Smt G. Chandra Mouleswari

25.04.17 1 OS 149/16

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. G.CHANDRAMOULESWARI,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM

TUESDAY, this the 25th day of APRIL, 2017

OS 149/2016

Between:

Yerramsetti Lakshmi, W/o Late Paidayya, Hindu, a/a 55 years, municipal employee, R/o Narayanapuram, Machilipatnam. ::: Plaintiff

A N D

Yerramsetti Easwararao, S/o Kameswararo, Hindu, a/a 28 years, Business, R/o D.No.28/595-6, Circlepet, Machilipatnam. ::: Defendant

This suit came up on 19.04.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sudhakar Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri VJM.Lohiya, advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree in her favour and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.2,91,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and grant subsequent interest at the rate 12% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 02.03.2014 for the purpose of his family expenses and sundry debts and executed a pronote in favour of the plaintiff on the even date at

Machilipatnam, after receiving the entire consideration from the plaintiff, 25.04.17 2 OS 149/16 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or her order on demand. Thereby inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay any amount due under above promissory note with interest and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Hence the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 30.12.15 demanding the defendant to pay the debt due under the promissory note. The defendant received the same and kept quiet. Hence, the plaintiff is obliged to file the present suit for the recovery of the amount due under the aforesaid promissory note.

3.The defendant filed his written statement denying the material allegations of the plaint and further stated that the defendant never executed the suit promissory note and the same is rank forgery. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount under the suit promissory note as the same is forged. Moreover, there is no necessity to borrow such a huge amount for to clear his sundry debts and family expenses as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount. The plaintiff brought the forged promissory note into existence to defraud the defendant to have unlawful gain. The plaintiff conducted unauthorized chit business in which the defendant joined as a member in the year 2013 on that context the plaintiff obtained some signatures of the defendant, having acquaintance with the signatures of the defendant, the plaintiff must have been forged the signatures with deft hand and fabricated the suit promissory note with the help of his kith and kin, with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the defendants, filed the present suit. The suit promissory note is antedated.

The stamp affixed on the suit promissory note, age of ink and paper used goes to show that the suit promissory note was fabricated at a later point of 25.04.17 3 OS 149/16 time. The plaintiff filed this suit basing on the rank forged promissory note and came to the court with unclean hands, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The rate of interest claimed is very high, excessive and exorbitant; the plaintiff cannot claim such higher rate of interest in view of debt relief legislations. There is no cause of action ever accrued to the plaintiff. The suit against them is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is liable to pay and the defendant is entitled to recover costs by way of compensation, which the defendants hereby claim accordingly. Therefore prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been framed for trial:-

1. Whether suit promissory note is fabricated and forged document?

2. Whether the rate of interest claimed by plaintiff is usurious?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as Pw.1 and also got examined one Chitrada Srinivasarao who is scribe of promissory note as Pw.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. The defendant himself is examined as Dw.1.

6. Heard.

ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:-

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family expenses and sundry debts and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the entire consideration from the plaintiff, 25.04.17 4 OS 149/16 agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a; inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, to pay the amount due under the above said promissory note, the defendant did not choose to repay any amount due under the pronote and postponed the same on some pretext or other; then the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding to pay the debt amount, but the defendant did not give any reply notice. Under above circumstances, the plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of the due amount. To prove the above contention of the plaintiff, he herself examined as Pw.1 and got examined the scribe of promissory note as Pw.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4.

8. The learned defence counsel contended that the promissory note is rank forged; there is no necessity to borrow such a huge amount for his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts; the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount; previously plaintiff conducted unauthorized chit business in which he is a member, at that time the plaintiff obtained some signatures of him, having acquaintance with his signatures, the plaintiff might have forged his signatures and fabricated the promissory note; the suit promissory note is antedated; the stamp affixed on the suit promissory note, age of ink and paper used shows that the promissory note is forged and fabricated; the rate of interest claimed is very high, excessive and exorbitant; therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed and prayed that dismiss the suit with costs. To prove his contentions the defendant himself examined as Dw.1.

9. It is well settled law and principle contemplated in section 101 of

Indian Evidence Act that “Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the 25.04.17 5 OS 149/16 existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”

So, plaintiff has initial burden to prove his case as he filed a suit to seek relief in his favour against defendant.

10. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff herself examined as

Pw.1. Naturally, she supported all the plaint averments. Her specific evidence is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of family expenses and to discharge sundry debts, executed a pronote in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a.; inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to pay the pronote amount, the defendant did not choose to repay any amount due under pronote; then the plaintiff issued a legal notice demanding the defendant to pay the debt amount, the defendant received the notice, but did not pay any amount; hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of amount due under the pronote. In his evidence 4 documents are marked as Exs.A1 to A4.

11. To corroborate the evidence of Pw.1, plaintiff got examined the 1 st attestor of Ex.A1 Chitrada Srinivasarao, who is a 3rd party to the suit proceedings as Pw.2. His specific evidence is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 02.03.14 and executed a pronote in favour of the plaintiff, in the presence of himself and another attestor and scribe. Naturally Pw.2 being examined on behalf of plaintiff he corroborated the evidence of Pw.1 and supports the pleadings of plaintiff.

12. During cross examination of Pw.1 it was elicited that he lent amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to defendant on 02.03.14 which is his bank loan amount; 25.04.17 6 OS 149/16 the transaction under Ex.A1 is held at his house. During the cross examination of Pw.2 it was elicited that defendant signed in Telugu language on Ex.A1; the transaction under Ex.A1 is held at the house of plaintiff, but he do not remember time of the said transaction.

13. To further corroborate the evidence of Pw.1 he got marked 4 documents. Ex.A1 is promissory note executed by defendant, dated 02.03.2014; on perusal of Ex.A1, it is clear that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under Ex.A1 from the Plaintiff for family expenses and to discharge sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a. One Ch.Srinivasarao/Pw.2 and R.Ganesh are attestors of Ex.A1 and one G.Suman are scribe of Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is office copy of registered legal notice, dated 03.12.15; the recitals of Ex.A2 shows that plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the promissory note amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice; Ex.A3 is postal receipt, dated 30.12.15; the recitals of Ex.A3 show that notice under Ex.A2 was sent to defendant; Ex.A4 is postal acknowledgment, dated 01.01.16; the recitals of

Ex.A4 shows that defendant received notice sent under Ex.A2.

14. The recitals of Exs.A1 to A4 go to show that on 02.03.14 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of family expenses and to discharge sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Later, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay any amount due under the aforesaid promissory note. Thereupon the plaintiff got issued a legal notice under

Ex.A2 demanding the defendant to pay the promissory note amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of notice. Ex.A3 is postal receipt and Ex.A4 is 25.04.17 7 OS 149/16 postal acknowledgment. Though the counsel for defendant cross-examined the P.Ws.1 and 2, but nothing is elicited to disprove his case. Except giving some suggestions no favourable answers are elicited from the cross- examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 to support the defence taken by the defendant in his written statement.

15. Thus the oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with recital of Exs.A1 to Ex.A4 clearly shows that the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff under suit promissory note/Ex.A1 and executed a suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Later the plaintiff demanded several times to repay the amount. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the amount and simply he postponed the payment under one pretext or other. Thus the plaintiff categorically established his case against the defendant by producing oral evidence of

Pws.1 and 2 and by marking Exs.A1 to Ex.A4 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from plaintiff and executed suit pronote i.e.

Ex.A1, thereafter demanded defendant to repay the due amount. Hence, defendant is liable to pay due amount to plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff discharged initial burden casts upon him. Then the burden turns to defendant.

16. In connection with Ex.A1 the learned counsel for defendant contended that the plaintiff in the year 2013 conducted unauthorized chit in which the defendant was a member, at that time the plaintiff obtained some signature of the defendant; having acquaintance with the signatures of defendant, the plaintiff might have forged the signatures of defendant and fabricated the suit promissory note, with the help of his kith and kin; the suit promissory note is antedated and the stamp affixed on suit promissory note, 25.04.17 8 OS 149/16 age of ink, paper goes to show that the suit promissory note was fabricated at a later point of time; therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed and prayed that dismiss the suit with costs. To prove above contention though the defendant examined himself as Dw.1 and cross examined Pws.1 and 2, but nothing was elicited to prove the above contention. It is onus on the defendant to establish that the plaintiff forged his signatures and fabricated the promissory note; in absence of any positive evidence, the contention of the defendant cannot be and never be accepted. Even he did not take any steps to send Ex.A1 to hand writing expert to prove that Ex.A1 is rank forged document. But no such steps were taken by defendant. Mere taking plea in the written statement without adducing any positive evidence to support his contention, it would not give any strength to the case of the defendant and helpful to the case of the defendant. Further he deposed in his cross examination that “the signatures shown on chief affidavit and suit promissory note/Ex.A1 are belong to him.” The own admission of defendant proves that the suit promissory note was executed by him. In such circumstances the version of defendant is not believable. Therefore the contention of the defendant that the suit promissory note is fabricated and forged document is not tenable.

17. The learned counsel for the defendant further contended that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount; the defendant has no necessity to borrow such a huge amount for his family expenses and discharge of sundry debts; the rate of interest is very high, excessive and exorbitant; therefore prayed that to dismiss the suit. But to prove the same he did not adduce any oral evidence nor marked any supportive document.

In absence of any positive evidence the contention of defendant is not 25.04.17 9 OS 149/16 believable. Furthermore plaintiff deposed in his cross examination that “he lent amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to defendant on 02.03.14 which is his bank loan amount.” The own admission of plaintiff shows the capacity of plaintiff to lend amount to defendant. Therefore the contention of defendant that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount is not believable. When perused the promissory note it is clear that the rate of interest claimed is

Rs.2/- i.e. 24% p.a.; generally promissory notes are executed for 24% p.a.

interest only; further plaintiff claimed in his plaint only 21% interest only; therefore the contention of defendant that the rate of interest claimed is usurious is not tenable.

18. In view of above discussion it is elicited that the suit promissory note is not forged and fabricated document. Mere mentioning in the chief affidavit or pleadings of the defendant without any evidence it would not give any strength to the defence of the defendant. It is onus on the defendant to establish his defence, but no such steps or evidence is placed by defendant to prove his defence.

19. On the other hand, the plaintiff by examining himself as Pws.1 and 2 and by marking Ex.A1 established that the defendant borrowed amount from him and executed Ex.A1/promissory note in favour of plaintiff. It shows that the defendant received consideration from the plaintiff in the presence of scribe and attestor of Ex.A1. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded several times to repay the suit amount, but the defendant postponed the same from time to time. Therefore the defendant is liable to pay due amount to the plaintiff. In absence of any positive evidence in support of defence raised by the defendant, the contentions of the defendant cannot be and never be accepted.

25.04.17 10 OS 149/16

20. In view of foregoing discussion, the plaintiff has produced cogent and proper evidence to establish his case. Therefore, without any hesitation this court held that the suit promissory note is not fabricated and forged document. Further it is held that the rate of interest claimed by plaintiff is not usurious. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for.

Accordingly, all the issues are determined and decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

21. ISSUE No.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,91,000/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety one thousand only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereon at 6% p.a., till realization.

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

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Pw.1: Yerramsetti Lakshmi Dw.1: Yerramsetti Eswararao

Pw.2: Chitrada Srinivasarao

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Promissory note executed by defendant, dated 02.03.2014

Ex.A2: Office copy of registered legal notice, dated 03.12.2015

Ex.A3: Postal receipt, dated 30.12.2015

Ex.A4: Postal acknowledgment, dated 01.01.2016

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT: NIL

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

26.04.17 1 OS 357/16

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. G.CHANDRAMOULESWARI,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM

WEDNESDAY, this the 26th day of APRIL, 2017

OS 357/2016

Between:

Vemuri Ratnagirirao, S/o VRK.Murthy, Hindu, a/a 56 years, Ex-serviceman, R/o Shaik Immampet, Ramanaidupet, Machilipatnam. ::: Plaintiff

A N D

Syed Najeerunnisa, W/o Chan Basha, Muslim, a/a 45 years, Business, R/o D.No.2-5, Indiramma colony, Guduru village and mandal, Krishna District. ::: Defendant

This suit came up on 18.04.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Suresh Babu Perni, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri M.Suresh Babu, advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree in his favour and against the defendant for the suit amount of Rs.2,33,600/- together with subsequent interest at 12% p.a on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 24.06.2014 for the purpose of her family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and executed a pronote in favour of the plaintiff on the even date at Machilipatnam, after receiving the entire consideration from 26.04.17 2 OS 357/16 the plaintiff in the presence of attestor and scribe, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.

Thereby inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and legal notice got issued to the defendant to pay the amount, the defendant neither choose to repay any amount due under above promissory note not gave any reply.

Hence, the plaintiff is obliged to file the present suit for the recovery of the amount due under the aforesaid promissory note.

3.The defendant filed her written statement denying the material allegations of the plaint and further stated that there is no cause of action for the suit. The defendant has got not even facial acquaintance with the plaintiff and in such an event the question of borrowing by the defendant from unknown person does not arise. The non-issuance of reply by the defendant cannot be taken as admission. The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any pronote in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has no necessity to borrow any amount from anyone even from the plaintiff. The defendant has every reason to believe that the plaintiff must have fabricated the suit pronote with the active connivance of his followers i.e. the attestor and the scribe by forging the signature of the defendant to file this false suit to cause wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the defendant and approached the court with unclean hands. The plaintiff is nothing to do with the alleged pronote transaction.

The defendant need not pay anything to the plaintiff since she did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff. The suit pronote is not supported by any consideration and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

Soon after receipt of the suit summons, plaint copy, pronote and other material, the defendant scrutinized the suit pronote and verified that the suit 26.04.17 3 OS 357/16 pronote was a fabricated one. The suit which was filed on the strength of the fabricated pronote, itself is not maintainable. The suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is in-correct and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Therefore prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been framed for trial:-

1. Whether suit promissory note is fabricated and forged document?

2. Whether suit promissory note is supported by consideration?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for against defendant?

4. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as Pw.1 and also got examined one TRB.Raju who is attestor of promissory note as Pw.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. The defendant herself examined as Dw.1.

6. Heard arguments.

ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:-

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of her family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the entire consideration from the plaintiff in the presence of attestor and scribe, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a; inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and the legal notice got issued to the defendant, to pay the amount due under the above said promissory note, the defendant neither choose to repay any amount due under the pronote nor issued any reply; under above circumstances, the plaintiff filed this suit 26.04.17 4 OS 357/16 against the defendant for recovery of the due amount. To prove the above contention of the plaintiff, he himself examined as Pw.1 and got examined the attestor of promissory note as Pw.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A3.

8. The learned defence counsel contended that there is no cause of action for the suit; the defendant has not even got facial acquaintance with the plaintiff, so the question of borrowing does not arise; the non-issuance of reply by the defendant cannot be taken as admission; the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff; the defendant has no necessity to borrow any amount from anyone; the suit promissory note is fabricated with the active connivance of attestors and scribe by forging his signature to cause wrongful gain for plaintiff and wrongful loss to the defendant; the defendant need not pay anything to the plaintiff since she did not borrow any amount from plaintiff; the suit promissory note is not supported by any consideration; therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed and prayed that dismiss the suit with costs. To prove the above arguments, the defendant herself examined as Dw.1.

9. It is well settled law and principle contemplated in section 101 of

Indian Evidence Act that “Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”

So, plaintiff has initial burden to prove his case as he filed a suit to seek relief in his favour against defendant.

10. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as 26.04.17 5 OS 357/16

Pw.1. Naturally, he supported all the plaint averments. His specific evidence is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of family expenses and to discharge sundry debts, executed a pronote in favour of the plaintiff, in the presence of scribe Rajanala

Phanibabu and attestor TRB.Raju, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a.; inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to pay the pronote amount and legal notice got issued to the defendant, the defendant did not choose to repay any amount due under pronote; hence he filed the suit for recovery of amount due under the pronote. In his evidence 3 documents are marked as Exs.A1 to A3.

11. To corroborate the evidence of Pw.1, plaintiff got examined the attestor of Ex.A1 TRB.Raju, who is a 3rd party to the suit proceedings as

Pw.2. His specific evidence is that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 24.06.14 for her family expenses and for discharging sundry debts and executed a pronote in favour of the plaintiff, in the presence of himself and scribe. Naturally Pw.2 being examined on behalf of plaintiff he corroborated the evidence of Pw.1 and supports the pleadings of plaintiff.

12. During cross examination of Pw.1 it was elicited that defendant signed only one time in Ex.A1; defendant is resident of Guduru. During the cross examination of Pw.2 it was elicited that on 24.06.14 defendant requested him to attest the promissory note; he did not count the amount personally but plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and defendant signed on promissory note.

13. To further corroborate the evidence of Pw.1 he got marked 3 documents. Ex.A1 is pronote executed by the defendant in favour of the 26.04.17 6 OS 357/16 plaintiff, dated 24.06.2016; on perusal of Ex.A1, it is clear that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under Ex.A1 from the Plaintiff for family expenses and to discharge sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a. One TRB.Raju/Pw.2 is attestor of Ex.A1 and one Rajanala Phanibabu is scribe of Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is office copy of registered notice got issued by the plaintiff’s advocate to the defendant,

dated 04.10.16; on perusal of Ex.A2 it is clear that plaintiff demanded the

defendant to pay the entire amount due under the above pronote with interest within one week of this notice including costs of Rs.500/- towards this notice. Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment; the recitals of Ex.A3 show that defendant received the notice/Ex.A2 under Ex.A3.

14. The recitals of Exs.A1 to A3 go to show that on 24.06.14 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of family expenses and to discharge sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Later, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay any amount due under the aforesaid promissory note. Though the counsel for defendant cross- examined the P.W.1, but nothing is elicited to disprove her case. Except giving some suggestions no favourable answers are elicited from the cross- examination of P.W.1 to support the defence taken by the defendant in her written statement.

15. Thus the oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with recital of Exs.A1 to A3 clearly shows that the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff under suit promissory note/Ex.A1 and executed a suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Later the plaintiff demanded several times to 26.04.17 7 OS 357/16 repay the amount. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff and notice under Ex.A2, the defendant did not choose to pay the amount and simply she postponed the payment under one pretext or other. Thus the plaintiff categorically established his case against the defendant by producing oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and by marking Exs.A1 to A3 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff and executed suit pronote i.e. Ex.A1, thereafter demanded defendant to repay the due amount. Hence, defendant is liable to pay due amount to plaintiff.

Thus the plaintiff discharged initial burden casts upon him. Then the burden turns to defendant.

16. In connection with Ex.A1 the learned counsel for defendant contended that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, never executed any pronote in favour of plaintiff; she has no necessity to borrow amount from plaintiff; the pronote is forged and fabricated with the active connivance of attestor and scribe; therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed and prayed that dismiss the suit with costs. To prove above contention though the defendant examined himself as Dw.1 and cross examined Pws.1 and 2, but nothing was elicited to prove the above contention. It is onus on the defendant to establish that the suit pronote is forged and fabricated document. Absolutely no piece of evidence is placed by the defendant to prove the same. In absence of any positive evidence, the contention of the defendant cannot be and never be accepted. Mere taking plea in the written statement without adducing any positive evidence to support his contention, it would not give any strength to the case of the defendant and helpful to the case of the defendant. Further defendant deposed in his cross examination that “she will send Ex.A1 to hand writing 26.04.17 8 OS 357/16 expert to prove the signature of Ex.A1 is not belong to her”. But no such steps were taken by defendant. In such circumstances the version of defendant is not believable. Therefore the contention of the defendant that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document is not tenable.

17. The learned counsel for the defendant further contended that the suit promissory note is not supported by any consideration; the plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands; she need not pay anything to plaintiff since she did not borrow any amount from plaintiff; therefore prayed that to dismiss the suit. But the defendant did not adduce any positive evidence to disprove the above contention of plaintiff. It is onus on the defendant to prove his defence, but he failed to produce any evidence on the same line of his defense. Hence his contentions are not accepted.

18. In view of above discussion it is elicited that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration. Mere mentioning in the chief affidavit or pleadings of the defendant without any evidence it would not give any strength to the defence of the defendant. It is onus on the defendant to establish his defence, but no such steps or evidence is placed by defendant to prove his defence.

19. On the other hand, the plaintiff by examining himself as Pws.1 and 2 and by marking Exs.A1 to A3 established that the defendant borrowed amount from him and executed Ex.A1/promissory note in favour of plaintiff.

It shows that the defendant received consideration from the plaintiff in the presence of scribe and attestor of Ex.A1. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded several times to repay the suit amount, but the defendant postponed the same from time to time. Therefore the defendant is liable to pay due amount to the plaintiff. In absence of any positive evidence in support of 26.04.17 9 OS 357/16 defence raised by the defendant, the contentions of the defendant cannot be and never be accepted.

20. In view of foregoing discussion, the plaintiff has produced cogent and proper evidence to establish his case. Therefore, without any hesitation this court held that the suit promissory note is not fabricated and forged document. Further it is held that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, all the issues are determined and decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

21. ISSUE No.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,33,600/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty three thousand six hundred only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereon at 6% p.a., till realization.

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26th day of April, 2017.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Pw.1:Vemuri Ratnagirirao Dw.1: Syed Najeerunnisa

Pw.2: TRB.Raju

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Pronote executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dated 26.04.17 10 OS 357/16 24.06.2014

Ex.A2: Office copy of registered notice got issued by the plaintiff’s advocate to the defendant, dated 04.10.2016

Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT: NIL

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

29.04.17 1 OS 365/16

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

PR.ESENT: Smt. G.CHANDRAMOULESWARI,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM

SATURDAY, this the 29th day of APRIL, 2017

O.S.No.365/2016

Between:

1. Assistant Commissioner, Endowments department, Vijayawada.

2. Andhra Jateeya Vidya Parishad, Rajupet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, represented by its Executive Officer cum assitant commissioner, Endowments

department, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ...Plaintiffs

A N D

Cherukuri Nagabhushanarao, S/o Manikyalarao, Hindu, A/a 59 years, Cultivation and properties, R/o D.No.8-102,

Mallavolu village, Guduru mandal, Krishna District. ...Defendant

This suit came up on 27.04.2017 before me for for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.V.Phani Kesava Rao Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri KN.Srinivasa Rao, Sri MN.Prasad, Smt. SP.Sudha advocates for defendant and defendant is called absent, no representation and was set exparte and upon consideration, this court delivered the following:

:J U D G M E N T:

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant for the suit amount of Rs.2,74,170/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a on the principal amount of Rs.2,14,140/- from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of a total extent of Ac.15.69 cents of wet land in different survey numbers i.e. an extent of Ac.5.43 cents in RS No.478/5-ABCD, an extent of Ac.1.11 cents in RS No.58/2, 3 an extent of Ac.4.73 cents in RS No.478/6 EFGHIJKLMN, an extent of Ac.0.35 29.04.17 2 OS 365/16 cents in RS No.506/2, 3 an extent of Ac.1.90 cents in RS No.470/ABCDE, an an extent of Ac.2.07 cents in RS No.478/3, ABC, situated in Mallavolu village, Guduru mandal, Krishna District. In the public auction for the leasehold rights of the schedule property for a period of three years, commencing from 2009-10 to 2011-12 (fasli Nos.1419 to 1421) conducted on 12.12.09, the defendant became the highest bidder and the bid was knocked down in his favour. The agreed maktha payable for sarva crop for the entire extent is 172 bags of paddy and for dalva crop if raised, the maktha payable by him is 86 bags of paddy per year. As per the terms of the auction conditions, the due date for payment of sarva maktha is 31st

January of every succeeding calender month and for dalva, it is 31st May of every succeeding English calender month and the defendant has also agreed to pay the maktha irrespective of his cultivation of the land or not, and the said lease was approved by the commissioner endowments department, Hyderabad in its D Dis.No.L2/56490 dated 17.04.10. Since the defendant committed default in making payment of sarva and dalva crops for the years 2010-2011 (fasli 1420), the 2nd plaintiff has issued a notice dated 07.09.11 demanding for payment of the maktha amount and since the defendant did not choose to comply the said demand, the plaintiff filed a suit in OS 189/12 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge at Machilipatnam for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,76,452/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,62,665/- from the date of the said suit till the date of realization and for other reliefs and the said suit is partly decreed.

The lease period has expired by 2011-12 (fasli 1421), the defendant has valued and delivered vacant possession of the land, without making payment of maktha amount for sarva and dalva crops for the years 2011- 2012 (fasli 1421). The maktha for sarva crop for the year 2011-12 is 29.04.17 3 OS 365/16 payable on or before 31.01.12 and the dalva crop for the said year is payable on or before 31.05.12. The defendant is liable to pay the rent for sarva crop for the year 2011-2012 at the rate of 172 bags of paddy on or

before 31.01.12. The market value of the paddy per each bag as on

31.01.12 is Rs.830/- and for 172 bags of paddy the respondent is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,42,760/-. Since he failed to pay the same on or

before 31.01.12 the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,42,760/-

along with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 01.02.12 till this date. The defendant is liable to pay the damages for dalva crop for the year 2011-12 at the rate of 86 bags of paddy on or before 31.05.12, the market value of the paddy per each bag as on 31.05.12 is Rs.830/- and for 86 bags of paddy, the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.71,830/-. Since he failed to pay the same on or before 31.05.12, the defendant is liable to pay interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 01.06.12 till this day. The defendant is well aware that in view of the suit pending in OS 189/12 against him for recovery of the arrears of both sarva and dalva crop for the years 2010-11 (fasli 1420) to a tune of Rs.1,72,259/- with interest and for such other reliefs, he is bound to discharge the said amount and to pay the maktha for sarva and dalva crops for the year 2011-12, with interest on respective due amounts at 12% p.a. till the date of payment. Inspite of the repeated demands made by and on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to make payment of the amount, the plaintiffs has no other alternative constrained to file the suit for recovery of arrears of rentals for both the crops for the year 2011-12 with interest from the respective due amounts. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant remained exparte.

4.Now the point for determination is 29.04.17 4 OS 365/16 “Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the decree against the defendant as prayed for?

To what relief?”

5.On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6 i.e., Ex.A1 is office copy of plaint in OS 189/12 on the file of Honourable Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam along with documents;

Ex.A2 is attested copy of DCB register for the year 2011-2012; Ex.A3 is certified copy of auction conditions, dated 12.12.09; Ex.A4 is certified copy of bid list, dated 12.12.09; Ex.A5 is certified copy of lease approval order issued by commissioner of endowments, Hyderabad, dated 17.04.10; Ex.A6 is attested copy of DCB register extract for fasli 1422 (2012-2013).

6.POINT:

To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW.1, his specific evidence is that the 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of a total extent of Ac.15.69 cents of wet land in different survey numbers situated in Mallavolu village, Guduru mandal, Krishna District; in the public auction for the leasehold rights of the schedule property for a period of three years, commencing from 2009-10 to 2011-12 (fasli Nos.1419 to 1421) conducted on 12.12.09, the defendant became the highest bidder and the bid was knocked down in his favour; the agreed maktha payable for sarva crop for the entire extent is 172 bags of paddy and for dalva crop if raised, the maktha payable by him is 86 bags of paddy per year; as per the terms of the auction conditions, the due date for payment of sarva maktha is 31st

January of every succeeding calender month and for dalva, it is 31st May of every succeeding English calender month and the defendant has also agreed to pay the maktha irrespective of his cultivation of the land or not; since the defendant committed default in making payment of sarva and 29.04.17 5 OS 365/16 dalva crops for the years 2010-2011 (fasli 1420), the 2nd plaintiff has issued a notice dated 07.09.11 demanding for payment of the maktha amount and since the defendant did not choose to comply the said demand, the plaintiff filed a suit in OS 189/12 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge at

Machilipatnam for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,76,452/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,62,665/- from the date of the said suit till the date of realization and for other reliefs and the said suit is partly decreed; the lease period has expired by 2011-12 (fasli 1421), the defendant has valued and delivered vacant possession of the land, without making payment of maktha amount for sarva and dalva crops for the years 2011-2012 (fasli 1421); the defendant is liable to pay the rent for sarva crop for the year 2011-2012 at the rate of 172 bags of paddy on or before 31.01.12; the market value of the paddy per each bag as on 31.01.12 is

Rs.830/- and for 172 bags of paddy the respondent is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,42,760/-; since he failed to pay the same on or before 31.01.12 the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,42,760/- along with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 01.02.12 till this date; the defendant is liable to pay the damages for dalva crop for the year 2011-12 at the rate of 86 bags of paddy on or before 31.05.12, the market value of the paddy per each bag as on 31.05.12 is Rs.830/- and for 86 bags of paddy, the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.71,830/-; since he failed to pay the same on or before 31.05.12, the defendant is liable to pay interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 01.06.12 till this day; inspite of the repeated demands made by and on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to make payment of the amount. Under the above circumstances the suit is filed for recovery of arrears of rentals for both the crops for the 29.04.17 6 OS 365/16 year 2011-12 with interest from the respective due amounts. To prove the above contention the plaintiff got marked 6 documents i.e., Exs.A1 to A6.

7.A perusal of the contents of the plaint, affidavit of PW.1 as well as documents i.e. Exs.A1 to A6 go to show that the defendant committed default in payment of maktha amount inspite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of the arrear amount.

8.The documents marked through PW.1 supports his case and the defendant did not choose to deny the contents of the plaint as well as the documents. The oral testimony of PW.1 as well as documentary evidence let in by him remains unchallenged. The plaintiff establishes his case by way of oral and documentary evidence and the defendant did not choose to contest the suit and remained exparte and that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree against the defendant.

9.In view of foregoing discussion without any hesitation, this court held that the plaintiff has produced cogent and proper evidence, thereby, the plaintiff has established his case. Hence, he is entitled for decree as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. To what relief:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,74,170/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy four thousand one hundred and seventy only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.2,14,140/- (Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand one hundred and forty only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereon at 6% p.a. till realization.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by 29.04.17 7 OS 365/16 me in open Court on this the 29th day of April, 2017.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVILJUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Pw.1:K.Nagavenkata Durgavaraprasad

FOR DEFENDANT : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Office copy of plaint in OS 189/12 on the file of Honourable Senior

Civil Judge, Machilipatnam along with documents

Ex.A2: Attested copy of DCB register for the year 2011-2012

Ex.A3: Certified copy of auction conditions, dated 12.12.2009

Ex.A4: Certified copy of bid list, dated 12.12.2009

Ex.A5: Certified copy of lease approval order issued by commissioner of endowments, Hyderabad, dated 17.04.2010

Ex.A6: Attested copy of DCB register extract for fasli 1422 (2012-2013)

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

PRL. JUNIOR CIVILJUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

29.04.17 1 OS 75/17

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

PR.ESENT: Smt. G.CHANDRAMOULESWARI,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM

SATURDAY, this the 29th day of APRIL, 2017

O.S.No.75/2017

Between:

Metlapalli Durgaprasad, S/o Sambaiah, Hindu, aged about

45 years, Properties, R/o Edepalli, Machilipatnam, Krishna ...Plaintiff

District.

A N D

Nagamunthala Chinasubbarao, S/o Pedasubbarao, Hindu, A/a 42 years, working as municipal health worker, Machilipatnammunicipality,R/oD.No.14/35,

Narayanapuram, Machilipatnam Krishna District. ...Defendant

This suit came up on 26.04.2017 before me for for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Venkanna Babu Advocate for plaintiff and defendant is called absent, no representation and was set exparte and upon consideration, this court delivered the following:

:J U D G M E N T:

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the suit amount of

Rs.32,837/- together subsequent interest at 24% p.a on the principal amount of Rs.27,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the realization and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant for the purpose of his family expenses borrowed an amount of Rs.27,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.01.16 and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the entire consideration in the presence of attestors and scribe, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order as 29.04.17 2 OS 75/17 and when demanded. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff for the discharge of the debt under the above mentioned promissory note, the defendant did not choose to repay the said sum and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Finally the defendant paid an amount of Rs.1,080/- on 20.03.16 towards interest for 2 months and made an endorsement on the reverse of the promissory note and acknowledged his liability due under the aforesaid promissory note. Thereupon the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant demanding the defendant to pay the balance amount, but the same was returned with an endorsement 'no such addressee in this door number. Hence returned to sendor'. Hence the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of the above suit amount. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant remained exparte.

4.Now the point for determination is “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the decree against the defendant as prayed for?

To what relief?”

5.On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4 i.e., Ex.A1 is promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, dated 18.01.2016; Ex.A2 is part payment endorsement, dated 20.03.16; Ex.A3 is office copy of registered notice got issued to defendant, dated 11.02.17; Ex.A4 is returned notice, dated 15.02.17.

6.POINT:

To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW.1, his specific evidence is that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.27,000/- from plaintiff on 18.01.2016 for the purpose of his family 29.04.17 3 OS 75/17 expenses and executed a promissory note in his favour in the presence of attestors Thota Pothaiah and scribe Koka Chalapathirao, agreeing to repay the said sum together with interest at 24% p.a either to plaintiff or to his order on demand; in spite of repeated demands made by plaintiff to pay the due amount, the defendant did not choose to any amount and postponed the same. Later the defendant paid Rs.1,080/- towards interest for 2 months and made an endorsement on the reverse side of the pronote; One Thota

Pothaiah signed as attestor on the part payment and Koka Chalapathirao scribed the same; later the plaintiff got issued a notice to the defendant demanding him to pay the balance amount, the same was returned with an endorsement that 'no such addressee in this door number. Hence returned to sendor.' Under the above circumstances he filed the present suit against the defendant for the recovery of the suit amount. To prove the above contention the plaintiff got marked four documents i.e., Exs.A1 to A4.

7.A perusal of the contents of the plaint, affidavit of PW.1 as well as documents i.e. Exs.A1 to A4 go to show that the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A1/suit promissory note and the suit promissory note/Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently, he failed to pay the same inspite of repeated oral demands and notice under Ex.A3. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of the amount due under the aforesaid promissory note/Ex.A1

8.The documents marked through PW.1 supports his case and the defendant did not choose to deny the contents of the plaint as well as the documents. The oral testimony of PW.1 as well as documentary evidence let in by him remains unchallenged. The plaintiff establishes his case by way of oral and documentary evidence and the defendant did not choose to contest 29.04.17 4 OS 75/17 the suit and remained exparte and that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree against the defendant.

9.In view of foregoing discussion without any hesitation, this court held that the plaintiff has produced cogent and proper evidence, thereby, the plaintiff has established his case. Hence, he is entitled for decree as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. To what relief:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.32,837/- (Rupees thirty two thousand eight hundred and thirty seven only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.27,000/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereon at 6% p.a. till realization.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 29th day of April, 2017.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVILJUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Pw.1:M.Durgaprasad

FOR DEFENDANT : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff,

dated 18.01.2016

Ex.A2: Part payment endorsement, dated 20.03.2016 29.04.17 5 OS 75/17 Ex.A3: Office copy of registered notice got issued to defendant, dated 11.02.2017

Ex.A4: Returned notice, dated 15.02.2017

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

PRL. JUNIOR CIVILJUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

26.04.17 1 OS 45/17

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

PR.ESENT: Smt. G.CHANDRAMOULESWARI,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM

WEDNESDAY, this the 26th day of APRIL, 2017

O.S.No.45/2017

Between:

Angalakuduru Veeraiah, S/o Chinakoteswararao, Hindu,

aged about 35 years, Properties, R/o Gandhinagar, ...Plaintiff

Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

A N D

Murala Ramanamma, W/o Yedukondalu, R/o Vemavaram,

Gudlavalleru mandal, Krishna District. ...Defendant

This suit came up on 21.04.2017 before me for for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Niranjana Rao and of Sri KN.Srinivasa Rao Advocates for plaintiff and defendant is called absent, no representation and was set exparte and upon consideration, this court delivered the following:

:J U D G M E N T:

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the suit amount of

Rs.25,300/- together with subsequent interest at 24% p.a on the principal amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of suit till realization and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant for the purpose of business borrowed an amount of

Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.04.14 and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of scribe and attestor, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order as and when demanded. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and legal notice for the discharge of the debt under the above 26.04.17 2 OS 45/17 mentioned promissory note, the defendant did not choose to repay the said sum. Hence the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of the above suit amount. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant remained exparte.

4.Now the point for determination is “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the decree against the defendant as prayed for?

To what relief?”

5.On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3 i.e., Ex.A1 is promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, dated 18.04.2014; Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff, dated 10.01.17; Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment, dated 13.01.17.

6.POINT:

To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW.1, his specific evidence is that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.15,000/- from plaintiff on 18.04.2014 for the purpose of business and executed a promissory note in his favour in the presence of attestor and scribe, agreeing to repay the said sum together with interest at 24% p.a either to plaintiff or to his order on demand; in spite of repeated demands made by plaintiff and legal notice to pay the due amount, the defendant did not choose to pay any amount. Under the above circumstances he filed the present suit against the defendant for the recovery of the suit amount. To prove the above contention the plaintiff got marked 3 documents i.e., Exs.A1 to A3.

7.A perusal of the contents of the plaint, affidavit of PW.1 as well as documents i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 go to show that the defendant borrowed the 26.04.17 3 OS 45/17 amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A1/suit promissory note and the suit promissory note/Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently, he failed to pay the same inspite of repeated oral demands and notice under Ex.A2. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of the amount due under the aforesaid promissory note/Ex.A1

8.The documents marked through PW.1 supports his case and the defendant did not choose to deny the contents of the plaint as well as the documents. The oral testimony of PW.1 as well as documentary evidence let in by him remains unchallenged. The plaintiff establishes his case by way of oral and documentary evidence and the defendant did not choose to contest the suit and remained exparte and that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree against the defendant.

9.In view of foregoing discussion without any hesitation, this court held that the plaintiff has produced cogent and proper evidence, thereby, the plaintiff has established his case. Hence, he is entitled for decree as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. To what relief:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.25,300/- (Rupees twenty five thousand three hundred only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on the

principal amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) from the

date of suit till the date of decree and thereon at 6% p.a. till realization.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2017.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVILJUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.

26.04.17 4 OS 45/17

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Pw.1:A.Veeraiah

FOR DEFENDANT : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff,

dated 18.04.2014

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff, dated 10.01.2017

Ex.A3: postal acknowledgment, dated 13.01.2017

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

PRL. JUNIOR CIVILJUDGE,

MACHILIPATNAM.