Smt G.anandi

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHITTOOR

Present: Smt G.Anandi, B.com., LLB.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Friday the Fourteenth (14th ) day of February 2014

O.S.No.194 of 2013

Between: P.Munirathnam

.... Plaintiffs.

And :

1. Smt. Manickyamma

2. Mani

..... Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 14.2.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Lokanadha Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and defendant is 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 suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration of his right and title to the schedule property and also the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that :- The schedule property was purchased by his father through his registered sale deed dated 26.3.1971, the total extent in Sy.No:

154/2 is Ac. 2.80 cents, it was later sub divided as Sy.No: 154/ and 154/2-D, out of the total extent of Ac.2.80 cents, the plaintiff's father sold Ac.2.10 cents and retained only Ac.0.70 cents. After the death of plaintiffs father about 25 years back, the plaintiff succeeded to the schedule property and he is in possession of the property since then. He further adds that he obtained electricity service connection bearing Service connection No: 428, to the well situated in the schedule property in the name of his father. But the defendants who have no right over the schedule property are un necessarily causing interference with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff says that when the defendants approached him seeking to sell the schedule property, he refused to sell. Hence the defendants developed grudge against him and are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by claiming right over it. On 28.4.2013, at 9.00 A.M, When the plaintiff was removing sundry trees over the schedule property the defendants along with their men highhandedly came to the schedule property and obstructed him in doing work. However with the help of elders the acts of the defendants could be resisted. The plaintiff says that as the defendants are powerful persons in the village, they may at any time renew their attempts, hence he in order to protect his right, possession over the schedule property has filed this suit.

3. Though summons were served on D1 and D2 as they failed to file written statement within stipulated statutory period of 90 days they were set exparte.

4. On behalf of plaintiff PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs A1 to A4 were marked.

5. Heard plaintiff.

6. POINT:- 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of his right and title to the schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property against the defendants?

7. POINT NO:1:- The plaintiff filed his chief affidavit as PW1 reiterating the entire plaint averments and contends that the schedule property i.e. Sy.No: 154/2 which consisted Ac.2.80 cents was purchased by his father under registered sale deed dated 26.3.1971, and since then he was in possession of the property. Later their father sold away Ac.2.10 cents retaining 0.70 cents which was succeeded by this plaintiff subsequent to the death of his father. The plaintiff in support of his contentions has filed the registered sale deed dated 26.3.1971, marked as Ex.A.1, and also the electricity slab card standing in the name of his father to prove his fathers right and possession over the schedule property, hence recitals in Ex.A.1 makes clear that the schedule property was purchased by his father.

8. Though PW1 says that out of Ac.2.80 cents, Ac. 2.10 cents was sold by is father to some third party, in proof of the said transaction no document is filed. PW1 further adds that after the death of his father, the remaining Ac.0.70 cents in Sy.No: 154/2 was succeeded by him and to prove his contentions he filed the pattadar pass book standing in his name, marked as

Ex. A.2 and according to the said document PW1 is shown to be in possession of Ac.0.70 cents, as the defendants remained exparte and no contra evidence was let in to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, a combined perusal of Exs A1 and A2 shows that originally the schedule property was purchased by his father and now it is in the enjoyment of the plaintiff.

9. Though as already stated above no document is filed to prove the sale of Ac.2.10 cents by the plaintiffs father to third parties, but this court opines that when the relief is sought in respect of only Ac.0.70 cents, in schedule survey number, non filing of the above referred document does not cause prejudice to the case of the plaintiff. Hence this court considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff opines that the schedule property which was actually purchased by plaintiff's father is succeeded by the plaintiff and enjoyed by him. Hence point No: 1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. POINT NO: 2 :- While giving finding under point No:1 this court categorically held that after the death of plaintiff's father the schedule property is succeeded by PW1 and is in his enjoyment which is evidenced by Ex.A.2 pattadar pass book, When the pattadar pass book clearly discloses that Ac.0.70 cents of land in Sy.No: 154/2 is shown to be in enjoyment of the plaintiff, which document remained un challenged as PW1 was not cross examined it has to be held that by virtue of Ex.A.2 coupled with the oral evidence of PW2 who is an independent witness, who spoke in support of the plaintiff supporting his title and possession of the schedule property, PW1 could produce sufficient evidence to prove his possession over the schedule property. Accordingly point No: 2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11. In view of my findings given under Point No:1 and 2 the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of his right and title to the schedule property and to the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession over the schedule property.

12. In the result, suit is decreed with costs, declaring the right and title of the plaintiff over the schedule property with consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

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

Open Court on this the 14th day of February 2014.

Sd/- G.Anandi

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS

PW1 : P. Munirathnam

PW2 : A. Govindaswamy

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A.1 : is the Registered sale deed dated 26.3.1971 standing in the name of father of PW1

Ex.A.2 : is the pattadar pas book stands in the name of PW1

Ex.A.3 : is the electricity slab and issued by APSEB in the name of father of PW1

Ex.A.4 : is the CC of Registered sale deed dated 24.7.1997 executed by Dhanamma in favour of plaintiff and his brother.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

-Nil- i/d G.A.

P.J.C.J.

C.T.R.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHITTOOR

Present: Smt G.Anandi, B.com., LLB.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

THURSDAY THE TWENTIETH(20th) DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014

O.S.No.2 of 2014

Between: K. Venkatesulu Reddy

.... Plaintiffs.

And : 1.A. Eragama Reddy

2. A. Rami Reddy

..... Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 20.2.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.R. Jagadeesh Kumar, Advocate for plaintiffs and defendants called absent and are 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 suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to direct the defendants to execute registered sale deed in respect of the schedule property by receiving balance of consideration.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that :- The plaintiff says that the schedule property belongs to D1 and D2, who approached him to purchase the property to meet their binding necessities, upon which there was a contract in between the plaintiff and defendants to sell the suit schedule properties to him for a sum of Rs.79,000/-, and the same was reduced into writing as agreement of sale dated 14.6.2010, and the plaintiff obtained Rs.17,000/- from the defendants on the same day, and the defendants executed agreement of sale undertaking to execute a registered sale deed as and when asked by the plaintiff, the plaintiff undertook to pay the balance amount of Rs.9,000/- at the time of registration.

3. The plaintiff says that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract the defendants postponed the same, and now he came to know that the defendants are attempting to alienate the schedule property to some third parties, and when the plaintiff requested the defendants to perform their part of contract, they paid deaf ear, upon which the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 11.11.2010, calling upon them to perform their part of contract, but the defendants failed to perform their part of contract, nor gave any reply to the notice. Under these circumstances he is obliged to file the present suit.

5. Though summons were served on the defendants Nos 1 and 2, as they failed to appear and file written statement within statutory period of 90 days, they were set exparte.

6. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs A1 to A3 were marked.

7. Heard plaintiff.

8. The point for consideration is :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the direction to

D1 and D2 to execute registered sale deed in his favour in pursuance of the agreement of sale

dated 14.6.2010?

8. POINT:- The plaintiff through his chief affidavit as PW1 reiterating the plaint averments, contends that D1 and D2 approached him to sell the schedule property, and PW1 after verifying the title deeds agreed to purchase the schedule property for Rs.79,000/- and accordingly an agreement of sale dated 14.6.2010 was executed by D1 and D2, and they also received Rs.70,000/- on the even date and agreed to execute registered sale deed, and PW1 also undertook to pay the balance amount of Rs.9,000/- at the time of registration.

9. PW1 in support of his contentions has filed the agreement of sale deed dated 4.6.2010, which is marked as Ex.A.1. He further adds that though he approached D1 and D2 several times for execution of registered sale deed, they postponed the execution on one pretext or other, and later PW1 came to know that D1 and D2 are trying to alienate the property. Upon which PW1 got issued legal notice to them dated 11.11.2013. But the defendants neither gave reply nor performed their part of contract. In support of his contentions, the plaintiff filed Ex.A.2 the legal notice, and Ex.A.3 the un served postal cover. As the defendants remained exparte, the agreement of sale, the legal notice issued by PW1 remained un challenged, and as per the recitals of Ex.A.1 there is an agreement by D1 and D2 to execute regular registered sale deed in respect of the schedule property whenever the plaintiff asks and they received Rs.70,000/- on the even date, agreeing to receive the balance of Rs.9,000/- on the date of registration, as the recitals of Ex.A.1 remained un challenged it can be safely held that Ex.A.1 is the proof of contract between D1 and D2, and PW1 issuing legal notice is suggestive of the fact that he is willing to perform his part of contract, but D1 and D2 have failed.

10. Hence in view of non disputing of Exs.A1 and A2 and the oral evidence of PW1, and there being no other contra evidence being let in against the case of the plaintiff, in view of defendants being set exparte. The un rebutted oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff supports his case, thereby entitling him to the relief claimed by him. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

0. In the result suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance consideration of Rs.9000/- within a period of one month from the date of this Judgment, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same done through process of law.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced

by me in Open Court on this the 20th day of February 2014.

Sd/- G.Anandi

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS

PW1 : K. Venkatesulu Reddy

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A.1 : is the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff

dated 14-6-2010

Ex.A.2 : is the office copy of legal notice issued to the defendant dated 11.11.2013

Ex.A.3 : is the un-served postal cover with postal acknowledgment.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

-Nil- I/d G.A.

P.J.C.J.

C.T.R.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHITTOOR

Present: Smt G.Anandi, B.com., LLB.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

TUESDAY THE FOURTH(4th) DAY OF MARCH 2014

O.S.No.299 of 2012

Between: C. Harinadha Chetty

.... Plaintiff.

And : D. Nagaraju

..... Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 28.2.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Eswara Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri. G.Ananda Reddy Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to recover the principal sum of Rs.20,000/- said to be advanced by him to the defendant, along with interest at 24 % p.a. and for costs, which comes to a tune of Rs.46,080/-

2. The averments of the plaintiff in brief is that :- The defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.20,000/- on 27.1.2007 to meet his family necessities by executing a pronote on the even date agreeing to repay the same on payment or order to the plaintiff. On demand of the plaintiff the defendant paid an amount of Rs.50/- on 7.4.2009, and an amount of Rs.100/- on 7.2.2012 towards interest and made endorsement to the said effect on the back side of the pronote duly signed by him. The plaintiff says that except the said payments no amount was paid by him. Hence he issued a legal notice dated 5.6.2012 to the defendant asking him to pay the amount with interest, but the defendant having received the notice neither paid any amount nor gave the reply to the notice. Hence to recover the principal sum along with interest from the defendant this suit is filed.

3. The defendant through his written statement denied the entire plaint averments and contends that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and that the promissory note

dated 27.1.2007, is not executed by him. Similarly the alleged endorsements on the

promissory note were also not made by him. Hence he prays for the dismissal of the suit as the suit promissory note is a forged document not supported by consideration.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff Pws 1 and 2 were examined Exs A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants DW1 was examined and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

5. Heard both sides.

6. ISSUES: 1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for ?

3) To what relief ?

6. ISSUE No.1 : The plaintiff to support his contentions that on 27.1.2007, the defendant borrowed Rs.20,000/- from him, to meet his family necessities has filed the original promissory note marked as Ex.A.1, and also got examined the scribe of promissory note as PW2 on his behalf. A perusal of the cross examination of both Pws 1 and 2 show that, nothing worthy in support of the defendants case that, Ex.A.1 promissory note is not supported by consideration, and that it was not executed by DW1 could be elicited. In fact from the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 , the place of execution of Ex.A.1, the time of its execution, and the denomination of notes in which loan was advanced by PW1 were clearly elicited from the cross examination of PW1. Added to it, the defendant who has taken the plea of Ex.A.1 being forged could not produce any material except examining himself as DW1, and the cross examination of DW1 itself shatters his case, because during his cross examination, DW1 admitted that, the signatures on the suit summons, Ex.A.1 promissory note, Ex.A.2 and A3 payment endorsements were put by him, which admission of DW1 adds force to the case of the plaintiff in saying that Ex.A.1 was executed by DW1.

7. Hence, from the above made discussions it could be clearly established that Ex.A.1 promissory note was executed by DW1 on 27.1.2007, with the said proof an inference can be drawn that, consideration of Rs.20,000/- passed under it to DW1. Added to it, the evidence of

DW1 in saying that he will pay the entire amount if time is given to him, itself is suggestive of the fact that consideration of Rs.20,000/- passed under Ex.A.1 to DW1. Hence from the above made discussions it is clear that Ex.A.1 was executed by the plaintiff and that it is binding on the defendant. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8. ISSUE No: 2 :- In view of my findings made in Issue No:1 that the suit promissory note is true valid and binding on the defendant, under which consideration of Rs.20,000/- passed to him, for the default made by the defendant in repaying the amount, certainly plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9. ISSUE No: 3 :- In the result, suit is decreed with costs for sum of Rs.46,080/- with interest at 6 % p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation on principal sum of

Rs.20,000/-

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me in

Open Court on this the 4th day of March 2014.

Sd/- G.Anandi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHITTOOR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff: Defendant: PW-1: C.Harinadha Chetty DW1: D. Nagaraj

Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiff: Ex.A-1: Suit Promissory note, dt. 22.1.2007 Ex.A-2:Payment endorsement for Rs.50/- on the back of Ex.A.1 dated 7.4.2009 Ex.A-3:Payment endorsement for Rs.100/- on the back of Ex.A.1 dated 7.2.2012 Ex.A-4Office copy of legal notice dated 5.6.2012 Ex.A.5Returned postal cover with acknowledgment

Defendant: NIL

I/d G.A.

P.J.C.J.CHITTOOR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHITTOOR

Present: Smt G.Anandi, B.com., LLB.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Friday the Thirty First (31st) day of January 2014

O.S.No.235 of 2013

Between:

1) Amruthamma

2) Rajamma

3) Saraswathi

.... Plaintiffs.

And : Eswari

..... Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 28.1.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Nagi Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and defendant is 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 suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of the schedule properties against the defendant.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that :- The plaintiffs are sisters and absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties, which originally belonged to their father Thanikachalam.

After his death the plaintiffs and their mother Govindamma filed OS 601/1984 on the file of

Iind Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor against one Eswari W/O Late Subramanyam and

Dhananjayan S/O Late Subramanyam. The said Subramanyam is the brother of plaintiffs in

OS No: 601/84. The suit schedule lands and some other lands were allotted to the share of plaintiffs in the Final decree dated 30.12.2010 in I.A.601/05, in OS 601/84. The possession of the lands were delivered to the plaintiffs by the Court Field Assistant on 22.4.2012, in E.P.

60/12, but the defendant who has no right over the schedule property with the support of her elders is attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment.

One such attempt was made in the first week of March 2013 and again on 6.4.2013. Hence plaintiffs in order to protect their possession over the schedule property are constrained to file this suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining her from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties.

3. Though summons were served on defendant as she failed to appear before the court she was set exparte.

4. On behalf of plaintiffs the first plaintiff filed her chief affidavit as PW1 and Exs A1 to

A4 were marked through her.

5. Heard plaintiff.

6. Point for consideration :- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of the schedule properties as prayed for ?

7. POINT :- The first plaintiff filed her chief affidavit as PW1 reiterating the entire plaint averments, and contends that the schedule properties along with other properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiffs herein by way of preliminary decree in OS 601/84 and by way of Final Decree in IA No: 641/05 in OS No: 601/84, they were allotted their respective shares which includes the plaint schedule properties. PW1 in support of her contentions filed

Ex.A.1 the certified copy of final decree, Ex.A.4 certified copy of preliminary decree in OS No:

601/84. Further, the plaintiffs to prove their exclusive possession over the schedule property subsequent to passing of final decree have also filed the certified copy of Amins delivery report of the schedule properties which is marked as Ex.A.3, and a perusal of all these documents shows that the properties that were allotted to the share of plaintiffs was subsequently delivered possession by the court Amin on 22.4.012. Hence the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence marked as Exs A1 to A4 categorically supports the case of the plaintiffs in proving their absolute possession and enjoyment over the schedule property.

8. As defendant remained exparte, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs remained un detered, nor there was any contra evidence let in to rebut the evidence of plaintiffs. Hence the un challenged evidence of the plaintiffs categorically establishes their exclusive possession over the schedule property which thereby entitles them to protect their possession over the schedule property by being interfered by the defendants.

9. Hence, in view of the opinion arrived by this court holding that the plaintiffs were successful in establishing their possession over the schedule property they are definitely entitled to the relief of permanent injunction sought by them. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. In the result suit is decreed with costs grating permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced

by me in Open Court on this the 31st day of January 2014.

Sd/- G.Anandi

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS

PW1 : Amruthamma

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A.1 : is the Certified copy of final decree in I.A. 641/2005

Ex.A.2 : is the Certified Commissioner's report and sketch in IA 641/05 in OS No: 601/1984

Ex.A.3 : is the certified copy of Amins delivery report and warrant in OS 206/13

Ex.A.4 : is the preliminary decree in OS No: 601/84 on the file of II Addl. District Munsif,

Chittoor.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

-Nil- I/d G.A.

P.J.C.J.

C.T.R.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: Chittoor

Present: Smt G.Anandi, B.com., LLB.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Thursday, the Twenty-third (23rd ) day of January, 2014.

O.S.No.132 of 2013

Between

M.Munikrishna Reddy .....Plaintiff

And

G.Ramachandra Reddy ….Defendant

This suit is coming before me 22-1-2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Viswanadha Reddy , Advocate for plaintiff, and defendant having remained exparte, and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the documents available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

::JUDGMENT:: This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to recover principal sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest, which comes to a tune of Rs.85,530-00 and for costs from the defendant.

2 (a) The case of the plaintiff in brief is that: The defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.

50,000/- from him on 10-4-2010, and in evidence thereof, he has executed a promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff, promising to repay the sum together with interest at the rate 24% per annum.

(b) The plaintiff submits that after receiving the said sum, the defendant, inspite of several oral requests and also issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff, which was received by him under postal acknowledgment, has failed to comply with the terms of notice . Hence, the suit.

3. On service of summons , defendant did not make his appearance before the court either in person or through an advocate , therefore, this court had set him exparte.

4. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself filed chief affidavit as PW1 and Ex.A1 and A-2 were marked.

5 Heard the plaintiff.

6 POINT: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for?

7.PW1, the plaintiff himself through his chief affidavit, reiterated the entire plaint averments and contends that, the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him on 10-4-2010, and in evidence thereof, he has executed Ex.A-1 promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff, promising to repay the sum together with interest at the rate 24% per annum, and that after receiving the said sum, the defendant, inspite of several oral requests and also issuance of legal notice under Ex.A-2 by the plaintiff, which was received by him evidence by acknowledgment, has failed to comply with the terms of notice . Hence, the plaintiff, through his oral evidence as PW1, coupled with documentary evidence marked as Ex.A1 and , has produced sufficient evidence in support of his case.

As the defendant remained exparte, the oral evidence of PW1 and the documentary evidence produced by him under Ex.A1 and A-2, remained unchallenged. Had the defendant appeared before the court, he would have offered explanation as to how his signature appeared :2:

on Ex.A-1 , or he would have denied his signatures on Ex.A-1-suit promissory note. If he did so, then the case would have been otherwise, hence, as there is no finger of protest against Ex.A-1 suit promissory note , which is said to be executed by the defendant in favour of P.W.1 and against issuance of Ex.A-2 legal notice and service of the same on him, there are no hindrances for this court to believe the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Hence, the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A-1 and A-2, establishes the case of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim of Rs.85,530-00 from the defendant as sought for, though in the chief affidavit of P.W.1 mentioned the suit claim as Rs.84,530-00, when no part-payments are made by the defendant, when this court calculated the interest at the rate of 24% per annum on principal sum of Rs.50,000-00, observes that the amount claimed in plaint is correct and may be by mistake an amount of Rs.84,530-00 is mentioned in the plaint. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.85,530-00 together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.50,000-00

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of January,2014.

Sd/-G.Anandi

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff Defendant

PW1:M.Munikrishna Reddy Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintiff :- Ex.A1:: 10-4-2010: Suit Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the ` plaintiff Ex.A-2: 30-11-2012: Office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff along with postal receipt and postal acknowledgment

Defendant : NIL

I/d- G.A

PJCJ, CTR.