Sri G.Durgaiah

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet

Present : Sri G. Durgaiah, B.Com.,M.A, LL.M.,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Dated , this the 28 th day of May, 2015.

OS.No.229/2014

Between:- Shaik Shaheda.

.. Plaintiff.

And

1. Shaik Karimulla.

2. Shaik Chandini.

.. Defendants.

This suit coming on 6-4-2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Anil Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocate for Defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,44,368/- due under the pronote with subsequent interest and costs.

2. The gist of the case of the Plaintiff in the plaint is that:-

The Defendants for their family expenses borrowed an amount of Rs.84,000/- from the Plaintiff on 4-7-2011 and executed suit pronote on the same day in favour of Plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., either to the

Plaintiff or his order on demand . Subsequently, the Defendants failed to repay the pronote debt in spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notices Dt. 1-5- 2014 and 29-5-2014. Hence, the suit.

3.The Defendants filed their written statement by denying the averments of Plaint and further contended that the Plaintiff is a money lender and running private chit business and that the 2nd Defendant joined as a subscriber in the chit value of

Rs.40,000/- for 20 months about three years back and that the 2nd Defendant paid about 12 to 13 instalments and that at the time of giving prize amount the Plaintiff obtained two or three signed blank pronotes from them and that the Defendants have not borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff . Hence, requested to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled:- i. Whether the Plaintiff obtained empty signed pronote in connection with

Chit transaction?

ii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim?

Iii. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, P.w.1, P.w.2 are examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked on behalf of the Plaintiff. D.w.1 is examined and Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 are marked on behalf of Defendants.

6. Heard the arguments.

7. Issue No.1:-

It is not in dispute , Defendants 1 and 2 are husband and wife.

8. According to Plaintiff , the Defendants jointly borrowed Rs.84,000/- from the Plaintiff on 4-7-2011 to meet their family expenses and executed suit pronote in favour of the Plaintiff. In spite of repeated demands and issuing legal notices , the Defendants did not repay the same.

9. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff herself got examined as P.w.1. One of the attestor of the pronote is examined as P.w.2 and relied on

Ex.A1 to Ex.A.5.

10. On the other hand, the Defendants contended that they never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff is a money lender and running chit fund business. The 2nd Defendant is a subscriber of the chit worth Rs.40,000/- to be paid in 20 monthly instalments about three years back and 2nd Defendant paid 12 to 13 instlaments and failed to pay the remaining instalments due to her financial problems and that at the time of receiving of prize amount , the Plaintiff obtained two or three empty pronotes with signatures of Defendants towards security to the chit amount.

11. In order to prove the case of Defendants, the First Defendant himself got examined as D.w.1. His evidence goes to reiterate the pleadings in the written statement with regard to subscribing their signatures on empty pronotes in connection with the chit transactions. Except the sole testimony of D.w.1 , there is no record proof to show that the Plaintiff is running chit business and 2nd Defendant is a subscriber in the chit fund business of Plaintiff.

12. On the other hand, the evidence of Pw.1 goes to show that both the

Defendants jointly borrowed Rs.84.000/- from the Plaintiff and executed suit pronote on 4-7-2011. Subsequently, the Plaintiff issued notice to the Defendants on 1-5-2014 demanding for payment of amount. After receiving notice the

Defendants approached the Plaintiff and requested 10 days time for discharge of the debt. But they have not paid any amount. Again the Plaintiff got issued another legal notice Dt. 29-5-2014 demanding the Defendants for repayment of pronote debt. Ex.A1 is the pronote Dt. 4-7-2011 executed by the Defendants in the name of Plaintiff for Rs.84,000/-. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice Dt. 1-5-2014 got issued by the Plaintiff to both the Defendants demanding for payment of pronote amount of Rs.84,000/-. Ex.A3 is the office copy of another legal notice Dt. 29-5- 2014 got issued by the Plaintiff to both the Defendants demanding for repayment of pronote debt Dt.4-7-2011. Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are the postal acknowledgments addressed to Defendants 1 and 2, but they were signed by Second Defendant .

Ex.A1 to Ex.A.5 are going to substantiate the version of P.w.1. P.w.2 also corroborate P.w.1 with regard to the suit transaction. The evidence of P.w.1, Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 are not disputed in the cross examination with regard to issuing legal notices. It is not the case of the Defendants that they never received any notices from the Plaintiff. It is also admitted by D.w.1 that they have received the legal notices Ex.A2 and Ex.A3, but they have not given any reply to the notices of

Plaintiff. When the Defendants did not borrow any amount from the Plaintiff under

Ex.A1 and that the Plaintiff obtained signatures of Defendants on blank printed forms in connection with the chit transaction what prevented the Defendants to issue reply notice by denying the averments of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 stating that their signatures were obtained in connection with the chit transactions, for which there is no explanation from the Defendants. However, Defendants relied on Ex.B.1 and

Ex.B.2 to prove that the Plaintiff obtained their signatures on blank pronotes and also issued legal notice in respect of those blank signed pronotes. Ex.B.1 is the office copy of legal notice Dt. 1-5-2014 addressed to 2nd Defendant stating that she borrowed Rs.1,20,000/- from the Plaintiff on 12-8-2011 to meet her family expenses and demanded for repayment of said amount. Ex.B.2 is another legal notice got issued by the Plaintiff on 29-5-2014 stating that 2nd Defendant borrowed

Rs.1,20,000/- on 12-8-2011 and the Plaintiff also got issued legal notice on 1-5- 2014 to 2nd Defendant demanding for payment of pronote amount, but the 2nd

Defendant did not repay the same. Hence, requested to repay the amount of

Rs.1,20,000/- covered under the pronote Dt. 12-8-2011. It is not the case of the

Plaintiff that he did not issue Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 notices. When the learned counsel for Defendants confronted Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 to P.w.1 in the cross examination she admitted in the cross examination that she herself got issued Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 notices. So, issuing of Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 notices by the Plaintiff to the 2nd

Defendant demanding for payment of Rs.1,20,000/- under pronote Dt. 12-8-2011 and issuing of Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 notices to Defendants 1 and 2 demanding for payment of Rs.84,000/- under pronote Dt. 4-7-2011 by the same advocate on the same dates is not in dispute.

13. It appears from Ex.A2 and Ex.B.1, the Plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 notice to both the Defendants demanding for payment of Rs.84,000/- stating that both of them borrowed amount of Rs.84,000/- on 4-7-2011 and also got issued Ex.B.1 notice on the same day to 2nd Defendant alone stating that she borrowed

Rs.1,20,000/- under the pronote Dt. 12-8-2011. Ex.A3 is another legal notice got issued by the Plaintiff on 29-5-2014 to both the Defendants in respect of the pronote Dt. 4-7-2011 on the same date the Plaintiff got issued Ex.B.2 notice to 2nd

Defendant alone in respect of the pronote Dt. 12-8-2011. So, it is crystal clear from

Ex.A2, Ex.A3. Ex.B.1, Ex.B.2 that the Plaintiff got issued separate notices to the

Defendants in respect two pronote i.e., 4-7-2011 and 12-8-2011 on the same dates.

When the learned counsel for Defendants confronted with regard to the both the pronotes, P.w.1 categorically stated in the cross examination as follows:-

“ The pronote referred in Ex.B.1 and B.2 notices was executed even

prior to date of suit pronote Ex.A1. I have filed suit for recovery of pronote

amount covered under Ex.B.1 and B.2. I do not remember the suit number

which was filed in respect of the earlier pronote debt”.

14. So, as per the above said version of P.w.1, the pronote referred in Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 notices was executed even prior to the date of suit pronote. Where as

Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 reveal that they were issued in respect of the pronote Dt. 12-8- 2011 which is subsequent to the date of Ex.A1 pronote ie., Dt. 4-7-2011. So, as per Ex.B.1, Ex.B.2 and Ex.A1, the Ex.A1 pronote was executed prior to the date of pronote referred in Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2. So, the version of P.w.1 is quiet inconsistent with the date mentioned in Ex.B.1, Ex.B.2 and Ex.A1 with regard to the execution of pronote referred in the notice. In the beginning P.w.1 stated that she filed separate suit for recovery of the pronote amount covered under Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 later she changed her version stating that the Defendants postponed for payment of earlier pronote debts on one pretext or other , ultimately it was time barred. Hence, she could not file the suit in time. So, as per the second version, the pronote referred in Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 was time barred, as such she could not filed the suit for recovery of the pronote amount which was referred in Ex.B.1 and

Ex.B.2. It is pertinent to note that the suit pronote is Dt. 4-7-2011. The pronote referred in Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 is Dt.12-8-2011. So, by the date of filing of the suit for recovery of the suit pronote Dt. 4-7-2011, the pronote Dt. 12-8-2011 is not barred by limitation. From that it can be said that P.w.1 deposed false that she unable to file a suit for recovery of pronote amount which was referred in

Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 on the ground that it was time barred. When the Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of earlier pronote debt Dt. 4-7-2011 against both the

Defendants. What prevented the Plaintiff to file suit for recovery of the pronote Dt.

12-8-2011 from 2nd Defendant for which there is no satisfactory explanation.

15. As per Ex.A1, Ex.B.1, Ex.B.2, both the Defendants borrowed Rs.84,000/- on 4-7-2011 to meet their family expenses. Within a gap of one month after execution of Ex.A1, the 2nd Defendant alone borrowed Rs.1,20,000/- to meet her family expenses. When both the Defendants borrowed Rs.84,000/- on 4-7-2011 and same was not repaid, how the Plaintiff again lent amount to the 2nd Defendant under pronote Dt. 12-8-2011 ? for which there is no explanation from the Plaintiff.

16. Keeping these circumstances into mind, I am of the opinion, the evidence of P.w.1 does not inspire confidence to believe the genuineness of the suit transaction.

17. On the other hand , the date of execution of Ex.A1 pronote and date of execution of pronote referred in Ex.B.1 and Ex.b.2 and discrepancy in the evidence of P.w.1 with regard to the date of execution of those pronotes and explanation for not filing the suit for recovery of the pronote amount referred in Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 and the conduct of P.w.1 in filing one suit against D.1, D.2 and keeping quiet without filing any suit in respect of the debt covered under the pronte Dt. 12-8-2011 are going to probablize the Defendants case that the Plaintiff obtained their signatures on blank signed pronotes in connection with the chit transaction and got issued different notices on the same day demanding for payment of pronotes debt

Dt. 4-7-2011 and 12-8-2011.

18. As seen from the evidence of D.w.1, he stated in the cross examination that in respect of chit amount himself and his wife executed suit pronote in favour of Plaintiff. The Plaintiff obtained three pronotes. One pronote from himself and second pronote from his wife and third pronote from his wife and himself jointly in the year, 2010 and they were unfilled pronotes and they do not know who is

Dariyavali attestor and scribe of the pronote.

19. So, as per the version of D.w.1 they have executed suit pronote in the year, 2010 in respect of the chit transaction. Where as P.w.1stated D.1, D.2 executed suit pronote on 4-7-2011. It is pertinent to note that P.w.2 categorically stated in his cross examination that he subscribed the signature on the pronote about one year back , he gave evidence on 4-3-2015. As per his version, he subscribed his signature one year back i.e., in the month of March, 2014. That portion of evidence of P.w.2 goes to falsify the version of P.w.1 with regard to the execution of the suit pronotes by the Defendants in the presence of P.w.2 on 4- 7-2011. So, the inconsistency between the evidence of P.w.1 and P.w.2 with regard to the year of execution of suit pronote and circumstances referred above with regard to non-filing of suit for subsequent pronote debt which was referred in

Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 and discrepancy in the evidence of P.w.1 coupled together goes to falsify the case of Plaintiff. They do not inspire confidence to believe the genuineness of suit transaction. On the other hand, the evidence of D.w.1 probablize the Defendant version that the Plaintiff obtained blank signed pronotes from the Defendants and filed this suit basing on one such pronote. When there is a discrepancy and inconsistency in the evidence of P.w.1 and P.w.2 with regard to the date of execution of pronote and other aspects, it is difficult to say that the suit transaction is true and correct. Mere non issuing of reply notice does not give any inference that the case of the Plaintiff is true and correct. On the other hand, the circumstances in the evidence of P.w.1, P.w.2 and the evidence of D.w.1 coupled together goes to substantiate the Defendants case that the Plaintiff obtained blank signed pronotes from the Defendants in connection with the suit transaction.

Therefore, I find, the Defendants able to establish that the Plaintiff obtained empty pronote in connection with the chit transaction. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of Defendants against the Plaintiff.

19. ISSUE NO.2:-

As discussed in Issue No.1, I find, the Defendants able to establish that the

Plaintiff obtained the suit pronote with regard to the chit transaction. The Plaintiff failed to establish that the suit transaction is true and valid. When the Plaintiff obtained blank signed pronote from the Defendants and filed suit, she cannot recover the suit claim basing on the such a blank signed pronote which is not valid under the provisions of NI Act. Therefore, I find, the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit claim , basing on the invalid document.

20. ISSUE NO.3:-

In view of my discussion in Issue No2, I find, the Plaintiff failed to establish her entitlement to recover the suit claim from the Defendants.

21. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

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

by me in the open court, this the 28th day of May, 2015.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:- For Defendants:- P.w.1 Shaik Shaheda. Dw.1 Shaik Karimulla. P.w.2 Shaik dariya Vali.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:- Ex.A1 Suit Pronote Dt. 4-7-2011.

Ex.A2 O/c. Of legal notice Dt. 1-5-2014.

Ex.A3 O/c. Of Legal Notice Dt. 29-5-2014.

Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 Postal Acknowledgments two in number.

For Defendants : - Ex.B.1 Served copy of Legal Notice Dt. 1-5-2014. Ex.B.2 Served copy of legal notice Dt. 27-5-2014.

PSCJ,NRT.

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet

Present : Sri G. Durgaiah, B.Com.,M.A, LL.M., Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Dated , this the 28th day of May, 2015.

OS.No.229/2014

Between:-

Shaik Shaheda, w/o. Ameer Basha, Muslim, 36 years, Housewife, r/o. Chilakaluripet, Chilakaluripet mandal

Chilakaluripet JCJC. .. Plaintiff.

And

1. Shaik Karimulla, s/o. Late Abdul Hameed, Muslim, 40 years,

2. Shaik Chandini, w/o. Karimulla, Muslim, 35 years, Housewife, Both are r/o. Door No.14-194, China Peeru Saheb Street, Chilakaluripet,

Chilakaluripet mandal and JCJC. .. Defendants.

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,44,368/- due under the pronote with subsequent interest and costs.

Plaint presented on: 3.7.2014 Plaint filed on : 24.7.2014.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 4.7.2011, when the defendants jointly borrowed Rs.84,000/- from the plaintiff and executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff, on 1.5.2014, when the plaintiff got issued legal notice tothe defendants demanding them to repay the promissory note debt, on 29.5.2014, when the plaintiff finally got issued legal notice to the defendants demanding them to pay the promissory note amount and at Chilakaluripet, where the suit promissory note transaction took place and both parties reside are within the jurisdiction of this court.

VALUATION:-

Principal Amount due under pronote. Rs. 84,000/-

Interest thereon from 4-7-11 to 2-7-14 @24% p.a.,is Rs. 60,368/- --------------------- Total Rs.1,44,368/- ---------------------- On which a court fee of Rs.3926/- is paid herewith u/s.20 of APCF & SV Act. Value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.1,44,368/- .

This suit coming on 6-4-2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Anil Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocate for Defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, doth order and decreed as follows:- i.That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; ii.That both parties do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 28th day of May, 2015.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

for Plaintiff: for Defendant. Vakalat 2-00 CM&FC not filed. Stamp on plaint 3926-00 -- Stamp on process 62-00 -- Advocate fee 4000-00 -- Writing charges 20-00 -- Typing charges 20-00 --

--------------- -----------------

Total 8030-00 Nil

--------------- ------------------

PSCJ,NRT.

1

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet

Present : Sri G. Durgaiah, B.Com.,M.A, LL.M.,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Dated, this the 28 th day of May, 2015

OS.No.321/2014

Between:- Kunchanapalli Vasavi Kumari w/o. Sambasiva Rao, Hindu, aged 44 yrs., House Wife, R/o.D.No.32-147/3, Subani Nagar, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District , Chilakaluripet JCJC.,

.. Plaintiff.

And

Shaik Khaja Vali s/o. Amrulla, Muslim, Aged 36 yrs., Business, R/o.Door No.27-110, Subhani Nagar, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, Chilakaluripet JCJC.,

.. Defendant.

This suit coming on 28-4-2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Tarak Ram, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri G.Jaya Prakas, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.6,02,000/- from the Defendant due under the Mortgage Deed Dt. 14-6-2010 and costs.

2.The gist of the case of the Plaintiff in Plaint is that:- The Defendant for his financial purpose borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on 14-6-2010 and executed Registered Mortgage Deed on the same day in favour of Plaintiff in respect of Suit Schedule Property by agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., either to the Plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, the Defendant failed to discharge the Mortgage Debt in spite of repeated demands and issuing legal notice Dt.9-7- 2014. Hence, the suit.

3.The Defendant choose to file his written statement by denying the averments of Plaint and further contended that he lent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- , but the Plaintiff obtained the Mortgage Deed for double the amount i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- and that as there is no other go the Defendant executed the Registered Mortgage Deed in favour of Plaintiff and that the Defendant paid Rs.50,000/- in the month of April, 2012 to the Plaintiff towards part payment in the presence of one Tirumalasetty Shyam and Shaik Basha of Chilakalauripet , but the Plaintiff did not issue any receipt to that amount and that the Defendant is ready to pay the balance amount under the Registered Mortgage Deed and that the Defendant never borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Plaintiff. Hence, requested to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled :- i. Whether the Mortgage Deed Dt. 14-6-2010 is devoid of full consideration? ii. Whether the Defendant made part payment of Rs.50,000/- in the month of April, 2012 ? iii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim? iv. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial P.w.1 is examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A.4 are marked on behalf of the Plaintiff. D.ws.1 to 3 are examined and no document is 2 makred on behalf of the Defendant.

6.Heard arguments.

7.ISSUE NO.1:- It is not in dispute the Defendant Registered Mortgage Deed in favour of Plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/- on 14-6-2010.

8.The main contention of the Defendant is that he borrowed only Rs.1,50,000/- from the Plaintiff , but the Plaintiff demanded to execute Registered Mortgage Deed for double the amount i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- , as the Defendant has no other go , he executed Mortgage Deed for Rs.3,00,000/- and that subsequently, the Defendant paid Rs.50,000/- in the presence of D.w.2 and D.w.3 in the month of April,2012.

9.In order to prove the case of the Defendant, the Defendant himself got examined as D.w.1 and relied on evidence of D.w.2 and D.w.3.

10.On the other hand, the Plaintiff contended that the Defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from him and executed Mortgage Deed in his favour. The Defendant did not repay the Mortgage Debt in spite of issuing legal notice to the Defendant. In support of his contention, he also filed written arguments.

11.As seen from the evidence of P.w.1, it reiterates the pleadings in the Plaint with regard to execution of the Mortgage Deed and receiving of consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- by the Defendant. Ex.A1 Mortgage Deed Dt. 14-6-2010 also substantiate the same view. Ex.A2 is the Registered Gift Deed Dt. 23-1-2007 which is a link document to Ex.A1. Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice Dt. 9-7- 2014 got issued by the Plaintiff demanding the Defendant to repay the Mortgage Debt of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. Ex.A4 is the Postal Receipt addressed to the Defendant. So, Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 coupled together goes to substantiate the Plaintiff case that the Plaintiff issued legal notice to the Defendant prior to filing the suit demanding to repay the Mortgage Debt of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest.

12.No suggestion was made to P.w.1 that the Plaintiff did not issue any notice or Defendant did not receive any notice from the Plaintiff.

13.On the other hand , D.w.1 stated in the cross examination that he did not give any reply to Ex.A3 legal notice. He no where stated that he did not receive any notice from the Plaintiff. Then question arises. When the Defendant received notice from the Plaintiff demanding for payment of Rs.3,00,000/- , what prevented the Defendant to issue reply notice by denying the averments of Ex.A3 notice ? For which there is no explanation.

14.Admittedly, D.w.2 and D.w.3 are not attestors of Ex.A1 Mortgage Deed and they were not present at the time of Ex.A1 Mortgage Deed transaction. So, their evidence, no way helpful to the case of the Defendant that he borrowed only Rs.1,50,000/- from the Plaintiff under Ex.A1. Except, the sole testimony of D.w.1, there is no corroborative evidence on record to prove that the Defendant received only Rs.1,50,000/- and did not receive Rs.3,00,000/- from the Plaintiff.

15.On the other hand, the evidence of P.w.1 and Ex.A1 coupled together goes to substantiate the Plaintiff case that Defendant received Rs.3,00,000/- and executed Mortgage Deed in favour of Plaintiff. D.w.1 also categorically admitted in his cross examination that in Sub-Registrar Office, he was asked by the Sub- Registrar as to whether he had received consideration under Ex.A1, for which he replied that he had received consideration under Ex.A1. So, receiving of consideration under Ex.A1 was admitted by the Defendant before the Sub- Registrar. When the Defendant himself executed Ex.A1 Mortgage Deed for Rs.3,00,000/- which was registered before the Sub-Registrar Office, the initial burden is on the Defendant to disprove the contents of Ex.A1 stating that he did not borrow Rs.3,00,000/-, he borrowed only Rs.1,50,000/-. But the Defendant did not produce any corroborative evidence to disprove the contents of Ex.A1. P.w.1 was cross examined at length. Nothing is elicited from cross of P.w.1 to disbelieve his evidence which is coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. Therefore, I am of the opinion, there is no reasonable ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.w.1 and Ex.A1. The circumstantial evidence of D.w.1 for not issuing reply notice by 3 denying the Ex.A3 and admission of D.w.1 before the Sub-Registrar about receiving of consideration under Ex.A1 coupled together goes to falsify the case of the Defendant. So, in that view also it can be undoubtedly said that the Defendant failed to establish that he received only Rs.1,50,000/- under Ex.A1, but not Rs.3,00,000/-. On the other hand, the evidence of P.w.1 and Ex.A1 coupled together goes to substantiate the Plaintiff case that the Defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- and executed Mortgage Deed in favour of Plaintiff. Thus, it has to be held that the Defendant failed to establish that the Mortgage Deed Dt. 14-6-2010 is devoid of full consideration. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of Plaintiff against the Defendant.

16.ISSUE NO.2:- According to Defendant, subsequent to execution of Mortgage Deed Dt.14-6-2010 , he made part payment of Rs.50,000/- to the Plaintiff in the month of April,2012 in the presence of D.w.2 and D.w.3.

17.As seen from the evidence of D.w.1, his evidence goes to substantiate the case of Defendant with regard to the part payment of Rs.50,000/- in the month of April,2012 in the presence of D.w.2 and D.w.3.

18.D.w.2 and D.w.3 also corroborate D.w.1 regarding part payment of Rs.50,000/- in the month of April,2012, but they did not whisper the date on which the alleged part payment was made. There is no endorsement on the back side of the Mortgage Deed with regard to the alleged part payment of Rs.50,000/-. So, except the oral testimony of D.ws.1 to 3, there is no recorded proof to show that the Defendant made part payment of Rs.50,000/-.

19.It is elicited from cross of D.w.1 that the Plaintiff alone was present at the time of part payment of Rs.50,000/- and Plaintiff did not execute any part payment endorsement on the back side of Mortgage Deed and that previously also he borrowed amount from the Plaintiff under Mortgage Deed. After discharging the previous Mortgage Debt , the cancellation deed was executed. Then question arises when he got executed cancellation deed after discharging the previous Mortgage Debt, what prevented the Defendant to obtain part payment endorsement on the back side of the Mortgage Deed in respect of the alleged payment of Rs.50,000/- ? For which there is no explanation.

20.On the other hand, the evidence of P.w.1 reveal that the Defendant did not discharge the Mortgage Debt. Hence, issued legal notice to the Defendant calling upon to discharge the amount. Ex.A3 also reveals that Defendant did not repay the Mortgage Debt. Hence,the Plaintiff issued legal notice demanding for payment of Mortgage Debt of Rs.3,00,000/- on 9-7-20914. If really the Defendant paid Rs.50,000/- towards part payment in the month of April,2012 , what prevented him to issue legal notice by denying the averments of Ex.A3 after receiving legal notice subsequent to the alleged part payment, for which there is no explanation from D.w.1. So, the absence of endorsement on the back side of Mortgage Deed and non issuing reply notice to Ex.A3 and absence of date of alleged part payment do not inspire confidence to believe the plea of Defendant with regard to the part payment.

21.Keeping all these circumstances into mind, I find, the Plaintiff able to establish that the Defendant did not repay the Mortgage Debt. Hence, he got issued legal notice demanding for payment of Mortgage Debt prior to filing of the suit. The Defendant failed to establish that he made part payment of Rs.50,000/- in the month of April, 2012 in the presence of D.w.2 and D.w.3. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of Plaintiff against the Defendant.

22.ISSUE NO.3:- In view of my discussion in Issue No.1 and 2, I find, the Defendant failed to establish the Mortgage Deed is devoid of full consideration and he made part payment of Rs.50,000/- in the month of April,2012. On the other hand, the Plaintiff able to establish that the Defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- under Ex.A1 pronote and failed to repay the inspite of issuing legal notice. Therefore, I find, 4 the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the Mortgage Deed from the Defendant. Thus, it has to be held that the Plaintiff able to establish her entitlement to recover the suit claim from the Defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of Plaintiff against the Defendant.

23.ISSUE NO.4:- In view of my discussion in Issue No.3, I find, the Plaintiff able to establish her entitlement to recover the suit claim.

24. In the result, preliminary decree is passed with costs against the Defendant for recovery of Rs.6,02,000/- with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and @6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Two months time granted for redemption.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court , this the 28th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- G.Durgaiah

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:- Pw.1 Kunchanapalli Vasavi Kumari.

For Defendant: - D.w.1 Sk.Khajavali. D.w.2 Tirumalasetty Shyam. D.w.3 Shaik Basha.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:- Ex.A1 Registered Mortgage Deed Dt. 14-6-2010. Ex.A2 Registered Gift Deed Dt. 23-1-2007. Ex.A3 O/c. Of Legal Notice Dt. 9-7-2014. Ex.A4 Postal Receipt.

For Defendant: Nil. I/d. G.Durgaiah

PSCJ,NRT.

5 6

1

In the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet

Present : Sri G. Durgaiah, B.Com.,M.A, LL.M.,

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Friday , this the 1 st day of May, 2015

OS.No. 471 /2014

Between:- Gaddamsetty Srinivas s/o. Guravaiah, Hindu, 42 yrs., Business, R/o. Kondalaraopet, Narasaraopet town, mandal & JCJC.,Guntur District.,

.. Plaintiff.

And

Kondepogu Moses Layvi w/o. Paul, 48 yrs., Hindi Pandit, R/o. ZPH School, Minnekallu Post of Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC.,

.. Defendant.

This suit coming on 29-4-2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. G.V.Subbarao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant is remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.3,57,973/- due under suit pronote with subsequent interest and costs.

2.The gist of the case of the Plaintiff in Plaint is that:-

The Defendant for her family expenses borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,20,000/- from the Plaintiff on 15-4-14 and executed pronote in favour of

Plaintiff on the same day by agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., either to Plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, in spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff and issuance of the legal notice Dt. 12-9-2014, the Defendant failed to discharge the same. Hence, the suit.

3.The Defendant is remained exparte without filing written statement.

4. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff himself got examined as P.w.1, one of the attestor is examined as P.w.2 and relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.

Ex.A1 is the pronote Dt.15-4-2014. It reveals the Defendant executed the same in favour of Plaintiff for Rs.3,20,000/-. Ex.A.2 is the office copy of legal notice Dt 12-9-2014. Ex.A.3 is the postal receipt. They reveal that the Plaintiff got issued legal notice prior to filing of the suit. So, the undisputed evidence of P.w.1, P.w.2 2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 coupled together goes to substantiate the Plaintiff case.

Therefore, I find, the Plaintiff able to establish his case. Thus, it has to be held that the Plaintiff able to establish his entitlement to recover the suit claim from the

Defendant.

4. In the result, suit is decreed with costs against the Defendant for recovery of Rs. 3,57,973/- with subsequent interest @12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and @6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realizing the decretal amount on principal amount of Rs.3,20,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in the open court , this the 1st day of May, 2015.

Sd/-G. Durgaiah

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:- P.w.1 Gaddamsetty Srinivas. P.w.2 Atmakuri Rajesh Kumar.

For Defendant : Exparte.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:- Ex.A1 Suit Pronote Dt. 15-4-2014 for Rs.3,20,000/- Ex.A2 O/c of legal notice Dt.12-9-2014. Ex.A3 Postal Receipt.

For Defendant:- Exparte.

Sd/-G. Durgaiah

PSCJ,NRT.

3

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET.

Present:- Sri Ch.Madhava Rao, B.Sc., B.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Monday, this the 1st day of June, 2015.

O.S.No.143/2014

Between:

Kattamuri Satyanarayana ... Plaintiff.

And

1.Bathula Padma 2.Bathula Pardhu

3. Bathula Kavya … Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.

Saleem, advocate for the plaintiff and defendants remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.2,83,866/- basing on a promissory note

dated 1.8.2012 executed by the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2

and 3 in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for costs.

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

The husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 by name

Bathula Venkata Rambabu borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 1.8.2012 for his family expenses and in evidence thereof, he executed a promissory note with his own handwriting on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24%p.a., either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subseuently, the original borrower i.e., Bathula Venkata Rambabu died on 27.5.2013 leaving behind him, the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs at law and his estate is vested on them.

After the death of said Venkata Rambabu, the plaintiff approached the defendants for discharge of the promissory note debt but they postponed the payment. In such circumstances, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his counsel on 22.4.2014 to the defendants 1 to 3 demanding them to discharge the suit promissory note debt with interest, but the defendants intentionally refused to receive the notice. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3. The defendants remained exparte.

4. Chief affidavit filed. Exs.A1 to A4 are marked. Suit is decreed for

Rs.2,83,866/- with costs and further interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit till date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, realizable against the estate of deceased if any in the hands of defendants 1 to 3.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 1st day of June, 2015.

Sd/-Ch.Madhava Rao,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: None.

PW1 : Kattamuri SatyanarayanaExparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/1.8.2012 : Promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/- executed in favour of plaintiff by the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3. Ex.A2/22.4.2014 : Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A3/ -- : Postal receipts 3 in Nos. Ex.A4/ -- : Un-served registered notices with an endorsement 'refused'-3 Nos.

For Defendants:- Nil (Exparte.)

Sd/-Ch.Madhava Rao,

P.S.C.J., NRT.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET.

Present:- Sri Ch.Madhava Rao, B.Sc., B.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Monday, this the 1st day of June, 2015.

O.S.No.143/2014

Between:

Kattamuri Satyanarayana ... Plaintiff.

And

1.Bathula Padma 2.Bathula Pardhu

3. Bathula Kavya … Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.

Saleem, advocate for the plaintiff and defendants remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.2,83,866/- basing on a promissory note

dated 1.8.2012 executed by the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2

and 3 in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for costs.

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

The husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 by name

Bathula Venkata Rambabu borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 1.8.2012 for his family expenses and in evidence thereof, he executed a promissory note with his own handwriting on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24%p.a., either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subseuently, the original borrower i.e., Bathula Venkata Rambabu died on 27.5.2013 leaving behind him, the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs at law and his estate is vested on them.

After the death of said Venkata Rambabu, the plaintiff approached the defendants for discharge of the promissory note debt but they postponed the payment. In such circumstances, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his counsel on 22.4.2014 to the defendants 1 to 3 demanding them to discharge the suit promissory note debt with interest, but the defendants intentionally refused to receive the notice. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3. The defendants remained exparte.

4. Chief affidavit filed. Exs.A1 to A4 are marked. Suit is decreed for

Rs.2,83,866/- with costs and further interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit till date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, realizable against the estate of deceased if any in the hands of defendants 1 to 3.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 1st day of June, 2015.

Sd/-Ch.Madhava Rao,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: None.

PW1 : Kattamuri SatyanarayanaExparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/1.8.2012 : Promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/- executed in favour of plaintiff by the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3. Ex.A2/22.4.2014 : Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A3/ -- : Postal receipts 3 in Nos. Ex.A4/ -- : Un-served registered notices with an endorsement 'refused'-3 Nos.

For Defendants:- Nil (Exparte.)

Sd/-Ch.Madhava Rao,

P.S.C.J., NRT.