Smt G. Chandra Mouleswari

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Smt G. Chandramouleswari, B.Sc., M.A., L.L.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tuesday, the 1st day of April, 2014

ORIGINAL SUIT No.103/2013

Between:

Baddi Sreenivasa Rao, S/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, cultivation, aged 40 years, R/o Yellamanchili, Nagendra Colony in Yellamanchili Mandal. …Plaintiff

And

Gonabattula Ammaji Alias Mangathayaru, W/o Appala Satyanarayana, A.P.E.P.D.C.L. Lineman, Hindu, 38 years, R/o Co-operative Colony, Chodavaram, Chodavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Defendant

This suit coming on 20.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D. Uma Shankar and Sri D. Ravi Shankar, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri. V. Annapurnayya, 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 against the defendant for an recovery of an amount of Rs.68,650/- (Rupees sixty eight thousand six hundred fifty only) with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of her family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 20.06.2011. Later, in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dated 29.06.2013 by the plaintiff for repayment, defendant postponed the due payment on one pretext or the other. Hence this suit.

2

3.On the other hand, defendant filed his written statement by denying the averments of the plaint and further stated as follows:-

That this defendant never borrowed any amount, never executed any pronote and no transaction took place and the suit pronote is created and forged and there is no consideration is passed to this defendant.

4.This defendant parents and her other sister are residents of

Yellamanchili, Dharamavaram village. One person by name Palaka Nani who is resident of the same village used to reside in a house opposite to the parents of this defendant, who always used to quarrel on flimsy grounds with the parents of the defendant and this defendant and her sister used to support their parents. The said Nani bore grudge on this defendant and in order to harass her and her sister and to get wrongful gain from them, filed present suit against the defendant and another suit in OS. No.104/13 on the file of this court against her sister in collusion with the plaintiff and attestors of the respective pronotes by creating the contents therein on respective property-note and there is no cause of action for the suit arose.

5.Thus the Suit Promissory Note is a foisted one without consideration and the suit is not maintainable under law, since no consideration was passed under Suit Promissory Note, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.Basing on the above pleadings of the plaint and the written statement, the following issues are framed for trial:- (1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit promissory note amount as prayed for?

(2) Whether the suit promissory note is forged or note?

(3) Whether the suit promissory note is by consideration?

(4) To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also got examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 are marked on behalf 3 of plaintiff, On the other hand D.W.1 is examined and no documents are marked on behalf of defendant.

Issue Nos. 1to 3 :

7.The counsel for plaintiff argued that, in the present matter, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of her family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 20.06.2011. Later, in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dated 29.06.2013 by the plaintiff for repayment, defendant postponed the due payment on one pretext or the other.

8.On the other hand the counsel for the defendant argued That this defendant never borrowed any amount, never executed any pronote and no transaction took place and the suit pronote is created and forged and there is no consideration is passed to this defendant. This defendant parents and her other sister are residents of Yellamanchili, Dharamavaram village. One person by name Palaka Nani who is resident of the same village used to reside in a house opposite to the parents of this defendant, who always used to quarrel on flimsy grounds with the parents of the defendant and this defendant and her sister used to support their parents. The said Nani bore grudge on this defendant and in order to harass her and her sister and to get wrongful gain from them, filed present suit against the defendant and another suit in OS. No.104/13 on the file of this court against her sister in collusion with the plaintiff and attestors of the respective pronotes by creating the contents therein on respective promissory note and there is no cause of action for the suit arose. Thus the Suit Promissory Note is a foisted one without consideration and the suit is not maintainable under law, since no consideration was passed under Suit Promissory Note, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4

9.Perused the record. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as P.W1. Naturally, he supported all the plaint averments.

His specific evidence is that defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of her family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 20.06.2011. Later, in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dated 29.06.2013 by the plaintiff for repayment, defendant postponed the due payment on one pretext or the other.

10. Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory Note dated 20.06.2011 executed by the defendant infavour of the plaintiff and Ex.A.2 is the registered lawyer’s notice dated 29.06.2013; Ex.A.3 is the reply lawyer’s notice dated 6.07.2013.

11.In the cross-examination of P.W1, the counsel for the defendant elicited that he is doing cultivation and he has no other business; defendants two or three times from him prior to transaction under Ex.A.1 as such he got acquaintance with her from 10 years; defendant is housewife, she is resident of chodavaram; he has no relatives; he got issued a notice to the defendant to her chodavaram address , prior to filing of this suit; the source of income under Ex.A.1 was derived from his cultivation; he is having Ac.4.00cents of land which belongs to his father and himself; he used to derive an income of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per annum, after deducting all his expenses on his agriculture; transaction under Ex.A.1 is held at Dimili road,

Yellamanchili; the transaction held under Ex.A.1 in the presence of himself, defendant, attestors and the scribe; the blank suit promissory note and the stamp thereon are brought by the defendant himself; he did not obtain any security for the borrowed amount, except Ex.A.1;

12.The plaintiff also got examined P.W.2 & P.W.3, who are the 1st attestor and scribe of the Ex.A.1 respectively also deposed on the same lines of the plaint and of P.W.1.

5

13.During the cross-examination of P.W.2, the learned counsel for the defendant elicited that he is having fancy shop at Yellamanchili; the parents of the defendant are residents of Yellamanchili, but she is not resident of Yellamanchili; on the request of the defendant he attested the

Ex.A.1 document; One Nanaji, Baddi Sreenu, himself and defendant are present there; after money was exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant, he attested the document and left the place.

14. During the cross-examination of P.W.3, the learned counsel for the defendant elicited that he has no habit to scribe the documents; when defendant requested him to scribe Ex.A.1 document, he scribed the same; the parents of the defendant are the residents of his village; when Ex.A.1 shown to witnees, Witness admitted that he scribed the document;

15.During the evidence of P.W.1 categorically stated that in the present matter, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of her family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Later, in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff for repayment, defendant failed to repay the amount due under the promissory note.

16.Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 20.06.2011. On perusal of

Ex.A1 it contains the signature of the defendant on revenue stamp affixed to

Ex.A1. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and the recitals of Ex.A1 establish that the defendant borrowed the amount under Ex.A1 and subsequently failed to repay the said amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff and plaintiff is entitled for the Suit amount as it is supported by consideration as per Ex.A.1, which remained unchallenged. Hence the contention of the defendant is not accepted.

17.The learned counsel for defendant contented that the suit promissory note is forged one, but to prove her contention, though she got 6 examined herself as D.W.1, but it was not much helpful to the contest of the defendant. Moreover, when the signature available in Ex.A.1 is compared with the admitted signatures of the defendant i.e., on vakalat, written statement and affidavit, they appears to be alike without any difference to a naked eye.

18.As per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, comparison of the signature, writing or seal with other admitted or proved- in order to ascertain whether a signature writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the on which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The court may direct any person present in court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person

This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.” The disputed signature of defendant on Ex.A.1 is compared with admitted signatures of defendant, they appeared same and were executed by same person. Thus this court came to conclusion that the Ex.A.1 is executed by the defendant. Moreover, oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are attestor and scribe of Ex.A.1 respectively and recitals of Ex.A.1 categorically proved the case of plaintiff.

19.In view of the foregoing discussion and basing on the material available on record, without any hesitation this Court holds that plaintiff is entitled for the suit pronote amount as prayed for as the said pronote is supported by consideration and moreover the suit promissory not forged one.

Therefore, all the 3 issues are accordingly determined and decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

7

20.The arguments of the counsel for plaintiff are accepted. The arguments of the defendant are rejected.

Issue No. 4:

21.In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of Rs.68,650/- (Rupees sixty eight thousand six hundred fifty only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The plaintiff is entitled for suit costs.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in

Open Court on this 1 st day of April 2014

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Yellamanchili.

Appendix of evidence

List of witness examined on behalf of

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

P.W.1 – B. Srinivasa Rao Ex.B.1–G.Ammaji @ Mangatayaru P.W.2 – Y. Nageswara Rao P.W.3 - Palaka Suryanarayana

Documents marked :-

For Plaintiff :- Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory Note dated 20.06.2011 executed by the defendant infavour of the plaintiff Ex.A.2 is the registered lawyer’s notice dated 29.06.2013 Ex.A.3 is the reply notice dated 06.07.2013 got issued by the defendant

For Defendant :-

Nil

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Yellamanchili

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Smt G. Chandramouleswari, B.Sc., M.A., L.L.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tuesday the 1st day of April, 2014

ORIGINAL SUIT No.104/2013

Between:

Baddi Sreenivasa Rao, S/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, cultivation, aged 40 years, R/o Yellamanchili, Nagendra Colony in Yellamanchili Mandal.

…Plaintiff

And

Pragada Sreedevi, W/o Tharakeswara Rao, Hindu, aged 40 years, Household duties, R/o B-206, Gulmahar Complex, Zeeral Ali Pen 402107, Raigada District, M.S.India.

...Defendant

This suit coming on 20.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D. Uma Shankar and Sri D. Ravi Shankar, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri. V. Annapurnayya, 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 against the defendant for an recovery of an amount of Rs.72,600/- (Rupees seventy two thousand six hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of her family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 12.01.2011. Later, in spite of repeated 2 demands and issuance of legal notice dated 29.06.2013 by the plaintiff for repayment, defendant postponed the due payment on one pretext or the other. Hence this suit.

3.On the other hand, defendant filed his written statement by denying the averments of the plaint and further stated as follows:-

That this defendant never borrowed any amount, never executed any pronote and no transaction took place and the suit pronote is created and forged and there is no consideration is passed to this defendant.

4.This defendant parents and her other sister are residents of

Yellamanchili, Dharamavaram village. One person by name Palaka Nani who is resident of the same village used to reside in a house opposite to the parents of this defendant, who always used to quarrel on flimsy grounds with the parents of the defendant and this defendant and her sister used to support their parents. The said Nani bore grudge on this defendant and in order to harass her and her sister and to get wrongful gain from them, filed present suit against the defendant and another suit in OS. No.103/13 on the file of this court against her sister in collusion with the plaintiff and attestors of the respective pronotes by creating the contents therein on respective property-note and there is no cause of action for the suit arose.

5.Thus the Suit Promissory Note is a foisted one without consideration and the suit is not maintainable under law, since no consideration was passed under Suit Promissory Note, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.Basing on the above pleadings of the plaint and the written statement, the following issues are framed for trial:- (1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for? (2)Whether the suit pronote is forged document or not? (3) To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also got examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 are marked on behalf 3 of plaintiff, On the other hand D.W.1 is examined and no documents are marked on behalf of defendant.

Issue Nos. 1& 2 :

7.The counsel for plaintiff argued that, in the present matter, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of her family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 12.01.2011. Later, in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dated 29.06.2013 by the plaintiff for repayment, defendant postponed the due payment on one pretext or the other.

8.On the other hand the counsel for the defendant argued That this defendant never borrowed any amount, never executed any pronote and no transaction took place and the suit pronote is created and forged and there is no consideration is passed to this defendant. This defendant parents and her other sister are residents of Yellamanchili, Dharamavaram village. One person by name Palaka Nani who is resident of the same village used to reside in a house opposite to the parents of this defendant, who always used to quarrel on flimsy grounds with the parents of the defendant and this defendant and her sister used to support their parents. The said Nani bore grudge on this defendant and in order to harass her and her sister and to get wrongful gain from them, filed present suit against the defendant and another suit in OS. No.103/13 on the file of this court against her sister in collusion with the plaintiff and attestors of the respective pronotes by creating the contents therein on respective promissory note and there is no cause of action for the suit arose. Thus the Suit Promissory Note is a foisted one without consideration and the suit is not maintainable under law, since no consideration was passed under Suit Promissory Note, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4

9.Perused the record. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as P.W1. Naturally, he supported all the plaint averments.

His specific evidence is that defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of her family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 12.01.2011. Later, in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dated 29.06.2013 by the plaintiff for repayment, defendant postponed the due payment on one pretext or the other.

10. Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory Note dated 12.01.2011 executed by the defendant infavour of the plaintiff and Ex.A.2 is the registered lawyer’s notice dated 29.06.2013; Ex.A.3 is the acknowledgement.

11.In the cross-examination of P.W1, the counsel for the defendant elicited that he is doing cultivation and he has no other business; defendants two or three times from him prior to transaction under Ex.A.1 as such he got acquaintance with her from 10 years; defendant is housewife, she is resident of chodavaram; he has no relatives; he got issued a notice to the defendant to her chodavaram address , prior to filing of this suit; the source of income under Ex.A.1 was derived from his cultivation; he is having Ac.4.00cents of land which belongs to his father and himself; he used to derive an income of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per annum, after deducting all his expenses on his agriculture; transaction under Ex.A.1 is held at Dimili road,

Yellamanchili; the transaction held under Ex.A.1 in the presence of himself, defendant, attestors and the scribe; the blank suit promissory note and the stamp thereon are brought by the defendant himself; he did not obtain any security for the borrowed amount, except Ex.A.1;

12.The plaintiff also got examined P.W.2 & P.W.3, who are the 1st attestor and scribe of the Ex.A.1 respectively also deposed on the same lines of the plaint and of P.W.1.

5

13.During the cross-examination of P.W.2, the learned counsel for the defendant elicited that he is having fancy shop at Yellamanchili; the parents of the defendant are residents of Yellamanchili, but she is not resident of Yellamanchili; on the request of the defendant he attested the

Ex.A.1 document; One Nanaji, Baddi Sreenu, himself and defendant are present there; after money was exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant, he attested the document and left the place.

14. During the cross-examination of P.W.3, the learned counsel for the defendant elicited that he has no habit to scribe the documents; when defendant requested him to scribe Ex.A.1 document, he scribed the same; the parents of the defendant are the residents of his village; when Ex.A.1 shown to witnees, Witness admitted that he scribed the document;

15.During the evidence of P.W.1 categorically stated that in the present matter, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of her family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Later, in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff for repayment, defendant failed to repay the amount due under the promissory note.

16.Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 12.01.2011. On perusal of

Ex.A1 it contains the signature of the defendant on revenue stamp affixed to

Ex.A1. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and the recitals of Ex.A1 establish that the defendant borrowed the amount under Ex.A1 and subsequently failed to repay the said amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff and plaintiff is entitled for the Suit amount as it is supported by consideration as per Ex.A.1, which remained unchallenged. Hence the contention of the defendant is not accepted.

17.The learned counsel for defendant contented that the suit promissory note is forged one, but to prove her contention, though she got 6 examined herself as D.W.1, but it was not much helpful to the contest of the defendant. Moreover, when the signature available in Ex.A.1 is compared with the admitted signatures of the defendant i.e., on vakalat, written statement and affidavit, they appears to be alike without any difference to a naked eye.

18.As per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, comparison of the signature, writing or seal with other admitted or proved- in order to ascertain whether a signature writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the on which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The court may direct any person present in court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person

This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.” The disputed signature of defendant on Ex.A.1 is compared with admitted signatures of defendant, they appeared same and were executed by same person. Thus this court came to conclusion that the Ex.A.1 is executed by the defendant. Moreover, oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are attestor and scribe of Ex.A.1 respectively and recitals of Ex.A.1 categorically proved the case of plaintiff.

19.In view of the foregoing discussion and basing on the material available on record, without any hesitation this Court holds that plaintiff is entitled for the suit pronote amount as prayed for as the said pronote is supported by consideration and moreover the suit promissory not forged one.

Therefore, both the issues are accordingly determined and decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

7

20.The arguments of the counsel for plaintiff are accepted. The arguments of the defendant are rejected.

Issue No. 3:

21.In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of Rs.72,600/- (Rupees seventy two thousand six hundred only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The plaintiff is entitled for suit costs.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in

Open Court on this 1 st day of April 2014

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Yellamanchili.

Appendix of evidence

List of witness examined on behalf of

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

P.W.1 – B. Srinivasa Rao Ex.B.1–Pragada Sreedevi P.W.2 – Y. Nageswara Rao P.W.3 - Palaka Suryanarayana

Documents marked :-

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory Note dated 12.01.2011 executed by the defendant infavour of the plaintiff Ex.A.2 is the registered lawyer’s notice dated 29.06.2013 Ex.A.3 is the acknowledgement

For Defendant :-

Nil

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Yellamanchili

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Smt G. Chandramouleswari, B.Sc., M.A., L.L.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Friday the 28th day of March, 2014

ORIGINAL SUIT No.29/2013

Between:

Gopisetty Mularaju, S/o Kasi Viswanatham, Hindu, aged about34 years, Business, R/o Court Peta, Yellamanchili Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Plaintiff

And

Adari Nageswara Rao, S/o late Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 46 years, Mechanic, R/o Patha Veedhi, Yellamanchili Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Defendant

This suit coming on 26.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. V. Annapurnayya, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri

N.S.N Acharyulu & Sri J.V.N. Apparao, 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 against the defendant for an recovery of an amount of Rs.91,760/- (Rupees ninety one thousand seven hundred sixty only) with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only)and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of his family necessities and to discharge sundry debts and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 10.11.2010.

Later, in spite of repeated demands by the plaintiff for repayment, defendant postponed the due payment on one pretext or the other. Hence this suit.

3.On the other hand, defendant filed his written statement by denying the averments of the plaint and further stated as follows:- 2

That he never approached the plaintiff and never borrowed, never executed the suit pronote and he is the member of chit transaction conducted by the plaintiff herein and during the auction of the chit transaction the plaintiff obtained signatures of this defendant on blank promissory notes about four years back and he is an agricultural labour and doing cultivation on sharing system. The plaintiff in collusion with the attestors and scribe got created the suit promissory note and the said suit promissory not supported by any consideration and the suit is also barred limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings of the plaint and the written statement, the following issues are framed for trial:- (1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for? (2) Whether the suit pronote is created document?

(3) Whether the suit promissory note is supported by

consideration? (4)Whether the interest claimed in the suit is usurious as defendant is an agriculturist? (5) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (6) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also got examined P.W.2 and chief affidavit of P.W.3 is not pressed and Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 are marked on behalf of plaintiff, On the other hand none were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of defendant.

Issue Nos. 1 to 5 :

6.The counsel for plaintiff argued that, in the present matter, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of his family necessities and to discharge sundry debts and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 10.11.2010. Later, in spite of repeated demands by the plaintiff for repayment, defendant postponed the due payment on one pretext or the other.

3

7.On the other hand the counsel for the defendant argued that he never approached the plaintiff and never borrowed, never executed the suit pronote and he is the member of chit transaction conducted by the plaintiff herein and during the auction of the chit transaction the plaintiff obtained signatures of this defendant on blank promissory notes about four years back and he is an agricultural labour and doing cultivation on sharing system. The plaintiff in collusion with the attestors and scribe got created the suit promissory note and the said suit promissory not supported by any consideration and the suit is also barred limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

8.Perused the record. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as P.W1. Naturally, he supported all the plaint averments.

His specific evidence is that defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of his family necessities and to discharge sundry debts and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 10.11.2010. Later, in spite of repeated demands by the plaintiff for repayment, defendant postponed the due payment on one pretext or the other.

9. Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory Note dated 10.11.2010 executed by the defendant infavour of the plaintiff

10.In the cross-examination of P.W1, the counsel for the defendant elicited that his name is Mularaju but not Malleswararai; he studied M.Com; his father running a flour mill; he got acquaintance with the defendant who used to come to their shop to purchase household articles; he used to get

Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day on the business; the defendant is a mechanic; the transaction under Ex.A.1 happened at the shop of his friend; the source of income under Ex.A.1 are his pocket savings; both the attestors are brought by the defendant by the time of transaction under Ex.A.1; 4

11.The plaintiff also got examined P.W.2, who is the scribe of the

Ex.A.1 suit promissory note, who also deposed on the same lines of pleadings of the plaintiff and evidence of P.W.1.

12.During the evidence of P.W.1 categorically stated that in the present matter, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of business and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Later, in spite of repeated demands by the plaintiff for repayment, defendant failed to repay the amount due under the promissory note.

13.Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 10.11.2010. On perusal of

Ex.A1 it contains the signature of the defendant on revenue stamp affixed to

Ex.A1. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and the recitals of Ex.A1 establish that the defendant borrowed the amount under Ex.A1 and subsequently failed to repay the said amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff and plaintiff is entitled for the Suit amount as it is supported by consideration as per Ex.A.1, which remained unchallenged. Hence the contention of the defendant is not accepted.

14.The learned counsel for defendant contented that the suit promissory note is created one and suit promissory note is not supported by consideration, but to prove his contention neither adduced any corroborate oral evidence nor marked any supportive documentary proof and he did not take any steps to send the Ex. A1 to the expert for comparison as he contended that the suit promissory note is created one. Further more contended that the suit promissory note is barred by limitation, but failed to support such contention. As per Ex.A.1 it is executed on 10.11.2010 and suit is filed on 25.02.2013, hence, it establishes that the suit is filed well within the limitation period. Therefore, it is fatal to the case of the defendant.

Hence, the contention of the defendant is rejected.

5

15.The learned counsel for the defendant further contended that the interest claimed in the suit is usurious as defendant is an agriculturist, but in support of such contention, the defendant neither filed any supportive document nor put forth any evidence to show/establish that he comes under the purview of agriculturist for getting reduction of percentage of waive in the rate of interest, in such circumstances the defendant is not entitled for such relief.

16.The oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with recitals of

Ex.A.1 clearly prove that the defendant borrowed the amount from plaintiff under Ex.A.1 and executed Ex.A.1 document in favour of plaintiff, thereby the defendant failed to repay the due amount to the plaintiff though plaintiff demanded the defendant several times to repay the said amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for.

17.In view of the foregoing discussion and basing on the material available on record, without any hesitation this Court holds that plaintiff is entitled for the suit pronote amount as prayed for as the said pronote is supported by consideration, the suit promissory not created one; defendant not comes under the purview of agriculturist to get the benefit of reduction in the rate of interest and the suit is also filed very well within the limitation period. Therefore, all the issues are accordingly determined and decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

18.The arguments of the counsel for plaintiff are accepted. The arguments of the defendant are rejected.

Issue No. 6:

19.In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of Rs.91,760/- (Rupees ninety one thousand seven hundred sixty only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per 6 annum till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only). The plaintiff is entitled for suit costs.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in

Open Court on this 28 th day of March 2014

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Yellamanchili.

Appendix of evidence

List of witness examined on behalf of

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

P.W.1 – G. Mularaju P.W.2 – P. Surya Prakash Kumar

Documents marked :-

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory Note dated 10.11.2010 executed by the defendant infavour of the plaintiff

For Defendant :-

Nil

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Yellamanchili

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Smt G. Chandramouleswari, B.Sc., M.A., L.L.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Thursday the 27th day of March, 2014

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 54/2012

Between:

1.Pyda Vijaya Sudhakar, S/o Venkata Rama Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged about 34 years, Business, R/a P & T Quarters, (Opp) Jaya Residency, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

2.Gorapalli Ganesh, S/o Appa Rao, Hindu, aged about 32 years, Private Employee, R/o D.No.1-219, Behind Panchayat Office, Cheediga Village, Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District.

…Plaintiffs

And

1.Battina Apparao, S/o Chodappa, Hindu, aged about 50 years, cultivation, R/o Chodapalli Village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2.Battina Pydithalli, S/o Chodappa, Hindu, aged about 45 years, cultivation, R/o Chodapalli Village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3.Battina Nooka Raju, S/o Apparao, Hindu, aged about 28 years, cultivation, R/o Chodapalli Village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

4.Battina Naga Raju, S/o Apparao, Hindu, aged about 25 years, cultivation, R/o Chodapalli Village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 26.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.V.Someswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendants remained 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 plaintiffs against the defendants for a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants directing the defendants to execute a regular sale deed in terms of agreement of sale cum GPA dated 18.07.2006 and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :- 2

That the schedule property is ancestral property of the defendants, which they proposed to sell. The plaintiffs intended to purchase the same for Rs.88,000/- (Rupees eighty eight thousand only), for which the defendants agreed and received the amount and the executed Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney and the same is also registered, the plaintiffs are also inducted into the schedule property with an agreement to execute a regular sale deed on demand by the plaintiffs without any time limit.

3.The defendants left the village to eak out their livelihood to some other places. Due to recent escalation of the cost of land, defendants started action against the agreement of sale cum GPA. Hence this suit.

4.On the other hand defendants failed to file written statement inspite of sufficient opportunity given to them by this court. Hence, the defendants is called absent and set exparte.

5.It is well established law and principle as contemplated under Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act that, “whoever desires in Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability depending on existence of fact which they asserts, must prove that those facts exists.” Therefore, the plaintiffs have initial burden to prove their case as they filed this suit for specific performance of contract of sale basing on the Sale Cum GPA dated 18.07.2006. For that the 2nd plaintiff himself examined as a PW1, but the contents of chief affidavit of Pw-1 is not challenged by defendants. As the defendants are set exparte, cross examination of P.W.1 is treated as Nil. In his evidence two documents are marked i.e., Ex.A.1 & Ex.A.2. Ex.A.1 is the agreement of sale cum GPA executed by the defendants dated 18.07.2006 in favour of the plaintiffs; Ex.A.2 is the registered sale deed date 26.05.1958.

6.The unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 and recitals of Ex.A.1 clearly establishes that the defendants jointly executed Sale cum General Power of

Attorney in favour of the plaintiffs on 18-07-2006, by receiving Rs.80,000/- 3 (Rupees eighty thousand only) towards sale consideration for the plaint schedule property. On perusal of the Ex.A.1 with the plaint schedule they are found to be one and the same. Hence, it is found that plaintiffs have established by proving their suit contest by the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1.

Hence plaintiffs are entitled for decree for the suit prayer against the defendants.

7.In the result this suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendants to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of agreement of sale cum GPA dated 18.07.2006 within three months from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me

in Open Court on this 27 th day of March, 2014.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITHNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS

P.W.1 – Gorapalli Ganesh.

DEFENDANTS: -Nil-

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 is the agreement of sale cum GPA executed by the defendants dated 18.07.2006 in favour of the plaintiffs.

Ex.A.2 is the registered sale deed date 26.05.1958.

DEFENDANT:

-NIL-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Smt G. Chandramouleswari, B.Sc., M.A., L.L.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Thursday the 27th day of March, 2014

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 14/2014

Between:

Kora Satyanarayana, S/o Rammurthy, Hindu, aged about 55 years, cultivation, R/a Koruprolu Village, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Plaintiff

And

Gompa Narasinga Rao, S/o Ramulu, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Tractor Owner & Driver, R/a Gurrajupeta Village, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Defendant

This suit coming on 26.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Dhuli Nooka Raju, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained 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 against the defendant for an recovery of an amount of Rs.58,360/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand three hundred and sixty only) with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only)and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of discharging sundry debts and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 28.05.2011. Later, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and issuance of legal notice dated 2 18.05.2013 for repayment, defendant postponed the due payment on one pretext or the other. Hence this suit.

3.On the other hand defendant failed to file written statement inspite of sufficient opportunity given to him by this court. Hence, the defendant is called absent and set exparte.

4.It is well established law and principle as contemplated under Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act that, “whoever desires in Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability depending on existence of fact which he asserts, must prove that those facts exists.” Therefore, the plaintiff has initial burden to prove his case as he filed this suit for recovery of money against the defendant basing on the suit pronote. For that the plaintiff himself examined as a PW1, but the contents of chief affidavit of Pw-1 is not challenged by defendant. As the defendant is set exparte, cross examination of P.W.1 is treated as Nil. In his evidence three document is marked i.e.,

Ex.A.1. Ex.A.1 is the promissory note dated 28.05.2011 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; Ex.A.2 is the copy of the legal notice

dated 18.05.2013 sent to the defendant.

5.The unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 and recitals of Ex.A.1 clearly establish that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) under Ex.A.1 promissory note from plaintiff and the defendant is liable for the suit claim. Hence, it is found that plaintiff has proved his suit claim by the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1. Hence plaintiff is entitled for decree for the suit claim from the defendant.

6.In the result this suit is decreed for an amount of Rs.58,360/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand three hundred sixty only) with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) from the defendant.

Plaintiff is also entitled for the suit costs.

3

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me

in Open Court on this 27 th day of March, 2014.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITHNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF

P.W.1 – K. Satyanarayana.

DEFENDANT: -Nil-

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A.1 is the promissory note dated 28.05.2011 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A.2 is the copy of the legal notice dated 18.05.2013 sent to the defendant

DEFENDANT:

-NIL-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI