Dr I. Karuna Kumar

APNE050004322023 1 O.S.No.117/2023,

dated 17.3.2026

In the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore

Tuesday, this the 17 th day of March, 2026

Present: Sri Dr.I.Karuna Kumar,

Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division),

Nellore

O.S.No.117/2023

Kolla Venkateswarlu….Plaintiff

Vs.,

G.Poorna Chandra Rao….Defendant

This suit is coming on 11.3.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch.Venkateswara Rao, learned Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri E.Bhaskaraiah, learned Advocate for the defendant and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day; this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money basing on the suit promissory notes and for costs of the suit; such other and further reliefs as are being fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 11.9.2020 from the plaintiff for his necessities and in consideration thereof, the defendant has executed two promissory notes one is for

Rs.20,00,000/- and another one is Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff on the even date itself with his own hand writing and agreeing to repay

APNE050004322023 2 O.S.No.117/2023,

dated 17.3.2026

the same with interest at the rate of 24%pa., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

Pursuant to the above said liability, defendant issued four cheques related to South Indian Bank (IFSC Code:SIBL0000413), dated 27.12.2021 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, bearing No.021893, dated 29.12.2021 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, bearing No.021894, dated 31.12.2021 for a sum of Rs.Rs.5,00,000/-, bearing No.021860 and dated 1.1.2022 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, bearing No.021895 towards part payment due under the above said two promissory notes, dt.11.9.2020.

The plaintiff presented above said cheques into his current account in State Bank of India, Personnel Banking Branch, Nellore for collection purpose. The said four cheques were returned dishonoured due to “Funds Insufficient” in defendant’s account.

Plaintiff also sent Registered legal notice, dt.19.2.2022 on the defendant with acknowledgment due, which was served on the defendant on 22.2.2022. The defendant did not comply the demand but sent reply notice, dt.3.3.2022 with false allegations by admitting the issuance of said cheques. Hence, the complaint filed and same is pending before the

Hon’ble V AJMFC, Nellore vide CC.No.888/2022.

Which, the defendant postponing to repay the amount due under the suit promissory notes, dt.11.9.2020 on some pretext or other as such, the suit filed, which is within imitation.

APNE050004322023 3 O.S.No.117/2023,

dated 17.3.2026

The defendant is not an agriculturist as he is Doctor, and he is not entitled for any relief under the provisions of the any debt relief acts. So, interest is claimed as per contract rate. Hence the suit.

3. To contradict the plaint averments defendant filed written statement.

4.The defendant filed his written statement denied all the allegations mentioned in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted to be true and put the plaintiff to strict proof of each and every allegation mentioned in the plaint.

It is the submission of that when he was trying to have private loan for his necessities, he agreed to availed private loan from the plaintiff, and that in the year, 2019, when the plaintiff demanded, the defendant issued blank signed cheques and promissory notes for security purposes, sans mentioning the dates, name and amount.

It is submitted that the plaintiff failed to arrange the loan to the defendant herein and, when he demanded the plaintiff to return blank signed chques and promissory notes. Then, the same were not returned to the defendant herein. So, taking advantage of blank signed cheques and promissory notes, presented cheques for collection without intimation to the defendant herein. The attestors and the scribe was common attestors to plaintiff.

There is neither consideration nor cause action to the suit. The plaint allegations are utterly false and invented for the purpose of filing the

APNE050004322023 4 O.S.No.117/2023,

dated 17.3.2026

suit. It is submitted that the suit promissory notes are fabricated and created documents, as such, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

ISSUES:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have the suit amount of

Rs.43,00,000/- together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the principal from the date of suit till the date of realization?

2) Whether there is cause of action to the suit?

3) Whether there is no consideration passed to the defendant under two promissory notes said to have been executed in favour of plaintiff?

4) Whether the suit can be decreed ? If so,

5) To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, he himself filed his chief affidavit and examined as PW1 as well marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

On behalf of the defendant, no one examined and no documents marked.

7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff. Since counsel of defendant not turned up; Arguments treated as heard.

8. Let this court proceed to answer to issues Nos.1 to 4 i.e.,

APNE050004322023 5 O.S.No.117/2023,

dated 17.3.2026

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have the suit amount of

Rs.43,00,000/- together with subsequent interest at 12% per

annum on the principal from the date of suit till the date of

realization?

2) Whether there is cause of action to the suit?

3) Whether there is no consideration passed to the defendant

under two promissory notes said to have been executed in

favour of plaintiff?

4) Whether the suit can be decreed ? If so,

Issues 1 to 4 are taken up together to answer, in order to avoid repetition of discussion.

The plaintiff herein examined as PW1, his evidence that the defendant herein borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) from PW1 on 11.9.2020 for his personal and family necessities and in consideration thereof the defendant executed two promissory notes; one for Rs.20,00,000/- and another for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of PW1 on the even date of which, agreed to repay the same with interest at 24%pa., either to him or to his order on demand, to which Babu

Rao acted as scribe of two promissory notes, while, K.Renuka, attested as witness.

It is the evidence of PW1 that four cheques issued to him drawn on

South Indian Bank (IFSC Code:SIBL0000413), dated 27.12.2021 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, bearing No.021893, dated 29.12.2021 for a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/-, bearing No.021894, dated 31.12.2021 for a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/-, bearing No.021860 and dated 1.1.2022 for a sum of

APNE050004322023 6 O.S.No.117/2023,

dated 17.3.2026

Rs.10,00,000/-, bearing No.021895 towards part payment due under the above said two promissory notes, dt.11.9.2020 for a sum of

Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at Rs.24% per annum.

Therefore, as per the evidence of PW1, he presented the said four cheques on 28.1.2022, 30.1.2022, 1.2.2022 and 10.2.2022 for collection purpose, but all were returned dishonoured due to funds insufficient. It is the case of PW1 that the defendant not choose to repay the said amount.

Moreover, Ex.A1 promissory note, dt.11.9.2020, Ex.A2, Promissory note, dt.11.9.2020 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for sum of

Rs.20,00,000/- and for a sum Rs.5,00,000/- respectively marked through

PW1.

It is therefore clear that there is nothing on record to contradict the evidence deposed by PW1 as defendant not only failed to cross-examine

PW1, which means that all the facts deposed in chief-examination stood un-impeached. Moreover, the defendant herein failed to adduce evidence on his part, as such, a positive presumption is to be raised as per section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, to hold in favour of Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 that the said documents are executed for the purpose of good and valued consideration taken by defendant in favour of the plaintiff herein.

Hence, in this scenario, there is no other go or option left this court except to decree the suit. Therefore, this suit Doth hereby decreed as follows.

APNE050004322023 7 O.S.No.117/2023,

dated 17.3.2026

9.Issue No.7: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.43,00,000/- with subsequent interest @12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.25,00,000/-.

Typed to my diction by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 17th day of March, 2026.

Fair Copy: Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

PW1:Kolla VenkateswarluNone

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A.1 : Promissory note, dated 11.09.2020, executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-.

Ex.A.2 : Promissory note dated 11.09.2020, executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Ex.A.3 : Office copy of the lawyer notice, dated 19.02.2022, on behalf of the plaintiff under N.I.Act.

Ex.A.4 : Postal Acknowledge (Postal Track consignment) dated 22.02.2022.

APNE050004322023 8 O.S.No.117/2023,

dated 17.3.2026

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT :-

NIL

Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nellore

APNE050004062025 1 O.S.No.127/2025,

dated 6.4.2026

In the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore

Monday, this the 6 th day of April, 2026

Present: Sri Dr.I.Karuna Kumar,

Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division),

Nellore

O.S.No.127/2025

1. Kosuru Kusumakar Goud

2. Kosuru Srividya Goud …. Plaintiffs.

Vs.,

1. Kosuru Subbaramamma

2. Kosuru Venkata Subbaiah Goud

3. Vempuluru Leelavathi …. Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri U.Sreenivasulu Reddy, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendants set exparte and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule mentioned properties and direct the defendants for partition and put into separate possession of the plaintiffs share of plaint schedule properties by fixing boundaries with metes and bounds; grant costs of the suit; such other and further reliefs as are being fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintiffs contended that late Kosuru Subbaramaiah was a

Toddy Tapper by community and also an agriculturist. The said late

K.Subbaramaiah and 1st defendant herein were wife and husband and

APNE050004062025 2 O.S.No.127/2025,

dated 6.4.2026

they were blessed with Kosuru Venkata Subbaiah Goud/2nd defendant, son of Subbaramaiah r/o Anikepalli Village, Venkatachalam Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District. He had acquired movable and immovable properties from his ancestors, further he acted as a ‘Kartha of Hindu’ undivided joint family. During his life time, the said late Kosuru

Subbaramaiah with sound and dispossession state of mind had executed unregistered Will, dt.10.10.1995 conveying his properties to the 2nd defendant herein and the same. The things stood thus; the said late

K.Subbaramaiah had died on 1.12.1995 leaving behind defendants 1 and 2, as per the terms of unregistered Will, dt.10.10.1995, the 1st defendant came into the possession of the properties described thereunder.

Thereafter, the 1st defendant had came into the shoes of said late

Kosuru Subbaramaiah and she started acting as Kartha of Hindu undivided joint family with the assistance of 2nd defendant managing the joint family properties, and 1st and 2nd defendants had purchased item

No.1 of plaint schedule property from Challa Seenaiah under registered sale deed bearing document No.37/2000, dt.25.1.2000 in favour of 2nd defendant for the welfare of joint family and when the 1st defendant had executed registered settlement deed bearing document No.750/2015, dt.22.7.2015 in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of item No.1(a) of plaint schedule and 1st defendant again registered settlement deeds bearing document No.896/2015, dt.9.7.2015 in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of item No.1(b) of plaint schedule and against the 1st defendant registered settlement deed bearing document No.917/2018, dt.26.6.2018 in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of item No.2 and 2(a) of plaint schedule properties and when the 1st and 2nd defendants made development in plaint schedule properties with the financial assistance of joint family

APNE050004062025 3 O.S.No.127/2025,

dated 6.4.2026

funds and when during the time of marriage of 3rd defendant on 10.10.1997 an oral partition had taken place in front of village elders with a condition to partition the joint family properties in future and when the defendants had no cooperated for partition and when the village elders had compromised the matter and when the properties had partitioned through the unregistered Kararunama, dt.6.2.2017 allotted respective shares and when accordingly, 1st plaintiff had got item Nos.1, 1(a) and 1(b) of plaint schedule properties and when 2nd plaintiff had got item No.2, 2(a) of plaint schedule properties and when the plaintiffs had questioned the defendants for partition of plaint schedule properties and when the defendants were not cooperating for partition of the plaint schedule properties and when defendants proclaiming that they are only the absolute owners of plaint schedule properties. Except filing the present suit there is no other option left with the plaintiffs to partition the plaint schedule properties. Hence, they constrained to file this suit.

3. The defendants did not file written statement and no representation as such, set exparte.

4.The plaintiffs 1 and 2 themselves examined as PW1 and PW2 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. One Vempuluru Subbarayulu, Pallareddy

Srinivasulu Reddy, Vempuluru Sreehari and Duvvuru Suneel Kumar

Reddy, who are examined as PW3 to PW6 and no documents marked.

2nd defendant is examined as PW7, who is the father of plaintiffs; 1st defendant is his mother and 3rd defendant is his elder daughter.

5.Heard counsel for the plaintiff. Thus, this suit stood before this court for consideration and judgment.

APNE050004062025 4 O.S.No.127/2025,

dated 6.4.2026

6.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether, the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties, if so, to what relief?”

POINT:

7.The plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein filed the suit against the defendants 1 to 3 and the chief examination of PW1 was deposed that 2nd plaintiff is younger brother of PW1, while, PW1, 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant and children of 2nd defendant, whereas the 1st defendant is the mother of 2nd defendant and grand mother to PW1, 2nd plaintiff and 3rd defendant.

The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that there was an “unregistered kararunama dt.06.02.2017” executed under Ex.A6 by the parties under the suit. Nevertheless, after execution of the same, the defendants herein are failing to come to terms in accordance to unregistered Kararunama vide Ex.A6, which was executed on 06.02.2017, so as to partition the suit schedule property.

It is categorically clear that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property Hindu undivided joint family property, which shall be partitioned as per the terms executed under Ex.A6, unregistered kararunama, dt. 06.02.2017.

Here, the worthy point and consideration would be, the defendant did not raise any figure towards kararunama disputing the same, which amounts and gives raise to conclusion that the defendants has nothing to dispute with the contentions of the plaintiffs herein, as such, the suit is to be decreed, as prayed for.

APNE050004062025 5 O.S.No.127/2025,

dated 6.4.2026

The suit is decreed as hereunder in terms of Ex.A6, unregistered kararunama and in lieu of the evidence deposed by PW1 and PW2, who are very clearly to testify deposing facts before the court on oath.

8.In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed, directing the defendants to partition the suit schedule properties and to put plaintiffs into separate possession to the extent of 1/5th share over the plaint schedule properties on fixing boundaries with metes and bounds. Costs not awarded as the dispute is among the family members.

Dictated by the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 6 th day of April,2026.

Fair Copy: Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS: DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Kosuru Kusumakar GoudNone

PW2: Kosuru Srividya Goud

PW3: Vempuluru Subbarayulu;

PW4: Pallareddy Srinivasulu Reddy;

PW5: Vempuluru Sreehari;

PW6: Duvvuru Suneel Kumar Reddy;

PW7: Kosuru Venkata Subbaiah Gowd.

APNE050004062025 6 O.S.No.127/2025,

dated 6.4.2026

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS:-

PLAINTIFFS:

UN-Registered Will dated 10.10.1995, executed by Late Ex.A.1 : Kosuru Subbaramaiah in favor of Kosuru Venkata Subbaiah Goud/2nd defendant.

Certified true extract of Regd. Sale deed bearing Doc. No. Ex.A.2 : 37/2000, dt. 25.01.2000, executed by Challa Seenaiah in favor of Kosuru Venkata Subbaiah Goud/2nd Defendant.

Certified True Extract of Redg. Settlement Deed bearing Document NO. 750/2015, dt. 22.07.2015, executed by Kosuru Ex.A.3 : Subbaramamma / 1st defendant in favor of kosuru Venkata Subbaiah Gud/2nd defendant.

Certified True Extract of Redg. Settlement Deed bearing Document NO.896/2015, dt. 09.07.2015, executed by Kosuru Ex.A.4 : Subbaramamma/1st defendant in favor of Kosuru Venkata Subbaiah Goud/2nd defendant.

Certified True Extract of Redg. Settlement Deed bearing Document NO.917/2018, dt. 26.06.2018, executed by Kosuru Ex.A.5 : Subbamma/ 1st defendant tin favor of kosuru Venkata Subbaiah Goud/2nd defendant.

Ex.A.6 : Un-registered Kararu nama dt. 06.02.2017.

Ex.A.7 Death certificate of kosuru Subbaramaiah, dt. 01.12.1995.

Ex.A.8Death certificate of kosuru Subhashini dt. 19.04.1997.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS :-

Nil.

Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nellore

APNE050005792024 1 O.S.No.155/2024,

dated 7.4.2026

In the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore

Tuesday, this the 7 th day of April, 2026

Present: Sri Dr.I.Karuna Kumar,

Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division),

Nellore

O.S.No.155/2024

Dasari Malakondaiah Naidu….Plaintiff

Vs.,

Nadipaku Surendranadh….Defendant

This suit is coming on 17.2.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Mallireddy, learned Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.Sundaraiah Yadav, learned Advocate for the defendant and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day; this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money basing on the suit promissory note and for costs of the suit; such other and further reliefs as are being fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 2.1.2022 from the plaintiff for his necessities and family expenses and in consideration thereof, the defendant has executed demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day at Nellore city undertaking

APNE050005792024 2 O.S.No.155/2024,

dated 7.4.2026

to repay the same with interest at Rs.2/- per hundred per month either to him or to his order on demand.

One Rachala Vijay Krishna scribed the said promissory note and

Yerra Guru Prasad attested the promissory note as 1st attestor and Potti

Balaji attested the said promissory note as 2nd attestor. Thereafter, inspite of repeated requests and demands made by him, the defendant did not choose to repay any portion of the amount due under the above said promissory note and finally on 5.9.2024, the defendant got issued a cheque bearing No.926750 for Rs.9,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of

India, Nellore town branch, in his favour in part discharge of the amount due under the above said promissory note and he presented the said cheque for encashment on 30.9.2024 with his banker namely Karuru

Vysya Bank, Brundavanam Branch, Nellore City. But, the said cheque was returned dishonoured on the ground of “EXCEEDS

ARRANGEMENT” and he received the said information on 3.10.2024 and got issued a legal notice on 17.10.2024, demanding the defendant for payment of cheque amount. The defendant having received the said notice and did not choose to neither comply nor reply the same. He filed a private complaint before the Hon’ble Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of

I class, Nellore against the defendant in CF No.5627/2024 and the same

is pending.

The defendant is not an agriculturist. Hence, the Act 4 of 38, 45 of 87 and 2 of 92 and the extensions thereof are not applicable. Hence, the suit.

APNE050005792024 3 O.S.No.155/2024,

dated 7.4.2026

3. To contradict the plaint averments defendant filed written statement.

4.The defendant filed his written statement denied all the allegations mentioned in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted to be true and put the plaintiff to strict proof of each and every allegation mentioned in the plaint and contented that 8 years ago plaintiff and the defendant resided in the same locality and thereafter, the defendant shifted his house to Mulapet and then they have had no contacts. Nevertheless, it is the contention of the defendant that due to disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff herein created rank forged suit promissory notes against the defendant, as such, received no consideration and that he suspects, but during visit of the plaintiff to the house of the defendant some contacts might have been stolen. For these reasons that they may be pleased to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

ISSUES:

1) Whether the suit can be decreed as prayed for?

2) If so, to what relief?

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, he himself filed his chief affidavit and examined as PW1 as well marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

Scribe of the suit promissory note is examined as PW2 and attestors of

APNE050005792024 4 O.S.No.155/2024,

dated 7.4.2026

the suit promissory note is examined as PW3 and PW4 and no documents marked.

On behalf of the defendant, no one examined and no documents marked.

7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff. Since there is no representation from the defendant; Arguments treated as heard.

Hence, this suit before this court for consideration and judgment.

8. Let this court proceed to answer to issue No.1 i.e., Whether the suit can be decreed ?

It is categorically clear evidence of PW1 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) from the plaintiff for his necessities and family expenses and in consideration thereof, he executed the demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day at Nellore undertaking to repay the same with interest @

Rs.2/- per month either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

PW2 herein is the scribe of the suit promissory note to which, according to him one Yerra Guru Prasad and Potti Balaji acted as an attestors 1 and 2 respectively.

On the other hand, the plaintiff examined Pws.3 and 4, who are no other than the attestor to the said promissory note marked as Ex.A1.

Pws.2 to 4 categorically deposed that passing of consideration had taken place in their presence. Further, it is categorically clear that the

APNE050005792024 5 O.S.No.155/2024,

dated 7.4.2026

defendant herein did not choose to cross-examine Pws.1 to 4. Therefore,

Ex.A1 suit promissory note stood as unrebutted. As such, as positive presumption is to be drawn in favour of the plaintiff that it is executed for good and valid consideration under section 114 Illustration (c), which gives an inference that it is executed for valid and good consideration.

On the other hand, the contentions raised by the defendant herein left unproved and as defendant failed to take essential promise towards steps to advance his contention towards truth before this court. For all these reasons in the light of the discussion held the suit is liable to be decreed.

9.Issue No.2: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.25,42,000/- with subsequent interest @12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.15,00,000/-.

Typed to my diction by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

Fair Copy: Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Nellore

APNE050005792024 6 O.S.No.155/2024,

dated 7.4.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

PW1:DasariMalakondaiahNone Naidu

PW2:Rachala Vijay Krishna

PW3: Yerra Guru Prasad

PW4:Potti Balaji

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A.1 : Promissory note, dated 2.1.2022, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

Ex.A.2 : Office copy of the lawyer notice, dated 17.10.2024 issued on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant;

Ex.A.3 : Copy of tract consignment showing that Ex.A2 is duly served on the defendant.

Copy of private complaint filed by him in CF.No.5627/2024 Ex.A.4 : against the defendant on the file of Hon’ble Special Mobile

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT :-

NIL

Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nellore

APNE050004792025 1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

NELLORE.

Monday, this the 6th day of April, 2026

PRESENT:- Dr. I. KARUNA KUMAR,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), NELLORE.

O.S.No.175/2025

Divvela Kiranmayi … Plaintiff

Vs.

Konakalla Shobhan Babu … Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Defendant set exparte, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

I. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of

Rs.22,40,700/- from the defendant said to have executed promissory note in her favour and for costs of the suit; such other and further reliefs as are being fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

II. The brief facts of the suit stands to contend that the defendant, who is a business man running a jewellery shop at Eluru having close acquaintance with the husband of the plaintiff for over 10 years for his business necessities borrowed a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 3.11.2023 at Nellore and in consideration thereof, he executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff undertaking to repay the same with compound interest @ 18% pa., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

APNE050004792025 2 It is averred that the defendant failed to repay the amount that he borrowed under the said promissory note. Further, he postponed the payment on some pretext or other.

The plaintiff therefore issued a notice, dt.12.9.2025 to repay the amount under the promissory note and the said notice was served as the defendant neither paid the amount due nor issued any reply notice. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant.

The defendant is not an agriculturist. Hence the suit.

III. Accordingly summons issued to defendant, and the same was served.

But, the defendant remained as non contesting party as neither he appeared nor vakalath filed on his behalf. Hence, he was set exparte on 2.3.2026.

IV. During trial, the plaintiff examined as PW1 through whom Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3 documents marked. Since, the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported no further evidence, as such the same is herewith closed.

V. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

VI. Thus, this suit stood before this court for consideration and judgment.

VII. Therefore, the point that would arise for consideration is ; whether, the suit is to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff?, if so , what result?

POINT:

VIII.The plaintiff herein filed the suit relying on a suit promissory note marked as Ex.A1 through PW1, which on perusal gives the following facts:

APNE050004792025 3

(i) that it was executed on 3.11.2023;

(ii) for a consideration of Rs.16,50,000/-;

(iii) executed by one Konakalla Shobhan Babu;

(iv) to which there were two attestors;

(v) and the signature of Konakalla Shobhan Babu was found across the revenue stamp and below dated 3.11.2023.

It is to be noted here that the defendant did failed to prosecute the suit as he remained exparte, which means to infer to clear terms that he did not disputed his signatures found across the revenue stamp; means to conclude that he subscribed his signature in execution of Ex.A1 for a consideration of

Rs.16,50,000/-, which are all the facts deposed by PW1 in chief examination.

Further, Ex.A2 is the copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. However, there was no any response from the defendant herein.

It is therefore, abundantly clear that in accordance with section 118 of

Negotiable Instrument Act, if any Negotiable Instrument drawn in favour of the other, shows that there is receipt of valid and good consideration, which is even being supported by section 114 illustration ‘C’ of the Indian Evidence

Act.

For the foregoing discussion held afore invariably, this court has to decree the suit as hereunder.

XII. In the result, the suit is decreed as hereunder;

APNE050004792025 4

1. that the defendant do hereby decreed to pay an amount of Rs.22,40,700/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs forty thousand seven hundred only) to the plaintiff herein; 2 that the defendant do pay the interest on the principal amount of Rs.16,50,000/- with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree;

3. that the defendant do also pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.16,50,000/- from the date of decree till its realization; 4 that in the circumstances, suit costs awarded in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly suit decreed.

Dictated by the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of April, 2026.

Fair Copy: Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: Divvela Kiranmayi NIL

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original demand promissory note, dt.3.11.2023 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.16,50,000/-.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dt.12.9.2025 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment served on the defendant.

For Defendant: – Nil – Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore.

APNE050005012025 1 S.O.P.No.129/2025, 6.4.2026

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

NELLORE.

Monday, this the 6 th day of April, 2026

PRESENT:- Dr. I. KARUNA KUMAR,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION), NELLORE.

S.O.P.No.129/2025

1. Mohammed Abdul Mobeena

2. Mohammed Abdul Jameer Baig

3. Mohammed Abdul Hafeez Baig

4. Mohammed Abdul Saif Baig

5. Mohammed Abdul Muntaz Begum … Petitioners.

Vs.

Nil … Respondent.

This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri D.Dhamareswar, learned Advocate for the petitioners, and the respondent – Nil and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed U/Sec.372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 to issue the succession certificate in their favour in respect of the securities and debts shown in the petition schedule and further interest thereon; for costs; grant such other and further reliefs this court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

2) The brief averments of the petition are that :

The petitioners submits that late Mohammed Abdul Jameel Baig, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, father of the 2nd to 4th petitioners

APNE050005012025 2 S.O.P.No.129/2025, 6.4.2026 and son of the 5th petitioner died intestate on 13.11.2021 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal representatives and the petitioners succeeded to the estate of the said late Mohammed Abdul Jameel Baig.

The petitioners further submits that the deceased was working as an employee in MG Brothers Industries Private Limited, Jyothi Nagar, beside

Railway Station Road, Vedayapalem, Nellore. The deceased was contributing to the employee’s provident fund and his employee provident fund No.GRCDP/69449/10120 and pension amount.

The petitioners are entitled to claim pension to the petitioners and benefits due to the deceased furnished in the schedule attached to this petition. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled for succession certificate for the pension to the petitioners and benefits to the deceased. Hence this petition.

3) Accordingly, the claimants, if any is called for by way of paper publication, which was published; but none appeared.

4) During enquiry, the 2nd petitioner examined himself as PW1 and Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2 are marked on behalf of the petitioners. Since, no further evidence reported, Evidence of the petitioners herewith closed.

5) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, this petition stood

before this court for consideration and orders.

6) Now, the point that would arise for consideration is: Whether, the

petitioners herein are entitled for issuance of Succession Certificate

in favour of petitioners, if so, to what relief?

APNE050005012025 3 S.O.P.No.129/2025, 6.4.2026 POINT:

7)It is clear from the record that no claimants either approached or appeared before this court, as such, the respondent stood as nil. Heard, this court reopened the matter on the reason that the mother of the petitioners shown as a becoming under family member certificate issued by the Tahsildar concerned. In this connection, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners submitted that the family member certificate never

confirms and comes to issuance of succession certificate in favour of the parties.

It is the submission of the counsel that since 5th petitioner is the mother of the deceased Mohammed Abdul Jameel Baig, she is added as a party in order to avoid future litigation. The contention of the learned counsel as forces, as such, accepted.

Therefore, the office is thus, directed to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners herein in respect of the pension to the petitioners and benefits that are to be provided to the deceased family as mentioned in the schedule.

8) In the result, the petition is allowed, directing to issue Succession

Certificate in favour of the petitioners in respect of the securities and debts shown in the petition schedule and further interest thereon , on payment of prescribed fee. There will be no order as to costs.

Dictated by the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 6th day of April, 2026.

Fair Copy:PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

NELLORE.

APNE050005012025 4 S.O.P.No.129/2025, 6.4.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For petitioner:- For Respondent :-

PW1: Mohammed Abudl Jameer Baig None

Documents marked

Ex.P1: Notarized copy of the death of Mohammed Abdul Jameel Baig issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Nellore Municipal Corporation;

Ex.P2: Computer generated copy of family member certificate.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

NELLORE