Smt.G.Malathi, PSCJ

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Smt. G. Malathi,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Wednesday, the 20th day of September, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 97/2013

Between:

Katam Veera Prasad ..Plaintiff.

And

1.Devarapalli Sreekantha

2.Devarapalli Sreehari .. Defendants.

This suit coming on 31.08.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Lakshmanachar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri R.Harinath Reddy, Advocate for the D.2, Defendant No.1 set exparte and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 2 for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,55,500/- basing on pronote.

2.In brief, the averments in the plaint are that, the defendants herein are brothers & they are jointly approached the plaintiff on 17.11.2009 and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for their family necessities, and for business purpose agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a., and jointly executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. As per his contention, on demands made by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant paid a sum of Rs.500/- to the plaintiff on 17.10.2012 and the same was endorsed on the backside of the pronote. As per the contention of the plaintiff, inspite of several demands made by him, the defendants did not paid any amount towards principal or interest, hence he filed the present suit.

3.Defendant No.1 is exparte. Defendant No.2 filed his written statement, as per the contention of D.2, he along with 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.11.2009 for their family necessities is not correct. According to their contention, they did 2 not executed any document in favour of the plaintiff, as they never saw his face and it is a created one. According to the contention of the D.2, the suit pronote is a forged and fabricated document and got up for the purpose of the case. According to his contention, the pronote on which the plaintiff is relying, it clearly show that D.1 alone made payment and he made endorsement on the back side of the promissory note and according to the contention of the defendant, the said endorsement is got into existence by the plaintiff in order to save limitation and according to his contention, he never made any part payment and there is no endorsement to that effect with regard to the part payment of the said amount by D.2. As per the contention of the D.2, the plaintiff has no capacity to lend Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant or to the 3rd parties, hence he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

1.Whether the suit pronote dated 17.11.2009 is true, valid and binding?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim ?

3. To what relief?

5. As per the orders in I.A.377/2015 dated 23.11.2015, the Addl.

Issue is framed.

Addl. Issue: 1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

5. In support of the plaintiff, PW.1 to PW.3 are examined ( PW.2 is eschewed) and Ex.A.1 & A.2 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 is examined, and Ex.D.1 is marked.

6. The learned plaintiff counsel has argued that here in the instant case, it is their contention, D.1 and D.2 both have jointly borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and the same was deposed by PW.1, who filed his chief affidavit. According to him on 17.11.2009, defendants borrowed the same amount, as per his contention the said D.1 though he was exparte, D.2 who alone is contesting, he did not denied with regard to the execution of the suit transaction. Further, according to them, the said D.2, he promised to pay 3 the debt by way of cheque, as there is a promise to discharge the amount borrowed by the said D.2, issuance of cheque with regard to the amount due on a pronote, hence according to him, though it is the contention of D.2 that

D.1 alone has endorsed on17.10.2012 with regard to the part payment, but as D.2 issued a cheque to the plaintiff in discharge of suit pronote amount, hence according to him both are liable to pay the suit amount, hence he prayed the court to decree the suit against the D.1 and D.2.

7.The learned defendant counsel has argued that here in the instant case, the suit is barred by limitation against D.2. In support of his contention, he has filed his written arguments. As per his version though it is the evidence of PW.1, that defendants have jointly borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- cash from him on 17.11.2009 under Ex.A.1, as the endorsement was made by D.1 alone on the back side of the pronote under

Ex.A.2. According to them, D.1 alone is liable to pay the suit amount and the suit is barred by limitation against D.2, as D.2 executed the promissory note on 17.11.2009, but the PW.1 filed the suit on 22.02.2013, as D.2 never endorsed on Ex.A.2, hence the suit is barred by limitation against D.2.

Further, PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that, he has not shown the entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in his income tax statement, though he is an income tax assesee.

Further, according to the contention of the learned D.2 counsel, PW.1 stated in his evidence that, he paid pronote amount to D.1 only and repayment was not made by D.1, D.2 did not signed on Ex.A.2 endorsement and the recitals- in Ex.A.2 are supporting their contention that D.2 did not made any endorsement with regard to the part payment, so according to him, as per the decision reported in Madras High court in a case between

K.Chockalingam Vs. K.R.,Ramaswamy Iyer and Jenbagam decided on

8 th April, 2004, wherein it was held that; “ That the debt was not acknowledged by byboth the defendants, that when the same was acknowledged by one of the defendants, the acknowledgement was not on behalf of other defendants also, on the basis of 4 authorization. In this view, he came to the conclusion that the suit in its entirety, is barred by limitation. Thus, setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court, the appeal is allowed, ordering dismissal of the suit in entirety, which is under challenge in this revision”.

By relying on the said decision, he argued that as the debt borrowed by the defendants was not acknowledged by the defendant, when the same was acknowledged by one of the defendant, the acknowledgement was not on behalf of other defendant on the basis of authorization, hence according to him, the suit against D.2 is filed beyond the period of limitation and no decree can be passed against the 2nd defendant, hence he prayed the court to dismiss the suit against the D.2.

8. Issue Nos.1 & 2 and Addl. Issue No.1 :

In support of the case of the plaintiff, he himself has filed his chief affidavit, as per his evidence, it is disclosing that on 17.11.2009, the defendants herein approached him and they jointly borrowed the amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from him by executing the suit promissory note in his favour on 17.11.209. In support of his contention, he relied on Ex.A.1 document, which is pronote alleged to have executed by D.1 and D.2 and the contents in the said document are supporting the plea of the plaintiff, that D.1 and D.2 have jointly executed the suit promissory note. According to his contention on his demands the first defendant paid a sum of Rs.500/- on 17.10.2012 and he endorsed on the back side of the pronote and the recitals in Ex.A.2 endorsement are supporting his contention. As per his version inspite of the demands made by him, the defendants failed to pay the suit amount, hence he filed the present suit against the D.1 and D.2 and it is the contention of the D.2 that, the suit is barred by limitation against him, and D.1 alone is liable to pay the suit amount, as the endorsement on which the plaintiff is relying i.e., Ex.A.2, it was being endorsed by D.1 alone, but not D.2. Even though, the learned plaintiff's counsel has argued that, D.1 and D.2 are jointly liable to pay the suit amount, as D.2 issued cheque with regard to the discharge of the suit amount, as there is no denial with regard to the 5 borrowing of said amount by D.1 and D.2, hence according to him, both are liable for the same.

9. Here, as per the evidence of Pw.1 supported by the evidence of PW.3, it is disclosing that, the said PW.3 was present at the time of execution of the pronote by the defendants and he himself has scribed the suit promissory note on 17.11.2009, so here in the instant case D.1 and D.2 they are not denying with regard to the execution of the suit pronote on 17.11.2009.

Though, it is the contention of the D.2 that, as the amount was being received by D.1 alone and the said pronote is containing his signature, but he did not received any amount, so he is not liable to pay the suit amount, as the suit is filed by the plaintiff soon after expiry of 3 years period of limitation, as the said pronote was executed on 17.11.2009. In support of the contention of the defendant, he filed his chief affidavit, according to him, he never signed in the suit pronote alone i.e., Ex.A.1, but on perusal of the

Ex.A.1 document, on which the plaintiff is relying it is containing the signature of D.1 and D.2. In such case if it is the version of D.2 that, he did not signed in the said promissory note, in such case he would have taken some steps to prove his contention, but he failed to prove the same. Further, it is his contention that, the suit is barred by limitation against him and in his cross-examination, the said DW.1 has admitted that the signature in Ex.A.1 is his signature along with his brother defendant No.1, which goes to show that in Ex.A.1 pronote, the defendant is admitting his signature, in such case it can be said that he has executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff.

Though he volunteered that, as his brother D.1 requested him to stood as surety to the amount borrowed by him, at his request he signed in the said pronote, from that it can be said that though he is denying with regard to the execution of the said pronote jointly by him, & his brother/ defendant No.1, but as per his admission in his cross-examination, it is disclosing that he executed the said pronote along with his brother D.1 jointly, which in turn supporting the contention of the plaintiff that, D.1 and D.2 have jointly executed the pronote and they received the said amount.

6

10.Further, DW.1 admitted in his evidence that that one cheque bounce case is pending in AJFCM Court, Ananthparuam vide CC.No.338/2013,

Though, he denied with regard to the issuance of cheque to the plaintiff for

Rs. 4,50,000/- on 31.01.2013 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, but as per his admission in his evidence about the cheque bounce case, which in turn supporting the contention of the plaintiff that, having received the said amount, defendant No.2 issued cheque in his favour for discharge of suit pronote amount. Though, the learned plaintiff's counsel has argued that, as

D.2 executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff along with D.1 and he towards the discharge of the suit amount, he issued the said cheque, though the said cheque was bounced, but according to him, as he has issued post dated cheque, from the date of issuance of cheque, the limitation starts, according to the contention of the learned plaintiff's counsel, but the learned defendants counsel has argued that the limitation starts from the date of encashment of the said cheque. Here in the instant case, the cheque was dishonoured, in such case the suit filed by the plaintiff against D.2 is beyond the period of limitation. So, the suit is filed against the D.2 after expiry of 3 years period of limitation, so D.2 is not liable to pay the suit amount as per his contention.

11. Hear on hearing the both counsels arguments with regard to the issuance of post dated cheque by D.2 to the plaintiff towards the discharge of debt due under Ex.A.1 by the D.2, but according to me, the same should be pleaded by the plaintiff, in the suit filed by him. But on perusal of the plaint averments and as per the recitals in the plaint, the same is not disclosing, so according to me, a plea without pleading cannot be considered. Though, the

PW.1 deposed in his cross-examination the D.2 was personally present on the date of endorsement by D.1 under Ex.A.2, but the said PW.1 himself admitted in his cross-examination that D.2 did not endorsed on the back side of the Ex.A.1 and when he asked him to repay the same, to that effect D.2 gave post dated cheque to him, but the said PW.1 categorically admitted in his evidence that the same is not endorsed by the D.2 stating that he is 7 giving post dated cheque to him towards the payment due by him under

Ex.A.1 amount. If at all the said PW.2 endorsed on the back side of Ex.A.1 stating that he issued post dated cheque to him towards the payment due by him to PW.1, in such case the evidence of PW.1 can be believed upon to show that the said D.2 issued post dated cheque to him towards the discharge of the said amount and as argued by the learned plaintiff's counsel, in such case it can be said that the limitation starts from the date of issuance of cheque. Though, the learned defendant counsel has argued that when once the cheque is issued, if it is en-cahsed then only the limitation starts, if the cheque is bounded the limitation will not start. Even though, both counsels have argued on this aspect, but according to me, as the plaintiff failed to prove by placing material before the court with regard to the issuance of post dated cheque by the D.2 to him, towards the discharge of suit amount, in such case even though the said defendant admitted in his cross-examination with regarde to the filing of cheque bounce case and though the plaintiff has relied on Ex.B.1 document, but he failed to prove that the said case was filed by the plaintiff against D.2 with regard to the present suit transaction. In such case the evidence of Pw.1 cannot be believed upon with regard to the issuance of post dated cheque by D.2 to him towards the discharge of suit amount covered under Ex.A.1 and as the said plaintiff failed to prove in this regard. On the other hand as per Sec. 18 and 19 of

Limitation Act, it is clear that, a fresh period of limitation will starts from the date of acknowledgement and effect of payment of amount of debt will starts from the said date by a person who made the said acknowledgement.

Here in the instant case, as per the recitals in Ex.A.2, it is disclosing that, D.1 alone has made the part payment under Ex.A.2 and the said part payment is not with regard to the acknowledgement of debt by the D.2, in such case

D.2 will not be liable to pay the amount due to the plaintiff under Ex.A.1, though it is the contention of the plaintiff that D.1 and D.2 executed the suit promissory note on the alleged date, but a fresh period of limitation starts from the part payment. As per the recitals in Ex.A.2 the fresh period of limitation starts against only D.1, as he acknowledged the debt as per 8 Ex.A.2, as far as D.2 is concerned, as there is no acknowledgement, so the suit against him is filed beyond the period of limitation, hence he is not liable to pay the suit amount.

12. Though, the learned plaintiff's counsel has argued that, as they proved with regard to the execution of the suit document by D.1 and D.2 jointly, both are liable to pay the said amount, as they proved the execution of the same, supported by Ex.A.1 document. But, here according to me, here in the instant case, the plaintiff have filed the suit basing on the amount borrowed by the defendants on pronote. Here, it is the contention of the learned defendants counsel, the debt was not acknowledged by the both defendants and the same was acknowledged by only D.1 and the acknowledgment was not on behalf of other defendant on the basis of authorization, hence according to him, as D.2 did not acknowledged with regard to the debt, as the defendant No.2 did not signed on the endorsement, D.1 alone signed on the back side of the endorsement, hence

D.1 alone is liable to pay the said debt.

13. Here on hearing the learned defendants counsel, and on perusal of the decision relied on by the learned D.2 counsel before discussing the said aspects at first instance if we read the Sec. 18 of Limitation Act, deals with the effect of acknowledgement in writing. As per the said section, it is clear that, where before the expiration of period prescribed for a suit or application in respect of any property or right an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing singed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time, when acknowledgement was so signed. Further, as per Sec. 19 of Limitation Act, it says that, when & what is the effect of payment on account of debt, or interest of legacy where payment on account of debt or interest on a legacy, is made before the expiration of prescribed period by the person, liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly 9 authorized on his behalf, a fresh period shall be computed from the time when the same was made. So, as per the said sections, it is clear that the period of limitation will counts from the date of acknowledgement . Here in the instant case, it is the version of the learned D.2 counsel on Ex.A.2 acknowledgement wherein the plaintiff is relying, it is acknowledged only by

D.1, acknowledging the debt and with regard to part payment, as it is containing his signature and he is not authorized agent of D.2 and according to his contention though, they borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff jointly, as per the contention of the plaintiff, but according to his contention, the part payment was made only for D.1, hence D.1 alone is liable to pay the said amount and on hearing the learned D.2 counsel and on perusal of the said sections, it is clear that whenever there is a acknowledgement in writing before the expiration of period prescribed for a suit, the fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed.

14. But, here in the instant case, it is the contention of the defendants that Ex.A.2 endorsement, which was made by 1st defendant alone. On perusal of the said document, it is disclosing that the said document is containing the signature of D.1 alone, which in turn supporting the contention of D.2 that, the first defendant alone made endorsement. Here in the instant case, as per the said endorsement, it is disclosing that the 1st defendant has acknowledged the debt, so from the date of acknowledgement, the period of limitation starts. As per the recitals in Ex.A.2, he made endorsement on 17.11.2012, from then on words the period of limitation starts against D.1.

As far as D.2 is concerned, it is his contention, he did not made any endorsement on 17.10.2012 and on verification of the Ex.A.2, it is disclosing that, D.1 alone has made part payment acknowledging the debt and even though it is the contention of the plaintiff's that D.1 and D.2 jointly borrowed the amount, but as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel of D.2, D.2 did not acknowledged about the debt, as he has not made any endorsement on the backside of the pronote with regard to the payment of some of the 10 amount, which goes to show that, D.1 alone has acknowledged the debt, as he signed on the back side of the pronote evidencing that he endorsed the same. So from the date of endorsement, the period of limitation will starts, so as per said endorsement from 17.10.2012 the D.1 is liable to pay the suit amount.

15. Admittedly, as this is a suit filed basing on the pronote, in such case the payment with regard to the amount is divisible, as the promissory note, on which the plaintiff is relying will not come within the meaning of indivisible debt, so there can be a decree against the person, who acknowledged the debt and the claim against the person, who failed to acknowledge the same is not maintainable. So, as per the endorsement, on which the plaintiff is relying i.e., Ex.A.2, it is disclosing that, the 1st defendant has signed on the acknowledgement with regard to the part payment amount, evidencing the payment in his indivisible capacity and not in the capacity, as agent or on behalf of the D.2. So, the suit is maintainable against D.1, as he endorsed with regard to the part payment on 17.10.2012 and the suit is filed within the period of limitation against the D.1 and as D.2 did not endorsed on the back side of the pronote with regard to the part payment acknowledging the debt, in such case he is not liable to pay the suit amount, as the claim against the

D.2 is barred by limitation.

16. Even though, it is the contention of the plaintiff that, D.1 and D.2 have jointly borrowed the amount from him by executing the suit promissory note, but in his cross-examination the said DW.1 admitted that D.2 did not signed in Ex.A.2 endorsement, though he asked him to repay the pronote amount, which in turn supporting the contention of the D.2 that, he did not made any endorsement under Ex.A.2, in such case the suit is barred by limitation against D.2. Though, he admitted that prior to the suit transaction, there are many transactions in between him and D.1 and D.2, as they are related.

Though, he admitted that, he filed the cheque bounce case against the D.2 basing on the suit pronote transaction, though he admitted that he presented 11 the cheque for collection, the same was returned, but he failed to mentioned in his plaint with regard to the issuance of cheque by D.2 towards the suit transaction and bouncing of the same and he also admitted in his evidence that, he failed to mention the same in his plaint, in such case the plaintiff failed to prove that D.2 issued the cheque, which was bounced , towards payment of money due by him under the Ex.A.1 pronote transaction. Though, the plaintiff proved that D.1 and D.2 jointly borrowed the amount from him, but as there is no endorsement with regard to the part payment by D.2, as the pronote is of 17.11.2009, as it is the contention of the plaintiff that, D.1 and D.2 jointly borrowed the suit amount and they made on the part payment endorsement on the back side of the Ex.A.2, as per the said endorsement, D.1 alone made the part payment, in such case the limitation starts from the date of endorsement i.e., 17.10.2012 against D.1 alone and as far as D.2 concerned, the pronote is barred by limitation, so D.2 is not liable to pay the suit amount, accordingly the issue No.1 and 2 and and Addl.

Issue No.1 are answered.

17. Issue No.3:

In view of my discussion in issue Nos.1 & 2, and Addl. Issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the D.1 alone, as far as D.2 concerned, the suit is dismissed.

18. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 alone for a sum of Rs.3,55,500/- with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization. As far as D.2 concerned, the suit is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 20th day of September, 2017.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

12 Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : K.Veera Prasad DW.1.D.Sreekanth PW.2 : H.Lakshminarayana (eschewed) PW.3 : K.Harikrishore

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1 : Original suit pronote dated 17.1.2009 executed by the defendants for Rs. 2,00,000/- Ex.A.2 : Endorsement on the back side of suit pronote for Rs.500/- dated 17.10.2012

Exhibits marked for defendant

Ex.B.1: C.C of deposition in CC. 338/2012 on the file of AJFCM Court, Ananthapuram.

P.S.C.J.

13

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Smt. G. Malathi,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, the 21st day of September, 2017

SESSIONS CASE No. 306 of 2014

(P.R.C. 120 of 2013 on the file of J.F.C.M, Ananthapuram)

Name of the Complainant :State Rep. by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Ananthpauram Rural P.S

Description of the accusedChukkuluru Muni Reddy, S/o Chukkuluru Pulla Reddy, Age 25 years, N/o Veerapuram Village, Tadipatri Mandal Now r/o IV Road extension,Rangaswamynagar, Ananthapuram.

Offences:U/sec. 354, 324 506 IPC

Plea of accused :Not guilty

Finding of the Judge :Not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/secs. 354, 324 and 506 IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The un-marked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Cr. No. and P.S concerned :110/2013 of Ananthapuram Rural P.S.

This sessions case coming on 18.09.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri G. Sreedhar Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub- Inspector of Police, Ananthapuram Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 110/2013 for the offence

U/secs.354, 324 506 IPC.

2. In brief the averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

LW.1/ Bathtini Hemalatha and LW.2/ B.Shiv Shankar Reddy are resident of

Rayalnagar, Ananthapuram and they are running one Purified Water Plant in the name of Nayagara Water at Royal Nagar and prior to this incident, accused is appointed in the said water plant for the distribution of water to 2 the customers. While so, the accused having addicted for consuming alcohol and for other bad vices used to absent for the work, so that LW.1 and LW.2 removed the accused from his work. After that the accused joined in other purified water unit and started selling water of said unit to his known persons of Royal Nagar in the name of Nayagara purified water, for which LW.1 and

LW.2 are getting damage to the image of their water plant and incurring loss in business, so that on 20.06.2013 at 8.30 AM.,at Rayalnagar, when accused came there for selling the water, LW.1 questioned about selling the water in their area in the name of Nayagara water, for which both accused and LW.1 indulged in verbal altercation with each other and that the accused abused

LW.1 in filthy language and outraged her modesty by pulling her tuft, beat on her chest. On seeing the same, LW.2 rushed to the spot and pushed the accused aside, on that the accused bitted on left hand wrist of LW.2 and caused bleeding injury. On seeing the same LW.3 to 5 namely Shasi Kumar

Reddy, M.Lokesh and G.Gangadhar intervened and rescued LW.1 and LW.2 from the further attack of accused. While leaving the place, the accused threatened LW.1 and Lw.2 with dire consequences that he will see their end with the support of rowdy elements.

Basing on the complaint of Lw.1, a case in Cr.No.110/2013 U/Sec. 354, 324 and 506 IPC was registered by Lw.7/G.V.Nagesh, Asst. Sb-Inspector of

Police, Ananthapuram Rural Police Station and investigated into. During the course of investigation he examined LW.1 and LW.2 and recorded their statements and on 24.06.2013, he arrested the accused and sent for remand. LW.6/ Dr.Padmaja, examined the LW.1 and LW.2 and issued wound certificates by opining that the the injuries sustained by them are simple in nature. Hence the charge.

3. The charge sheet was taken cognizance by the Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Ananthapuram as case in P.R.C. 120/2013 for the offence U/sec.

354, 324 and 506 IPC.

4. After following due procedure, as contemplated under law, the Addl.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuram, has committed the case under 3 section 209 (a) Cr.P.C. to the court of Sessions, Sessions Division

Ananthapuram. After receipt of case material, the Honourable Sessions

Judge, Ananthapuramu has taken the matter on file as S.C. 306 of 2014 and

made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

5. After appearance of the accused, this court examined him under section 228 (1) (b) Cr.P.C for which he pleaded not guilty. On hearing both sides, charge U/Secs. 354, 324 and 506 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.9 and closed its side evidence. On behalf of the defence no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused, for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Both counsels reported arguments as heard.

9. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution proved the case against the accused

for the offence U/Ss 354, 324 & 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:-

The case of the prosecution is that, LW.1/ Bathtini Hemalatha and LW.2/

B.Shiv Shankar Reddy are resident of Rayalnagar, Ananthapuram and they are running one Purified Water Plant in the name of Nayagara Water at Royal

Nagar and prior to this incident, accused is appointed in the said water plant for the distribution of water to the customers. While so, the accused having addicted for consuming alcohol and for other bad vices used to absent for the work, so that LW.1 and LW.2 removed the accused from his work.

After that the accused joined in other purified water unit and started selling 4 water of said unit to his known persons of Royal Nagar in the name of

Nayagara purified water, for which LW.1 and LW.2 are getting damage to the image of their water plant and incurring loss in business, so that on 20.06.2013 at 8.30 AM., at Rayalnagar, when accused came there for selling the water, LW.1 questioned about selling the water in their area in the name of Nayagara water, for which both accused and LW.1 indulged in verbal altercation with each other and that the accused abused LW.1 in filthy language and outraged her modesty by pulling her tuft, beat on her chest. On seeing the same, when LW.2 intervened, on that the accused bitted on left hand wrist of LW.2 and caused bleeding injury. On seeing the same LW.3 to 5 namely Shasi Kumar Reddy, M.Lokesh and G.Gangadhar intervened and rescued LW.1 and LW.2 from the further attack of accused. While leaving the place, the accused threatened LW.1 and Lw.2 with dire consequences that he will see their end with the support of rowdy elements. Basing on the complaint of Lw.1, accused was charged U/Sec. 354, 324 and 506 IPC.

11. In support of the case of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.5 are examined and according to me, the proper person to speak in this regard is PW.1, who is victim, injured and complainant to the case of the prosecution. If her evidence is consistent with the story of the prosecution, then her version can be believed upon in order to connect the accused with the case. When the said PW.1 was examined, she in her ocular evidence have stated that, she is resident of Ananthapuram and she do not know the accused. She further deposed that in the year 2013 on one day herself LW.4 and LW.5 were proceeding in an auto from Thapovanam to Itikalapalli for taking drinking water to their water plant, when they reached near their house, one auto came in opposite direction and hit their Auto, due to which she received injuries and later herself and LW.2 to 5 proceeded to police station, where the police obtained her signature in written paper, she by admitting her signature under Ex.P.1 in the complaint, but she denied its contents. She further deposed that police referred her to Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuram for treatment. Further, she specifically deposed that accused neither beat her nor try to outrage her modesty at any point of time.

5

12. PW.2, who is brother-in-law of LW.1, he also corroborated the version of

PW.1 and he did not stated anything against the accused and he simply stated that about four years back in the morning hours, PW.1 , LW.4 and

LW.5 were proceeding in an auto from Thapovanam to Itikalapalli for taking drinking water, when they reached near to their house, one Auto came in opposite direction and hit their Auto. Due to which PW.1 received injuries and later himself, PW.1, LW.3 to LW.5 proceeded to the police station and police obtained signature of PW.1 in written paper. Further he specifically stated that accused neither beat PW.1 nor try to outrage the modesty of PW.1 at any point of time. PW.3 who is eye witness to the incident, he turned hostile, did not supported the case of the prosecution, by stating that he do not know any thing about the case and he was not examined by the police. Further, he specifically deposed that the accused neither beat PW.1 nor try to outrage the modesty of PW.1 at any point of time.

13. So, from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, nothing is forth coming to show that the said PW.1 and PW.2 have received injuries due to the attack of the accused. Even though, the prosecution examined PW.4, who is the Doctor, who examined the PW.1, though she deposed that on 20.06.2013 at 12.30

P.M she examined PW.1 and she noticed two injuries on the person of PW.1 i.e., swelling of 1 x 1 cm at base of left thumb and tenderness on the front of sternum of PW.1 and on the same day at about 12.35 PM she also examined

PW.2 and found an abrasion of 2 x ½ cm on left fore arm red in colour on

PW.2 and accordingly she issued Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 wound certificates and as per the recitals in the said documents, though it is disclosing that, the said

PW.1 and PW.2 are received simple injuries, but as per the evidence of material witnesses and injured, it is disclosing that, they received the injuries, which the Doctor noticed on them is due to accident, but not due to the attack of the accused. Even though, from the recitals in Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6, it is disclosing that, the said PW.1 and PW.2 received simple injuries, but the prosecution failed to prove that the injuries which the said PW.4 noticed on

PW.1 and PW.2 are caused to them due to the attack of the accused on the 6 alleged date in order to connect the accused with the case, so there is no corroboration to the evidence of Pw.1 and PW.2 to that of the Doctor with regard to the receiving of injuries by them, which entitles the accused for benefit of doubt.

14. Further, though the prosecution examined PW.5, who is the Investigating

Officer, who deposed with regard to the registration of the case, arrest of the accused and visiting of scene and preparing of rough sketch, but the said

Investigating Officer, he admitted in his cross-examination that, the accused and the complainant are doing water business and as per the version of the defence, due to competition in doing the said water business, at the instance of complainant party, this case was brought into existence and in order to disbelieve the same, the prosecution did not placed any material

before the court. On the other hand, even though, the prosecution examined

PW.1 to PW.5, but the material witnesses they failed to state that they received the injuries due to the attack of the accused, according to them, they received the said injuries due to the accident, but not due to the attack of the accused. Further, the PW.1 who is the material witness in the case, she specifically stated that accused neither beat, nor tried to outrage her modesty at any point of time, in such case it is difficult to connect the accused with the case, which entitles the accused for benefit of doubt and accordingly accused is acquitted.

15. Though, it is the case of the prosecution that, due to water disputes i.e., with regard to selling of water in the same street by the accused and complainant, the accused and PW.1 and PW.2 quarrelled with each other and that accused beat PW.1 and PW.2 and caused injuries to them and he also outraged the modesty of Pw.1 by pulling her tuft and beat on her chest and also threatened them that he will see their end, but the material witnesses examined by the prosecution failed to support the case of the prosecution, which entitles the accused for benefit of doubt and accordingly accused is acquitted.

7

16. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/secs. 354, 324 and 506 IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The un-marked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of September, 2017.

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

PW.1 : B.Hemalatha None PW.2 : B.Sivashankar Reddy PW.3 : M.Lokesh PW.4 : Dr. Padmaja PW.5 : G.V.Nagesh

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Signature of Pw.1 on the complaint Ex.P.2 : U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3 : U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4 : U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5 : Wound Certificate of PW.1 Ex.P.6 : Wound Certificate of PW.1 Ex.P.7 : Complaint Ex.P.8 : First Information Report Ex.P.9 : Rough Sketch

Exhibits marked for Defence

-None-

Mos. Marked

-Nil-

P.A.S.J.

8

Tabular form to be Annexed to the Judgment as per Rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE :ANANTHAPURAMU

SESSIONS CASE NO. 306/2014

PRC.No. 120/2013 on the file of AJFCM, Ananthapuram

1. Name of the ComplainantState by Sub- Inspector of Police, Ananthauram Rural P.S in Cr.No. 110/2013 2.Description of accused: Chukkuluru Muni Reddy, S/o Chukkuluru Pulla Reddy, Age 25 years, N/o Veerapuram Village, Tadipatri Mandal Now r/o IV Road extension, Rangaswamy nagar, Ananthapuram.

3. Offence U/secs. 354, 324 and 506 IPC

4. Plea of accusedNot guilty 5.Date of offence 20.06.2013 6.Date of complaint20.06.2013 7.Date of appearance of the accused12.05.2014 8.Date of committal30.06.2014 9.Date of commencement of trial20.07.2017 10.Date of close of trial15.09.2017 11.Date of sentence or order21.09.2017

12.Sentence or order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/secs. 354, 324 and 506 IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Theun-marked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

13. Explanations for the delay in committal court :

Case is taken on file against the accused and numbered as PRC No.120/2013 on the file of AJFCM, Ananthapuram. After appearance of the accused case is committed to the court of

Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu.

Explanation for the delay in Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge’s Court, Ananthapuramu.

On04.07.2014 the case was made over to the this Court by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu for disposal according to law. On 04.05.2015 accused was appeared before the court. On 21.08.2015 charges were framed against the accused. From then the case was adjourned from time to time for commencement of trail. On 20.07.2017 PW.1 and PW.2 were examined, on 16.08.2017 PW.3 was examined, on 05.09.2017 PW.4 was examined, and on 15.09.2017 PW.5 was examined. Prosecution side evidence is closed. On 18.09.2017 accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused denied the offence and reported no defence evidence and after that after hearing both side arguments, the case was posted to 21.09.2017 for Judgment.

On 21.09.2017: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/secs. 354, 324 and 506 IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Theun-marked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

PRL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Prl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu Copy to the A.J.F.C.M., Ananthapuram Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Smt. G. Malathi,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Wednesday, the 20th day of September, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 459/2014

Between:

Bommineni Harshavardhan ..Plaintiff

And

C.Naga Mahesh .. Defendant

This suit coming on 12.09.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri C.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- basing on pronote.

2.In brief, the averments in the plaint are that, the defendant herein approached the plaintiff on 10.05.2012 and borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a., and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. As per his contention, inspite of the demands made by him, the defendant, did not paid any amount towards

principal or interest, hence he got issued legal notice on 21.05.2014 to the

defendant. As per the contention of the plaintiff, after receiving the said legal notice issued by him, the defendant got issued reply notice and did not paid any amount, hence he filed the present suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement denying with regard to the execution of the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. As per the contention of the defendant, the suit pronote is forged and fabricated and there are material alterations in the suit promissory note and the interest 2 calculated on the said amount is excessive and not correct, hence he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:

1.Whether the suit pronote is a forged and fabricated document?

2. Whether the interest calculated by the plaintiff is excessive ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim ?

4. To what relief?

5. In support of the plaintiff, PW.1 is examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 is examined, but no documents are marked.

6. Both counsels reported arguments as heard.

7. Issue Nos.1 to 3 :

As per the evidence of Pw.1, it is disclosing that, he is plaintiff in the suit and according to his chief affidavit, it is disclosing that on 10.05.2012, the defendant herein approached him and borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from him for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24 % p.a., and accordingly he executed the suit pronote in his favour and in support of his contention, he relied on Ex.A.1 Document and the recitals in the said document are supporting his contention. As per the version of the plaintiff, it is disclosing that, though he demanded the defendant for repayment of the said amount, he failed to pay the same, accordingly he issued legal notice to him under Ex.A.2 and the recitals in the said document are also supporting the contention of the plaintiff, that he made demands to the defendant for repayment of the said amount and as per his contention, the said notice was served on him and he gave reply notice to the plaintiff under Ex.A.4 denying with regard to the borrowing of the said amount. It is the contention of the plaintiff, though the defendant is an employee, but he failed to pay the amount to him and the recitals in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 documents are supporting the plea of the plaintiff and in his cross- 3 examination, he denied to the suggestions put to him that, he is doing money lending business and further he admitted in his cross-examination that, he gave financial assistance to the defendant by name Naga Mahesh i.e., the defendant at his residence for Rs.1,00,000/- and at the time of the said transaction, one Anil and Rahiman Basha are present and they are the attesting witnesses to the said document and the recitals in Ex.A.1 are supporting his contention that one Anil and Rahiman Basha are attesting witness to the said document. Though, it was suggested to the Pw.1 that he did not gave any amount to the defendant, he denied for the same.

8.Though, the defendant in support of his contention, to show that the suit document is forged and fabricated document and he never executed the said document and he deposed the same in his chief affidavit, but in his cross-examination he admitted that, the signatures shown to him in vakalath and summons and written statement are his signatures and on comparison of the said signatures in the pronote to that of the signatures present in vakalath, summons and written statement, which are the admitted signatures of the defendant and the disputed signatures in Ex.A.1 Pronote are appearing one and the same and as per Sec. 73 of Indian Evidence Act, the court is having power to compare the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures of the person for arriving a conclusion.

9.Here in the instant case, as the defendant is denying his signatures in

Ex.A.1 document, which are the disputed signatures and he admitted in his signatures in vakalath, summons and written statement are his signatures and on comparison of the same, this court came to conclusion that, the said documents are written by one and the same person and it is the defendant.

So, it is the contention of the plaintiff, that the defendant having received the amount, executed the suit promissory note. When once the execution of the pronote is proved by the plaintiff, it can be said that it is supported by cash consideration unless and until the contrary is proved. Though, the defendant has denied the signatures in the pronote, but as per the above discussion, 4 this court has came to the conclusion that on comparison of the admitted signatures of the defendant, with that of his disputed signatures, it appears to be written by one and the same person, which in turn goes to show that, the defendant has executed the suit pronote, at present he is denying the execution in order to evade the payment to the plaintiff. Further, as per the recitals in Ex.A.1, the interest claimed is 24 % p.a., which is not an excess amount. Though it is the contention of the defendant that, the interest calculated is excessive, but as per the contention of the plaintiff, he claimed interest as agreed by the defendant under Ex.A.1.

10. Though, the defendant has taken a plea of forgery, fabrication of the suit document and material alterations, but in support of his contention he failed to take any steps by sending the said document near an expert in order to prove his plea and on perusal of the Ex.A.1 Document, the material alterations are not disclosing. Though, it is the plea of the defendant, that the suit document is a forged and fabricated document, but he failed to prove in this regard. On the other hand the plaintiff through his evidence supported by

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 documents proved that, the defendant executed the Ex.A.1 document and he borrowed the amount, accordingly the issue No.1 to 3 are answered.

11. Issue No.4:

In view of my discussion in issue Nos.1 to 3, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree.

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 20th day of September, 2017.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

5 Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : B.Harshavardhan DW.1.C.Naga Mahesh

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1 : Original suit pronote dated 10.05.2012 executed by the defendant Ex.A.2 : Office copy of the legal notice dated 21.05.2014 Ex.A.3 : Postal acknowledgment card signed by the defendant Ex.A.4 : Reply Notice issued by the defendant Dt. 23.05.2014

Exhibits marked for defendant

- Nil - P.S.C.J.

1

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

Case No. :OS/0000113/2012 Kummara Savithramma Vs K.Tadipatri Yerukalamma

Date : 20-09-2017

Business: Both not ready, no representation, hence the suit is dimissed for default as the suit is coming for the trial 12-2-2014, as the matter is of pre-2012 and the plaintiff is not showing any interest to proceed further in the case. Nature of : DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Disposal Date: 20-09-2017 Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

1

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

Case No. :OS/0000263/2012 Gulagani Tirupathaiah Vs Gulagani Ramakrishna

Date : 22-09-2017

Business: Plaintiff counsel reported no instructions . Plaintiff called absent and the suit is dismissed for default, as the counsel reported no instructions. Nature of : DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Disposal Date: 22-09-2017 Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur