IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:
TENALI.
PRESENT: Smt. G. Malathi, XI Addl. District Judge, Tenali
Friday, this the 3rd day of November, 2023
O.S.No. 42 / 2018
Between: Jonnakuti Sambasivara Rao ...Plaintif
-And-
Panuganti Narayana Rao …Defendant
This suit came up on 17-10-2023 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri D.Brahmananda Rao, advocate for the plaintif and Sri Chandu Nagaraju, advocate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed for recovery of sum of Rs.15,23,999/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note, dated 12.2.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif.
2.The case of the plaintif in brief is that, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the plaintif on 12.2.2016 for meeting his family and business expenses and on the same the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintif or to his order on demand. The entire transaction was took place at the house of the plaintif in Atmakuru 2 village, Mangalagiri Mandal. Subsequently, inspite of several requests made by the plaintif personally and through known persons, the defendant did not chose to discharge the debt under the said promissory note. Hence the plaintif is constrained to file the suit.
3.The defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further contended that he is permanent resident of Emani village, Duggirala Mandal and he got acquaintance with the plaintif through one Pasupuleti Sridhar, S/o
Sai Babu, who is also resident of the same village and who is none other than the nephew of the plaintif. The defendant borrowed
Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintif for meeting his family and business expenses in the year, 2010 through the said Pasupuleti Sridhar as mediator by executing six promissory notes scribed by his own handwriting. Subsequently, when the defendant was ready with the money to pay the principal and interest to the plaintif, then the plaintif and his nephew Sridhar insisted the defendant instead of repaying the said amount to give their agricultural land situated in
Emani village. As there is no alternative, the defendant through his wife Panuganti Baby Lakshmi Kumari executed a sale deed in favour of Jonnakuti Veeranjamma, who is none other than the wife of the plaintif as if she purchased an extent of Ac.1-28 cents for
Rs.15,36,000/- from the wife of the defendant on 30.12.2015 vide 3
Doc.No.3559/2015. Thus, the debt contacted by the defendant with the plaintif was discharged by executing the said sale deed by the wife of the defendant in favour of the wife of the plaintif.
3(ii).It is further submitted that though the wife of the defendant executed the sale deed by giving property to the wife of the plaintif towards full and final settlement of the debt due, the plaintif and his nephew having not satisfied with the same, again used to demand the defendant to give some more land. Having no other go, the defendant executed another sale deed in favour of the plaintif as if he purchased an extent of 171 sq.yrds vacant site situated in Emani village for Rs.4,28,000/- vide doc. No.1347/2017
dated 15.6.2017. Again as per the demand of the plaintif and his
nephew, to put an end to the said loan transaction, the defendant executed a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.363/2018 on 19.2.2018 in favour of Pasupuleti Sridhar as if he purchased an extent of Ac.1-00 cents of agricultural land from the defendant.
Thus the plaintif and his nephew Pasupuleti Sridhar prevailed over the defendant and parted with his property illegally and unlawfully.
After execution of the said three deeds by the defendant only, the plaintif returned the six promissory notes to the defendant which were executed by him during the year, 2010. Thus, the entire loan transaction held in between the plaintif and defendant was ended .
4
The defendant never issued blank promissory notes in favour of anybody by putting his signature.
3(iii).It is further submitted that the entire loan transaction was ended in between the plaintif and the defendant by February, 2018. Since then the plaintif and his nephew Sridhar have been demanding the defendant to give some more land i.e., an extent of
Ac.1-00 cents of agricultural land situated in Emani Village to them, for which the defendant refused as he was not due of any amount to the plaintif. Since then the plaintif with an evil intention to grab the schedule property of the defendant got forged the signature of the defendant, executed the suit promissory note and filed the present suit as if he borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintif on 12.2.2016. The defendant never borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- on 12.2.2016 as alleged by the plaintif and the suit promissory note is a rank forged one came into existence in connivance of nephew of the plaintif. The defendant has no necessity to borrow such a huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintif during February, 2016 and the plaintif has no capacity to lend such a huge amount to the defendant during February, 2016. The defendant never executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif and the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and the plaintif never demanded the defendant either orally or in writing to pay the amount under the alleged promissory note. There is no privity of 5 contract between the plaintif and the defendant. Hence he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.On the strength of pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:
1.Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2.Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?
3.To what relief?
5.During trial, the plaintif has taken witness stand as PW1 and he exhibited Ex.A1 original promissory note, dated 12.2.2016.
Further the plaintif has examined the attestors and scribe of the suit promissory note as PW2 to PW4 respectively.
6.On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW1 and on his behalf Exs.B1 to B4 are marked. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 30.12.2015,
Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 15.6.2017, Ex.B3 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed,
dated 19.2.2018, Ex.B4 is the certified copy of the registered sale
deed, dated 23.11.2015.
7.Heard learned counsel for the plaintif and defendant.
6
8.The learned counsel for the plaintif has argued that at the request of the defendant, the plaintif has given financial assistance to the defendant, accordingly on receiving the consideration, the defendant herein has got executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif and thereafter inspite of repeated requests made by the plaintif, the defendant failed to repay the said amount. In support of his contention with regard to approaching of the plaintif and executing of the suit promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintif, the plaintif examined himself as PW1 supported by Ex.A1 suit promissory note.
Further in order to believe the version of the plaintif that in the presence of plaintif and the attestors and scribe, the defendant has borrowed the said amount, they got examined PW2 to PW4. PW2 and PW3 are the attestors and PW4 is the scribe of the suit promissory note and they clearly corroborated the version of the plaintif. Even though, it was suggested to the said witnesses that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated at the instance of one Pasupuleti Sridhar, who is related to the plaintif, the said document was got executed and it is the defence of the defendant that he never executed the suit promissory note and as the scribe and attestors are known to the plaintif, at his instance they are supporting the contention of the plaintif, is not correct, as the defendant failed to place any material to prove his contention.
Further according to the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintif, he argued that in the cross examination of the defendant 7 he clearly admitted that in his chief affidavit and also in the pleadings he stated that he has executed six promissory notes in favour of the plaintif by receiving the consideration in the year, 2010 and the same is also stated by him in his chief affidavit and he also stated that though he repaid the said amount, the plaintif failed to return the said documents, which is contradicting his version which he stated in his chief affidavit. According to his contention, though he repaid the said amount, the plaintif failed to return the said documents, but contrary to the same, he gave a diferent version in his cross examination that, though he repaid the amount that was covered under six promissory notes, which he borrowed from the plaintif in the year 2010, he failed to return the said documents, but in his chief affidavit he has stated that soon after getting executed the documents i.e., Exs.B1 to B4 in favour of the plaintif he got returned the said six promissory notes executed by him in the year, 2010 for Rs.6,00,000/- and he paid the entire loan transaction held in between him and the plaintif on the said date, which is contradicting the version he has pleaded. Hence according to his contention, the plaintif has discharged his initial burden that the suit promissory note relied on by them was executed by the defendant and he received the consideration under the said promissory note in the presence of scribe and attestors i.e.,
PW2 to PW4, hence he prayed to decree the suit.
8
9.The learned defendant counsel has argued that even though the learned counsel for the plaintif is contending that as per
Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if it is presumed that the person in whose favour a document is executed is in possession the said document, it can be presumed that it is supported by consideration, but unless and until contrary is proved the said presumption cannot be relied. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the defendant has relied on the following decisions:
In a case between Yalamanchili Vijaya Kishroe Vs.,
Peeta Brahmananda Rao reported in AIR 2007 Andhra
Pradesh 55, wherein their Lordships held that “Neither execution of promissory note nor payment of consideration, established, established. Capacity of appellant to purchase promissory note, also disputed. Several aspects in relation to transaction in question, remained unexplained. Suit for recovery based on said promissory note liable to be dismissed.
In a case between G. Vasu Vs., Syed Yaseen Sifuddin
Quadri reported in AIR 1987 Andhra Pradesh 139 (FB),
wherein their Lordships held that, “suit cannot be decreed on the basis of presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act.
“It cannot be said that even when the case of the plaintif and that of the defendant is disbelieved still the suit is to be decreed on the basis of the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.”
10.Further it is their contention that DW1 never borrowed the amount that was covered under Ex.A1 suit promissory note and as the plaintif and the other witnesses, who were examined by the 9 plaintif are the residents of Emani village and through one
Pasupuleti Sridhar the said defendant approached the plaintif and through him he borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintif in the year, 2010, accordingly he executed the promissory note scribed him in his own handwriting. Further it is his contention that though he is ready to pay the said amount, but at the instance of one Pasupuleti Sridhar, he executed a sale deed in favour of
Jonnakuti Veeranjamma, who is the wife of the plaintif, as if she purchased an extent of Ac.1.28 cents for Rs.15,36,000/- by his wife on 30.12.2015. According to him, the debt contacted by him with the plaintif was discharged by executing the above sale deed by his wife in favour of wife of the plaintif. Further it is his contention that as the plaintif not satisfied with the execution of the said sale deed, he also executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintif, as if he purchased an extent of 171 sq.yards in Emani village from him for
Rs.4,28,000/- by way of registered document dated 15.6.2017.
Further it is his contention that not satisfying with registering of the said documents in favour of the plaintif at the instance of one
Sridhar, they also executed another document dated 19.2.2018 vide Doc.No.363/2018 in favour of Pasupuleti Sridhar, who is related to the plaintif. According to his contention, after execution of the said three deeds by him in favour of the plaintif, in favour of wife of plaintif and one Pasupuleti Sridhar, the said promissory notes which were executed by him in the year, 2010 were returned to him. It is their further contention that the entire loan transaction held in 10 between him and the plaintif was became final, even then, in
February, 2018 the plaintif and Pasupuleti Sridhar have been demanded him to give some more land to an extent of Ac.1-00 at
Emani village, for which she vehemently opposed, as he was not due for any amount to the plaintif, but the plaintif with an evil intention has created Ex.A1 promissory note by forging his signature and he got attached the one cent of the agricultural land situated in
Emani village. According to his contention, the defendant never executed the suit promissory note dated 12.2.2016 and the same is not supported by consideration. It is their specific contention that, he is not having capacity to lend such a huge amount in February, 2016 and it is his case that the said document is a forged and fabricated document in order to have wrongful gain.
10(ii).Further he argued that the documents relied on by them i.e., Exs.B1 to B5 have proved their case. Though in support of the repayment of the amount due by the defendant that he borrowed from the plaintif in the year, 2010, he got registered some lands in favour of the plaintif, in favour of his wife and also in favour of the plaintif, but not satisfying with the said amount, the plaintif got fabricated the suit promissory note. Further they also filed
additional chief affidavit to show that the plaintif in discharge of his
liability already made him to execute Exs.B1 to B3 documents along with the said deeds in discharge of the liability, he also executed a sale deed, dated 23.11.2015 in the name of wife of the plaintif 11
Jonnakuti Viranjamma, as if she purchased AC.1-00 cent of land from him and she did not pay any sale consideration to him. According to his contention, the suit document is forged and fabricated document and the plaintif failed to prove that the said document is executed by the defendant. It is their contention that the plaintif and the attestors and scribe are the residents of Emani village. It is elicited in the cross examination of the witnesses that they are the residents of Atmakur village, but they are not related to the plaintif and PW3 and another attestor are friends to the plaintif. Further according to his contention the plaintif and the witnesses examined in the case are in the habit of creating forged documents in order to grab the properties of others. Accordingly here in the instant case , they got created Ex.A1 document in order to grab the properties of the defendant and the said document on which the plaintif is relying on is not supported by consideration, further the said document is not executed by the defendant and the same is forged one. Further it is his contention that the plaintif is not having capacity to lend such a huge amount to the defendant. Hence he prayed to dismiss the suit.
ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 :
11.On hearing both counsel arguments and on perusal of the record admittedly as per the ocular testimony of PW1 it is disclosing that he is the plaintif in the suit and he filed the suit against the 12 defendant for recovery of the debt due under the suit promissory note. It is his contention that on 12.2.2016 the defendant has borrowed the amount that was covered under Ex.A1 promissory note executed by him agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., but inspite of the demands made by him, he failed to repay the same. It is his specific contention that the said promissory note was scribed by one Jonnakuti Durga Rao, who is examined as PW4 and one Katta Ravi Kiran and M.L. Mallikharjuna Rao have attested the said promissory notes. His version with regard to the execution of the said document in the presence of the plaintif and also in the presence of defendant in the presence of the attesting witnesses i.e., PW2 and PW3, is corroborated by PW2 and PW3, who are the attesting witnesses to the said promissory note. Further PW4 is the scribe of the said promissory note. He/ PW4 has also admitted with regard to the presence of PW2 and PW3 at the time of the suit transaction and they attesting the said promissory note and he scribing the said promissory note, supporting the case of the plaintif that on approaching of the defendant, he gave financial assistance to the defendant.
12. As per the evidence of the said witnesses it is clear that on the alleged date the defendant approached the plaintif and at his request he gave financial assistance to the said defendant, accordingly he executed Ex.A1 promissory note. Though as per the 13 evidence of DW1, who is the defendant in the case, he is disputing with regard to the execution of the said document that was relied on by the plaintif i.e., Ex.A1 and it is his contention that he borrowed amount from the plaintif in the year, 2010, accordingly he executed six promissory notes in his favour, later after registration of the documents under Exs.B1 to B4 i.e., the sale deeds in favour of the plaintif, his wife, and in favour of one Pasupuleti Sridhar towards discharge of the said amount that was covered under the six promissory notes, the plaintif has returned the said promissory notes to the defendant, in such case, at first instance the plaintif has to prove his case.
13.Here in the instant case, as per the ocular evidence of
PW1 to PW4 it is supporting the case of the plaintif that on approach of the defendant, he gave financial assistance to the defendant, accordingly the defendant executed the suit promissory note on 12.2.2016. Further as it is the contention of the defendant that he is denying that Ex.A1 promissory note is a forged and fabricated one and it is not executed by him, in such case, when once the plaintif discharges his initial burden, the burden shifts on to the defendant to disprove the contention of the plaintif by placing positive evidence. Even though the learned counsel for the defendant has cross examined the plaintif that he is not doing any money lending business and except the suit transaction, he has no 14 other money dealings with the defendant. Further it was suggested to him that the defendant did not receive any consideration and he never executed Ex.A1 promissory note and he forged the same for which the plaintif has denied. Further the plaintif has admitted in his cross examination that one Pasupuleti Sridhar is his nephew, who is resident of Emani village. It is the specific contention of the defendant that through the said Pasupuleti Sridhar, he got acquaintance with the plaintif, supporting the case of the plaintif that through the said Sridhar, the defendant approached the plaintif for financial assistance. As the said fact was admitted by the defendant in his cross examination that it is true through Pasupuleti
Sridhar he borrowed the amount from the plaintif for an amount of
Rs.6 lakhs in the year, 2010 for meeting his family necessities, but not the suit promissory note, but in Ex.B1 sale deed on which the defendant is relying on, it was recited that by paying the total consideration in order to meet his family expenses, his wife has sold the said property to the wife of the plaintif and the sale consideration was also received in cash, which in turn falsifying the contention that was raised by the defendant. If really towards discharge of the loan amount, as asserted by the defendant, he got executed Ex.B1, definitely it would have been recited in Ex.B1 sale deed which alleged to have executed by the wife of the defendant in favour of the wife of the plaintif. But, as per the admission of the defendant in his cross examination that in Ex.B1 it was recited that by paying the total consideration in order to meet his family 15 expenses his wife has sold the said property to the wife of the plaintif, which in turn falsifying his contention, in such case, his version cannot be relied on.
14.Further though in the next line the said witness has stated that the said document was got executed towards repayment of the amount she borrowed from the plaintif in the year, 2010 for
Rs.6 lakhs, but the same was not recited in Ex.B1 document in order to believe his case, in such case, his version cannot be relied upon.
Further Ex.B3 document on which the defendant is relying on is no way concerned with the suit transaction as the same is not recited in the said document that towards discharge of the debt covered under the suit promissory note which alleged to have executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif in the year, 2010, the said transaction was created in favour of the plaintif by the defendant.
As it is the contention of the plaintif in the present case that the defendant approached the plaintif for financial assistance, accordingly he borrowed the amount and executed Ex.A1 promissory note. Though it is the contention of the defendant that, as he is having some immovable properties, though he discharged the amounts that were received by him from the plaintif in the year, 2010, but not satisfying with the same, the plaintif got registered some properties in his name in order to have wrongful gain and later he returned the promissory notes which are six in number to him 16 which alleged to have executed in his favour in the year, 2010, in such case, definitely he would have stated the same in his chief affidavit as well in his pleadings. But, in his cross examination he admitted that he executed six promissory notes in favour of the plaintif by receiving consideration in the year, 2010 and he also admitted that though he paid the said amount, the plaintif failed to return the said documents, which is inconsistent to that of the version which he has stated in his chief examination, because in his evidence he has stated that soon after execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintif, his wife and also one Pasupuleti
Sridhar by the defendant and his wife, the said six promissory notes were returned to him. But, in his cross examination he gave a diferent version that the plaintif failed to return the said document which in turn falsifying the version of the defendant, which in turn supporting the version of the plaintif that in order to avoid payment of the amount covered under Ex.A1 promissory note he has take false plea. Further if really the contention of the defendant is true and correct, if he repaid the total amount to the plaintif under the promissory notes in the year, 2010, if the plaintif failed to return the said promissory notes, definitely he will resort to take action against the plaintif, but in the very next line in his cross examination he admitted that he did not give any report to police nor got issued any legal notice to the plaintif demanding return of the promissory notes falsifying his contention. In natural course if the defendant repaid the amount that was covered under the promissory notes, 17 which alleged to have executed by him in favour of the plaintif and towards discharge of the said debt, if the plaintif got executed the sale deeds in his favour i.e., sale deeds relied on by the defendant, which were got marked as Exs.B1 to B4, but as the said defendant is giving inconsistent version with regard to his contention, in such case, his version cannot be relied on.
15.Further the defendant in his cross examination admitted that the persons whose photographs were affixed in Exs.B2 registered sale deed dated 15.6.2017 near the place of purchaser in the sale deed, the name of the purchaser, father name and age are not tallying with the name and description of the plaintif, goes to show that though he is contending that towards discharge of the amount covered under the six promissory notes alleged to have executed by him in favour of the defendant in the year, 2010, the said Ex.B2 registered sale deed was got executed by the plaintif. If really his contention is true and correct near the place of purchaser in the sale deed, the name of purchaser, father name and age of the plaintif are to be tallied with that of the description of the plaintif, but as per his cross examination it is disproving his contention that though near the name of the purchaser, the father name and age are mentioned, but the same are not tallying with the description of the plaintif. Though he denied with regard to the capacity of the plaintif, as the plaintif is contending that he is having financial 18 capacity to lend the amount to him as the defendant himself has admitted with regard to he borrowing Rs. 6 lakhs from the plaintif in the year, 2010, goes to show that as the defendant is well aware with regard to the financial status of the plaintif, for the said reason, through one Sridhar, who is related to the defendant he approached the plaintif in the year, 2010 and he borrowed the amount from the plaintif. Further in Ex.B1 it was recited that by paying total consideration in order to meet the family expenses his wife has sold the said property to the wife of the plaintif, but not towards discharge of the debt covered under the promissory notes of the year, 2010. If really the contention of the defendant is true and correct, the same would have recited in the said document, but it was not recited, which in turn falsifying the version of the defendant and the plea taken by the defendant. Though it was suggested to the defendant that he did not mention with regard to the existence of Ex.B4 document in his written statement, but he denied and he specifically stated that the same was mentioned in his written statement. But on perusal of the pleadings of the defendant it is disclosing that it is was not recited with regard to the existence of
Ex.B4 document. Further he also admitted that he did not take any legal action against the plaintif with regard to Ex.B4 document by filing any case in any competent court. If really, without giving any financial assistance and without receiving any sale consideration from the plaintif, if the defendant got executed Ex.B4 document in favour of the plaintif by force of the plaintif, definitely he will file 19 cases against the plaintif by approaching competent court. But, as per his cross examination it is disclosing that though he contended with regard to execution of Ex.B4 document that the plaintif is in the habit of grabbing the properties possessed by the villagers, accordingly Ex.B1 to B4 documents are created by the plaintif and not satisfying with the properties grabbed from the defendant, the plaintif also forcibly got executed Ex.B4 document for having unlawful gain with the assistance of PW2 to PW4. If really, the contention of the defendant is true and correct, he would have got issued legal notice to the plaintif nor he would have filed case against the plaintif for the grievance of the defendant. But, as per his cross examination it is disclosing that he failed to approach any competent court in order to believe the version of the defendant.
16.Further though the defendant has admitted in his cross examination that he is ready to send the Ex.A1 document to hand writing expert in order to prove his plea that the said document is a forged one, but no steps were taken by the defendant to prove his case that the signature present on Ex.A1 promissory note is forged signature. Even though it was suggested to PW3 to PW4 by the learned counsel for the defendant that, they are friends to the plaintif and at his instance they are supporting that the said transaction was took place in their presence and the defendant has put his signature in their presence is not correct, but in the cross 20 examination of PW1 to PW4 wherein the learned counsel for the defendant suggested that in Ex.A1 near the signature of the defendant it was mentioned as “vralu’, which goes to show that the said promissory note was written by the defendant.
17.Further, it was suggested to the said witnesses by the learned defendant counsel that the place of transaction is not mentioned in their evidence. Though PW2 to PW4 have admitted that the place of transaction is not mentioned in their evidence, but it is their contention that in the house of the plaintif the suit transaction was took place. Further as per the admission of the defendant in his cross examination it is disclosing that he got acquaintance with one Pasupuleti Sridhar, who is related to the plaintif, accordingly the version of the plaintif can be believed upon that through the said Pasupuleti Sridhar, the defendant got acquaintance with the plaintif, accordingly he approached the plaintif. Further as per his evidence it is disclosing that the defendant is having financial transactions with the plaintif in the year, 2010, accordingly he borrowed some amount from the plaintif. Though he is contending that, he discharged the said amount, by taking advantage of his signatures present in the said promissory notes, present Ex.A1 is created, but as per the evidence of PW2 to PW4 they in their cross examination have admitted that
Ex.A1 promissory note was prepared in one document and for 21 drafting and putting the said signatures only one pen was used and the said promissory note was prepared at the house of the plaintif in the presence of the defendant, supporting their case that in their presence the said transaction was took place. Though it is the plea of the defendant that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document, as per his admission in his evidence it is disproving his contention. If really his contention is true and correct, without giving any financial assistance, Ex.A1 promissory note is fabricated by the plaintif, definitely he would have approached the concerned authorities nor he would have taken legal steps against the plaintif in order to prove his contention. After filing of the suit, if really his contention is true, he would have taken steps for sending the document to an expert for the purpose of comparison in order to believe his version that Ex.A1 promissory note is not executed by him and the same is created by the plaintif, but here in the instant case, he failed to do so. On the other hand the plaintif through his evidence supported by the evidence of PW2 and PW4, who are the attestors and scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note has proved that the suit document was executed by the defendant after receiving the consideration and he failed to repay the same inspite of the demands made by the plaintif and the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the defendant have no application to the facts of the present case. Accordingly issue Nos.1 & 2 are answered in favour of the plaintif that Ex.A1 promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif is a valid document and the 22 plaintif is entitled to recove the amount covered under the said
Ex.A1 promissory note.
ISSUE NO.3:
18.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif for Rs.15,23,999/- with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., on the principal sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- till realisation.
Dictated to Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of November, 2023.
(SD/-) Smt. G. Malathi
XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
TENALI.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintif: PW1/Jonnakuti Sambasiva Rao PW2/Katta Ravi Kiran PW3/Mosali Lakshmi Mallikarjuna Rao PW4/Jonnakuti Durga Rao
For defendant: DW1/Panuganti Narayana Rao
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintif: Ex.A1/Original promissory note, dated 12.2.2016 for Rs.10,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif.
For Defendant:
Ex.B1/Certified copy of the registered sale deed, dated 31.12.2015 Ex.B2/Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 15.6.2017 23
Ex.B3/Certified copy of the registered sale deed, dated 19.2.2018 Ex.B4/Certified copy of the registered sale deed, dated 23.11.2015 (SD/-) Smt. G. Malathi
XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
TENALI