The western boundary to this Ac.0.47 cents of land was shown as the Donka but not the site of the plaintiff’s father. Even in the contract of sale in favour of Bolagani Krishna Veni the western boundary was shown as Donka but not remaining land of plaintiff’s father.

It is further submitted that from the beginning it appears that the plaintiff’s father is bent on cheating Bolagani Krishna Veni . In the contract of sale in her favour, he mentioned that the property was his self acquired property purchased from one Yemineni Venakta Ratnam and the mentioned the extent as

Ac.0.50 cents. He convinced her that he got the land separated out of the Ac.1.15 cents by getting it already measured and executed the Contract of Sale as well as the Sale Deed for Ac.0.50 cents. However, in the sale deed, he mentioned that the plaint schedule property is his ancestral property. The land is not Ac.0.50 cents but only AC.0.47 cents. This came to light when Bolagani Krishna Veni got the land measured at the time of selling the same to this defendant. Further in that sale deed, he got it fraudulently mentioned that the western boundary as partly irrigation channel and part his remaining land which is totally false. If that is the case, the boundaries in the sale deed in favour of Bolagani Krishna Veni could have been altogether different. The plaint plan shows the fallacy of the western boundary recitals in the sale deed of Bolagani Krishna Veni as it runs contra to recitals in the sale deed. The plaint plan is not correct.

It is further submitted that in the plan which is an annexure to the sale deed in favour of Bolagani Krishna Veni, it is clearly shown that the western 4 boundary is donka and that there is no land belonging to plaintiff’s father on the western side of land shown to Bolagani Krishna Veni. The sale deed in favour of

Yemineni Srinivasa Ra is subsequent to contract of sale in favour of Bolagani

Krishna Veni and the southern boundary is shown as the land belonging to plaintiff’s father. Therefore, it is obvious that plaintiff’s father is now trying to set up claim for Ac.0.05 cents on the west of land sold to Bolagani Krishna Veni to gain illegal profit already by executing the sale deed in her favour for a site which is only Ac.0.47 cents in extent. As boundaries prevail over survey numbers what was sold to Bolagani Krishna Veni by plaintiff's father is Ac.0.50 cents and the land extent right up to western donka. As plaintiff’s father had no land to the west of the land sold to defendant by Bolagani Krishna Veni, the Gift Deed in favour of plaintiff by her father is invalid and she can not force, any right under it much less by claim to encroach into Ac.0.05 cents of land in the land which was already sold to Bolagani Krishna Veni and thereafter to this defendant. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit or not?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 got examined and Exs.A1 to A4 got marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 and 2 got examined and Exs.B1 to B3 documents were marked.

6. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed written arguments.

7.ISSUE NOs. 1 and 2:

(Issues No.1 and 2 are answered together for proper appreciation) 5

The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land of the plaintiff which is shown as ABCD as per plaint Plan.

The contention of the defendant is that he never interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the the plaintiff and the plaintiff field a false suit.

8. This is a suit filed for permanent injunction. It is the burden cast upon the plaintiff to prove that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit. To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1. He has reiterated the same facts in his chief examination affidavit as mentioned in the plaint. PW.1 got examined her father as PW.2, he also deposed as that of PW.1.

9.PW.3 who is having land near the suit schedule property has deposed that he know the plaintiff and the defendant and the suit schedule site which is an extent of Ac.0.05 cents. He had AC.0.40 cents of land on the eastern side of the suit schedule and sold away to one Yesuraju. He further deposed that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said AC.0.40 cents. The suit schedule AC.0.05 cents belongs to the father of the plaintiff, he executed a registered gift deed on 17-02-2011 in favour of the plaintiff, since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with the help of his father.

10.PW.4 also having land near the suit schedule property has deposed that he had AC.0.80 cents of land near the suit schedule land. He sold the same to one

G.K. Naidu. The suit schedule property belongs to the father of the plaintiff, he executed a registered gift deed on 17-02-2011 in favour of the plaintiff, since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with the help of his father.

6

11.On the other hand to prove the contention of the defendant, the husband of the defendant was examined as DW.1. He has reiterated the same facts in his chief examination affidavit as mentioned in the written statement filed by the defendant.

12.DW.2 is the 3rd party to the suit proceedings has deposed that about ten years back, the defendant purchased the land form Bolagani Krishnaveni.

Originally, this land is an agricultural land. Subsequently, she raised the level of the land. Even since she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant's land extends up to donka which is situated on the western side. The defendant’s land’s western boundary is Donka plaintiff has no land in between

Donka and defendant’s land. She has no land any where in the vicinity.

13.This is a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff has to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On perusal of the record, it reveals from the plaintiff side evidence that the father of the plaintiff owned an extent of Ac. 1.15 cents of land, out of which an extent of Ac.0.59 ½; cents of land was sold to the Yemineni Srinivasa Rao on 19-06-2000 and Ac.0.50 cents of land sold away to Balagani Krishnaveni on 09-07-2008, who is the vendor of the defendant. She is in possession of Ac.0.50 cents of land and the remaining 5 ½ cents of land gifted to the plaintiff under Ex.A4 Gift Deed. As per the plaintiff witness the said Ac. 0.5 ½ cents land was existed on the wester side of the defendant's land, but the defendant contended that there is no land of the plaintiff on the wester side. The western boundary of the defendant is donka is sarcar chanal.

14.The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 reveals that the western boundary of the land of B. Krishna Veni, who is the vendor of the defendant is the channel and the said channel is in a straight line. But Ex.A3 sale deed shows that the western boundary of the land of defendant's vendor is part of plaintiff land and channel.

There is a contradiction in oral evidence and the documentary evidence of the 7 plaintiff. In case of the contradictions in between the oral and documentary evidence, the documentary evidence shall prevails over the oral evidence.

According to the defendant, there is no dispute that the plaintiff's vendor purchased Ac. 1.15 cents in the S. Nos.373/1, 2, 5 from one Y. Venkata Ratnam and he sold away Ac.0.50 cents of land to Balagani Krishna Veni vendor of the defendant. But, the evidence of DW.1 reveals that the father of the plaintiff sold

Ac.0.50 cents of land out of Ac.1.15 cents to the Bolagani Krishna Veni under contract of sale dated 05-06-1999 and he executed sale deed dated 09-07-2008 to the defendant in pursuance of the earlier contract of sale dated 05-06-1999.

15.Though it was mentioned in the chief of DW.1 that even in the contract of sale deed executed in favour of B. Krishna Veni, the western boundary was mentioned as donka, but not mentioned remaining land of the plaintiff's mother.

But, the said contract of sale deed dated 05-06-1999 was not produced before the court. During the cross examination of PW.2 the contract of sale dated 05-06-1999 shown to the witness and he admitted that the western boundary is mentioned as irrigation channel going through to the Sarkar donka. Even though, PW.2 admitted that the contract of sale dated 05-06-1999, the said document was not produced

before the court. Though, DW.1 stated that Ex.A3 was executed in favour of B.

Krishna Veni, in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 05-06-1999. But the recitals of Ex.A3 was not reveals about the agreement of sale dated 05-06-1999.

Hence, it creates a doubt whether the admission made by PW.2 is with regard to the western boundary pertaining to Ex.A3 property or not. During the cross examination of DW.1, he clearly admitted that in Ex.A3 sale deed Survey

Nos.373/1,2 and 5 are mentioned. He has gone through Ex.A3 before he purchased the land and also got survey the land and at the time of the survey it came an extent of Ac.0.47 cents only. Though,DW.1 stated that S. No.373/2 and 5 are not in existence and filed Ex.B1 to B3 to prove the same. But, on perusal of

Exs.B1 to B3 are not reveals in any where that Survey Nos.373/2 and 5 are not in existence. But, Ex.A1 and A2 revels that the land an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in 8

Survey No.373/2 and Ac.0.45 cents in Survey No.373/5. During the cross examination of DW.1 stated that there is no land of Anjaneyulu i.e., PW.2 on the western side, but he clearly admitted that PW.2 had AC.1.15 cents of land in

Survey No.373/1, 2 and 5 and after sold away an extent of AC.0.50 cents to B.

Krishna Veni and Ac.0.59 ½ cents to Y. Anjaneyulu. The remaining suit schedule property was gifted to the plaintiff and the DW.1 purchased the property under the above said Survey numbers under Ex.A2. But, he got Ex.B1 Rectification Deed without filing the original sale deed of Ex.B3 executed by the vendor of defendant.

Even though, the defendant got surveyed the land and the survey report shows an extent of AC.0.47 cents only. But, Ex.A3 Sale deed of the defendant’s vendor shows AC.0.50 cents of land sold to the vendor defendant. As per the legal

Maxim i.e., no person can convey better title than what he has . It means what right the vendor of the defendant has it can only be transferred to the defendant.

As per Ex.A3 Sale deed what property purchased by vendor of defendant is only sold to the defendant within Ex.A3 boundaries. As per Ex.A3 Sale deed, the western boundaries land belongs to the plaintiff. In this case also even though the defendant filed rectification deed i.e., Ex.B1. The sale deed in favour of the defendant was not filed before the court to support the contention of the defendant.

16.On perusal of the evidence of DW.2 he has no personal knowledge about the case and he came to know through the vendor of the defendant that she sold away of an extent of Ac.0.47 cents to the defendant and he was not present at the time of the survey or the property and he do not know the boundaries of the property also. Hence, the evidence of DW.2 is no way helpful to the defendant's case. But the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 corroboration with Exs.A1 to A4 clearly reveals that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and enjoying the same since 17-02-2011 as per Ex.A4 Gift deed. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for.

9

17.ISSUE NO.3:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting Permanent

Injunction in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendant and her men from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land which is shown as ABCD as per plaint plan.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade – III, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 10 th day of August, 2022

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BAPATLA.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff:- P.W.1: Uppala Vani PW.2 : Yemineni Anjaneyulu, PW.3 : Yemineni Venkata Rao PW.4 : Yemineni Muttaiah.

For Defendants:- D.W.1: Duddukuri Bhaskara Rao DW.2 : Pulugu Sambi Reddy Documents marked For Plaintiffs:- Ex.A1: Land title deed book issued by RDO, Tenali in the name of the father of the plaintiff,

Ex.A2 : Pattadar pass book issued by MRO, Karlapalem in the name of the father of the plaintiff,

Ex.A3 : CC of the registered sale deed dated 09-07-2008 executed by PW.1’s father in his favour for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in survey Nos.373/1,2 and 5 of Karlapalem village,

Ex.A4 : Original registered gift deed dated 17-02-2011 executed by PW.1’s father in his favour for an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of vacant house site in survey

Nos.373/1, 2 and 5 of Karlapalem village.

For Defendant:

Ex.B1 : Original rectification deed dated 17-02-2012,

Ex.B2 : Surveyor report dated 09-02-2012,

Ex.B3 : copy of FMV for field No.373.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BAPATLA.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT : Smt. E. ANNA MANI,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.127 of 2011.

Between:

Uppala Vani W/o Ravi, Aged 24 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o D. No.5-1-51/4, Upparapalem, 6th Ward, Bapatla town. …Plaintiff.

Vs.,

Duddukuri Sailaja W/o Bhaskara Rao, aged 40 years, House wife, 2nd lane, Vijayalakshmipuram, Bapatla town. … Defendant.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her henchmen from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land of the plaintiff which is shown as ABCD as per plaint plan and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 31-05-2011

Plaint filed (Registered/Numbered) on: 04-07-2011

Cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 17-02- 2011, she has been peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and since four days, the defendant has been proclaiming in the vicinity that she will grab the suit schedule with the help of her henchmen and the suit schedule property is situated at Karlapalem village and Mandal within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

Valuation of the Suit:

As this is a suit for permanent injunction the same is notionally valued at

Rs.5,000/-. On which a Court fee of Rs.411/- is paid U/Sec.26 (c) of APCF and SV

Act.

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.5,000/-.

This suit is coming on 08-08-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Shaik Z. Basha, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and of Sri P. Raghuram,

Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:- 11 a)that the defendant and her henchmen be and are hereby restrained by way of Permanent Injunction from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; and

b)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.8,513/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Thirteen Only) towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.-NIL- (Exparte).

 (Copy of plaint schedule is attached herewith)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 10th day of August, 2022.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,  BAPATLA. 

TABLE OF COSTS

For Defendant For Plaintiff Rs.

Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 Stamp on Plaint411-00(CM & FC not filed) Stamp on Process -- Advocate Fee 3,000-00 Publication charges 5,000-00 Writing &Type Charges 100-00 TOTAL 8,513-00

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT : Smt.E. Annamani,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Thursday, this the 11th day of August, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.382 of 2019.

Between:

Ancha Rattaiah S/o Veeraiah, 78 years, Hindu, Retired Teacher, R/o Varagani village, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District. … Plaintiff.

Vs.

Peddi Veera Prakasa Rao S/o Butchaiah, aged about 70 years, Hindu, R/o Abbineniguntapalem village, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 05-08-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and of

Sri I. Suresh Babu, Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of

Rs.4,11,223/- (Rupees Four Lakh eleven Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty

Three Only) basing on a promissory note, dated 24-12-2013 for

Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand Only); and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are that:

The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand Only) from the plaintiff on 24-12-2013 for his agricultural expenses and executed a promissory note of even date in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the above said amount with interest @ 24% p.a. to him or his order on demand and delivered the said promissory 2 note to the plaintiff at Varagani village, where the suit transaction took place.

It is further submitted that In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through others admitting the borrowing, execution and delivery of the suit promissory note, the defendant has made a part payment of Rs.500/- on 09-12-2016 to the above suit promissory note debt and got endorsed the same on the back of the suit promissory note and thus the defendant has acknowledged the suit promissory note debt. Thereafter, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through others admitting the borrowing execution, delivery of the suit promissory note and part payment endorsement thereon, the defendant sought time after time and failed to discharge the balance amount due there under. The plaintiff got issued Register notice to the defendant on 22-11-2019 demanding him to discharge the amount due under the suit promissory note. The defendant received the said register notice, neither gave reply nor discharge the balance amount there under. Hence, the suit for recovery of the suit amount interest, costs and such other reliefs. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement by denying the plaint averments and the plaint is not maintainable under law and submitted that the plaintiff and defendant are resident of same Pedanandipadu Mandal and they both are employees and thus they know each other. It is true that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- from the plaintiff and paid installments by the defendant to the plaintiff and balance amount of

Rs.20,000/- has to pay. Then the defendant is write back side of the suit pronote only he has to pay Rs.20,000/- “IVVAVALUNI”, but, the plaintiff is created the endorsement which was like the defendant own hand writing, but actually the hand writing is not belongs to the defendant and it was created with the help of anti social elements for wrongful gain from the 3 defendant herein. The defendant received notice and then immediately, he went to the plaintiff’s house along with elders of that vicinity and questioned about the illegal notice and creation of part payment. Then the plaintiff admitted the creation of part payment endorsement before the elders and the plaintiff demanded huge amount, the elders also advised that the defendant has to pay Rs.20,000/- and he is ready to pay the balance of

Rs.20,000/- to day, but the plaintiff bluntly refused the same. Then, the defendant is suffered with the back pain and he joined in the hospital for treatment, then he came to the house and received court summons. So there is no time to give reply legal notice to the plaintiff. Taking it an undue advantage the plaintiff created the part payment endorsement with the help of their henchmen.

It is further submitted that in between the plaintiff and defendant disputes arose. Keeping the same in mind the plaintiff crated the endorsement on the back side of suit pronote with the help of attestor are fabricated and the plaintiff also not saying truth before this Hon’ble court and the plaintiff is saying lies to the Hon’ble court and filed this false case for wrongful gain from the defendant and the suit is not maintainable as per law.

It is further submitted that the defendant is seeking permission to prosecute the plaintiff for crating of false and fake document and filed

before this court, even though, the plaintiff has knowledge about creating of

the alleged endorsement. The defendant is reserving his right to send the suit pronote for expert opinion for elicit the truth before this court. The alleged suit endorsement is fabricated and filed before the Hon’ble court for wrongful gain from the defendant, because the defendant is law abided citizen and suffering with back pain, taking it an undue advantage, the plaintiff is playing dilly dally tactics. So there is no cause of action to file this suit. Hence, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the suit pronote dt. 24-12-2013 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the endorsement on the back side of promissory note is fabricated as alleged by the defendant ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for or entitled for recovery of Rs.20,000/- as alleged by the defendant ?

4. To what relief?

5. ISSUE NOS.1 to 3:

During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A5got marked. The attestor of the part payment endorsement was examined as PW.2, on 11-07-2022 the defendant called absent, no representation, the defendant failed to adduce evidence hence, defendant side evidence was closed.

6. Heard the arguments from the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, arguments treated heard.

7.It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and executed a suit promissory note in his favour, but on reported demands made by the plaintiff, on 09-12-2016 the defendant made part payment of Rs.500/- to the Ex.A1 promissory note.

Later, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and after issuing legal notice on 22-11-2019 by demanding him to discharge the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note, the defendant failed to pay the amount.

Hence, he filed the suit for recovery of the said amount.

8.The initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove the defendant executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour. If the plaintiff is able to discharge is initial burden, the presumption lies in his favour u/s.118 (A) of NI Act that 5

Ex.A1 promissory note was executed by the defendant for a valuable consideration. To discharge the initial burden on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed chief affidavit as that of PW.1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint. PW.1 got examined the PW.2 who is part payment attestor. On perusal of material on record, the plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and got examined PW.2 and by marking Ex.A1 to A5 have proved his case. As the defendant did not choose to cross examine PWs.1 and 2, the oral evidence of P.W.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A5 remained unchallenged. The material on record is establishing the claim of the plaintiff. Hence, this Court comes to a conclusion that Ex.A1 was executed by defendant by receiving valid consideration. Accordingly, Issues Nos.1 to 3 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

12. ISSUE NO.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,11,223/- (Rupees Four Lakh eleven Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty Three Only) with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on principal amount of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand Only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him and after correction,

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11 th day of August, 2022

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BAPATLA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined For Plaintiff:-

P.W.1: A. Rattaiah

PW.2 : T. Peddanna

For Defendant:- NIL 6

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1: Suit Promissory Note, dated 24-12-2013,

Ex.A2 : Part payment endorsement dated 09-12-2016 on the back side of Ex.A1 promissory note for Rs.500/-,

Ex.A3 : office copy of the registered legal notice dated 22-11-2019,

Ex.A4 : Postal receipt dated 23-11-2019,

Ex.A5 : Postal acknowledgment.

For Defendant:- -- N IL -- PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BAPATLA.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT : Smt.E. Annamani,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Thursday, this the 11th day of August, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.382 of 2019.

Between:

Ancha Rattaiah S/o Veeraiah, 78 years, Hindu, Retired Teacher, R/o Varagani village, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District. … Plaintiff.

Vs.

Peddi Veera Prakasa Rao S/o Butchaiah, aged about 70 years, Hindu, R/o Abbineniguntapalem village, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District. … Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of

Rs.4,11,223/- (Rupees Four Lakh eleven Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty

Three Only) basing on a promissory note, dated 24-12-2013 for

Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand Only); and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on: 02-12-2019

Plaint filed on: 12-12-2019

Cause of action for the suit arose on 24-12-2013 when the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- for his agricultural necessities and executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the even date for the said amount agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a compoundable and when in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators and defendant paid part payment of

Rs.500/- on 09-12-20196 and got endorsed the same on the back side of the suit promissory note and acknowledge the suit promissory note debt and when in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through others, the defendant failed to discharge the suit amount and postponing the same with some pretext or the other and at Varagani village where the transaction took place and both parties reside within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Valuation of the Suit:

This is a suit filed for recovery of the amount from the defendant of Rs.4,11,223/-.

8

On which a court fee of Rs.6,626/- is paid U/Sec.20 of APCF and SV Act.

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.4,11,223/-.

This suit is coming on 05-08-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and of

Sri I. Suresh Babu, Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

I)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,11,223/- (Rupees Four Lakh eleven Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty Three Only) towards suit amount with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on principal amount of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand Only); and ii)that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,628/- (Rupees Six Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Eight Only) towards institutional costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.-NIL- (CM and

FC not filed by both parties).

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

August, 2022.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Table of Costs

For PlaintiffFor Defendant Rs.Rs. Stamp on Vakalat2-00CM and FC not filed

Stamp on Plaint6626-00--

Stamp on Process---

Advocate Fee ---

Writing &Type charges - --

Total 6628-00- N I L -

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, 9

Bapatla.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

BAPATLA

PRESENT:: Smt. E.Annamani

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Friday, this the 05th day of August, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.29 of 2021.

Beween:

Yallavula Kotaiah S/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 43 years, R/o Thummalapalli village, Karlapalem mandal. … Plaintif

AND

Didla Rami Reddy S/o Yedukondalu Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 39 years, R/o Thummalapalli village, Karlapalem Mandal. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 08-07-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Rama Rao, Advocate for the plaintif, and the defendant was set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintif for recovery of an amount of

Rs.34,120/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand and One Hundred and Twenty

Only) basing on the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.20,000/- dt. 12-02-2018 and for costs.

2. The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are that:

The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) from the plaintif on 12-02-2018 for his family purpose, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a.

either to plaintif or his order on demand, the defendant executed a promissory note of even date and delivered the same to him. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif personally and through others for repayment of the above said pronote debt, the defendant sought time 2 after time and did not pay the debt due under the above said pronote. As such, the plaintif got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant on 20-06-2020 by demanding him to discharge the above said pronote debt.

The defendant received the notice and kept quiet. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit pronote debt with subsequent interest, for future interest and also for costs of the suit.

Hence, the suit.

3. Summons was issued to the defendant through court and by

Registered Post. The defendant called absent and no representation.

Service of summons held sufficient. Hence, the defendant was set exparte.

4. On behalf of the plaintif, P.W.1 got examined and Exs.A1 to A3 got marked. The learned counsel reported no further evidence and hence plaintif's side evidence was closed.

5. Arguments heard from the plaintif.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

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

7. The contentions of the plaintif is that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintif on 12-02-2018 for his family purpose, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a.

either to plaintif or his order on demand and on the same date. In spite of demands made by the plaintif personally and through registered legal notice dated 20-06-2020 by demanding him to repay the amount due under the said promissory note with agreed rate of interest to the plaintif but the same was returned and kept quiet without paying the debt amount.

3

8. In order to prove his case, the plaintif has got examined himself as PW1. In his chief examination affidavit, he reiterated the same facts, which were stated in the plaint. On perusal of material on record, the plaintif by examining himself as PW.1 and by marking Ex.A1 to A3 has proved his case. As the defendant was set exparte, the oral evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A3 remained unchallenged. The material on record is establishing the claim of the plaintif. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintif is entitled for decree as prayed for.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif directing the defendant to pay the plaintif a sum of Rs.34,120/- (Rupees

Thirty Four Thousand and One Hundred and Twenty Only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on the principal amount of

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only).

Dictated to Stenographer, directly typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5 th day of August, 2022.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: P.W.1: Y. Kotaiah EXPARTE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the promissory note dated 12-02-2018 executed by the defendant in his favour for Rs.20,000/-,

Ex.A2 is the office copy of the registered legal notice dt. 20-06-2020,

Ex.A3 is the postal receipt dt. 20-06-2020.

FOR DEFENDANT: - N I L -

PJCJ, BAPATLA.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

BAPATLA

PRESENT:: Smt. E.Annamani

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Friday, this the 05th day of August, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.29 of 2021.

Beween:

Yallavula Kotaiah S/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 43 years, R/o Thummalapalli village, Karlapalem mandal. … Plaintif

AND

Didla Rami Reddy S/o Yedukondalu Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 39 years, R/o Thummalapalli village, Karlapalem Mandal. … Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintif for recovery of an amount of

Rs.34,120/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand and One Hundred and Twenty

Only) basing on the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.200,000/- dt. 12-02-2018 and for costs.

Plaint Presented on: 25-01-2021

Plaint Filed (Registered/Numbered) on: 29-01-2021

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintif on 12-02-2018for his family purpose, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. either to plaintif or his order on demand and on the said same date, when in spite of demands made by the plaintif personally and through registered legal notice dated 20-06-2020 by demanding him to repay the amount due under the said promissory note with agreed rate of interest to the plaintif but the same were returned as unserved, except that the defendant did not choose to discharge the same taking time after time at his like, where the promissory notes were made at Thummalapalli village, Karlapalem mandal within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Valuation of the Suit: This is the suit for recovery of promissory note of Rs.34,120/-, on which a court fee of Rs.1,966/- is paid u/s.20 of APCF and SV Act.

The value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.34,120/-.

This suit is coming on 08-07-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Rama Rao, Advocate for the plaintif, and the defendant was set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

5

a) that the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.34,120/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand and One Hundred and Twenty Only) towards suit amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on principal amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Thousand Only); and

b) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.3,616/- (Rupees Three Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen Only) towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.-NIL- (Exparte).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 5th day of

August, 2022.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Table of Costs

For PlaintifFor Defendant Rs.Rs.

Stamp on Vakalat2-00EXPARTE Stamp on Plaint1966-00-- Stamp on Process48-00-- Advocate Fee 1500-00-- Writing &Type charges 100-00-- Total 3616-00- N I L -

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla.