Sri K.Bhanu

1 Spl.Magistrate Court CC.No.462/2016 Prathipadu Dt.31-01-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE : PRATHIPADU

Present : SRI KATAM BHANU

Judicial Magistrate of I class, Prathipadu

(FAC) Special Magistrate,Prathipadu

WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO : 462/2016

Between:-

Penaganti Babji, S/o.Venkata Ramana, aged 38 years, business, R/o.D.No.1-77-7, Somarayanampeta, Kirlampudi mandal, E.G.Dt., Kirlampudi PS limits.

…. Complainant.

And

Adabala Sriramachandra Murty, S/o.Rama Rao, aged 42 years, political leader, R/o.Near Ramalayam, Palem village, Kirlampudi mandal, Kirlampudi PS limits.

.… Accused.

This case is coming on 03-01-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.V.Sivannarayana, Advocate for complainant and of Sri Ch.Ramakrishna, Advocate for accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1)This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2) The averments of the complaint in brief :-

a) On 11.02.2014 the accused along with his wife borrowed a sum of

Rs. 10,00,000/- from the Complainant towards their family expenses agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 24% per annum. After receipt of consideration they jointly executed a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant on the even date. Subsequently, the complainant has filed O.S.No.158/2016 for recovery of amount against the accused on the file of III Addl.District Judge, Kakinada. On receipt of summons on 16.09.2016 the accused has issued a cheque bearing No. 160557 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards part payment drawn on State Bank of India

Jaggampeta Branch, the complainant has deposited the cheque for 2 Spl.Magistrate Court CC.No.462/2016 Prathipadu Dt.31-01-2024 collection through his banker Andhra Bank, Goneda Branch on 16.09.2016.

Surprisingly the subject cheque was dishonoured and it was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds" by the accused banker and the same was returned on 20.09.2016 and the same was informed to the complainant by his banker on 26.09.2016. The complainant got issued a notice through his advocate to the accused on 29.09.2016 and the same was received by the accused on 04.10.2016 but the accused did not choose to pay the the cheque amount nor gave any reply for the same intentionally. The accused has issued the cheque intentionally knowing fully well that there are insufficient funds in his account with a malafide intention to cheat the complainant, thereby the accused has committed an offense U/138-A and 142 of NI Act. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint

3) Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence U/sec.138 of N.I. Act and issued summons to the accused.

4) On appearance of the accused, copies of relevant documents U/s.207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused.

5) The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. as to the substance of accusation leveled for the offence U/sec.138 of N.I. Act, against the accused, read over and explained to her in Telugu to which the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) During the trial, the complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and examined the 1st attestor and scribe of the promissory note as PW.2 and 2nd attestor of the promissory note is examined as PW.3 and on behalf of complainant, the cheque bearing No.160557 for Rs.10,00,000/- of State

Bank of India as Ex.P1 Dt 16.09.2016, Cheque return memo issued by

Andhra Bank with an endorsement of insufficient of funds dt.26.9.2016 as

Ex.P2, Return endorsement issued by Andhra Bank, dt.20.09.2016 with an endorsement insufficient funds as Ex.P.3, Statutory notice got issued by the complainant to accused dt.29.6.2016 as Ex.P.4, postal receipt dt.30.09.2016 as Ex.P.5 and return acknowledgment as Ex.P.6.

6.(a) Complainant filed chief affidavit in the lines of complaint.

During Cross examination P.W.1 stated that he filed a suit against the 3 Spl.Magistrate Court CC.No.462/2016 Prathipadu Dt.31-01-2024 accused and his wife in O.S.158/2016 on the file of III Addl.District Judge,

Kakinada that suit is still pending they have been contesting the same. He studied upto 5th class. It is true pronote in that suit is dt.11.02.2014. He do not remember whether the registered lawyer notice was dt.30.08.2016 and filed the suit on 1.9.2016 without giving time in that suit to give reply. It is true C.C.374/15 and 380/15 are pending against him filed by police on the file of J.F.C.Magistratte Court, Prathipadu. The suit in O.S.158/2016 was filed for recovery of amount basing on bond but he do not remember whether it is a promissory note or any other document. He do not remember whether he mentioned the nature of document as a promissory in his pleadings. the accused is literate and his daughter is doctor. It is true promissory notes (blank) and revenue stamps will be available in shops in their village. In his presence accused filled up the cheque. It was written in

English. The cheque was handed over to him at his house. He did not file income tax returns. He is not doing money lending business. He is a driver of Tractor, witness adds it was purchased while constructing the house. He denied the suggestion that except Ac.0.50 cts of land, which is in litigation, that he has no other property, witness adds that he owned ac.10.00 cts of land. It is true that he is not solvent to lend Rs.10,00,000/-. Witness adds that he lent that amount which was kept by him to construct a house. It is true that except signature other contents in Ex.P.1cheque were type written. He denied the suggestion that no cheque was issued by the accused after receiving summons in O.S.158/2016. He denied the suggestion that borrowing Rs.10,00,000/- by the accused and his wife on 11.2.2014 is not true, witness adds that the promissory note duly type written was given to him.He denied the suggestion that after disputes arose they fabricated the alleged pronote and blank cheque. He denied the suggestion that there is no legally enforceable debt with the accused. He denied the suggestion that there is no creditor-debtor relationship with the accused, no legally enforceable debt and that only to harass the accused filed this case and civil suit in Kakinada. It is true that he has white ration card. It is true personally he used to get ration on that ration card:PW.2 during cross-examination stated that he studied up to 10 class. he used to stood as a attestor in Promissory notes, first time in this case he stood as a attestor. He know the promissory note, and every promissory affixed on

Revenue stamp and signed on the same. He is the first attestor of the promissory note and he scribed the promissory note in Telugu with his own 4 Spl.Magistrate Court CC.No.462/2016 Prathipadu Dt.31-01-2024 handwriting with blue pen and the entire transaction was completed at the house of the Complainant. The 2 attestor also singed with blue colour pen on promissory note. Q)What is the Revenue stamp affixed on Promissory note? Ans: It is Rs. 20/- stamp affixed. Question from the Court-What type of the stamp? Ans. It is non judicial Stamp. The entire transaction of the execution of the Promissory note started at 12.00 noon and completed at about 02.00 PM. The promissory note brought by the Accused and he do not know where he brought from the said note. The 2nd attestor is brother of

PW1 and also he is neighbour of the same street. He know the accused since 40 yeas. The consideration passed between the complainant and accused is denomination of Rs.500/- notes and Rs.100/- notes and he do not remember the denomination currency old or new and also how many bundles of Rs.500/- notes and Rs.100/- notes. At the time of execution of

Promissory note one Srinu and accused and his wife, PW1 and his wife, myself and 2 attestors were present;PW.3 during cross-examination

He studied up to 10th class. He know the promissory note. He used to stood as a attestor in Promissory notes, First time he came to Court in this case he stood as a attestor. GIt is true, he did not sign as a attestor in promissory note. Witness adds that he signed on Rs.20/- stamp. He know the contents of Rs.20/- stamp which he signed. He do not remember whether Rs.20/ stamp has a head note by name demand promissory note. The Accused's wife firstly singed on promissory note. He singed on promissory note after execution of promissory note.

7)After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the every incriminating material made against him from the complainant evidence in Telugu to which he denied and reported he has no defense evidence.

8)Inspite of conditional order, Complainant and accused not come forward for arguments. Hence, augments of both sides treated as heard.

9) Now the points for determination are :-

1. Whether the accused has issued a cheque towards

payment of legally enforceable debt due payable through his

account, without keeping sufficient, which is an offence

5 Spl.Magistrate Court CC.No.462/2016 Prathipadu Dt.31-01-2024 punishable under section 138 of NI Act 1881.?

2. Whether the complainant is able to bring to the accused

for the offence punishable U/s.138 NI Act 1881 beyond all

reasonable doubt…?

3. Whether the accused is liable for punishment u/s.138 NI

Act 1881..?

10) Point Nos. 1 and 2:- since the points 1 and 2 are inter related with each other, they are taken to together.

10.(a)Now it is pertinent to mention here that in a case U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the burden lies on the complainant to establish its key ingredients.

10.(a)(1) That the accused has given a cheque in favour of the complainant for the legally enforceable debt.

10.(a)(2) The said cheque was returned by the Bank unpaid because of the account of the accused is not sufficient to

honor the cheque.

10.(a)(3) The cheque has been presented to the Bank within a period of three months from the date it is drawn.

10.(a)(4) The complainant has issued notice demanding for payment of the said amount in writing to the accused within 30 days from the date of receipt of the information.

10.(b)To establish the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW.1 and PW.2, PW.3 filed chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the complaint.

10.(c) To establish the pleas of the accused as well as the cross examination of PW.1 is that the accused, and his wife did not borrowed any amount from the complainant and in his favour and he did not execute any promissory note and not issued Ex.P1 to the complainant in discharge of any legal enforceable debt. The learned counsel for the accused posed same suggestions to PW.1, PW.2, and Pw.3 denied the said suggestions.

6 Spl.Magistrate Court CC.No.462/2016 Prathipadu Dt.31-01-2024 10.(d)PW.1 was cross examined but nothing could elicited from them in support of the pleas taken by the accused and to discredit their evidence except some suggestions as stated above which are denied by them. The Complainant not denied having legally enforceable debt taken by accused in P.W.1.Cross

Examination and same is not rebuttal by accused by adducing evidence and Therefore, it can be said that the accused failed to rebut the evidence of PW.1 and he failed to raise probable evidence to disprove the case of the complainant as per Sec.139 of NI Act. Whereas present case the Pw.1 to Pw.3 proved accused and his wife borrowed amount from complainant, in presence of Pw.2, Pw.3 they are stood as atestor and transaction taken in their presence at complainant house believed by this court and on the said debt complainant also filed civil suit also admitted Pws and accused in cross-examination questions. The transaction and consideration passed between complainant and accused is proved, issue of Ex.P1 is proved the presumptions available in favour of the complainant under sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act. This court considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and found the accused guilty for the offence under section 138 of NI Act.

11)As per Sec 139 NI Act the court shall presume that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Sec.138 NI

Act for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, unless the contrary is proved. As stated above the accused failed to establish his plea and failed to raise proper defence to rebut the prosecution evidence

U/Sec.139 NI Act to disbelieve the claim of the complainant. So also the complainant proved that she presented Ex.P1 cheque within Three months from the date of issuance of the cheque, issued statutory notice within 30 days from the date of dishonour of the cheque and filed the complaint

before this court. Hence this complaint stipulated time as prescribed U/Sec

138 & 142 (1) Proviso of NI Act. On behalf of Accused to rebut so other contentions raised by the defence counsel find no merits.

12)It is an admitted fact that there was an acquaintance between 7 Spl.Magistrate Court CC.No.462/2016 Prathipadu Dt.31-01-2024 the complainant and the accused. Where as complainant’s complaint and evidence Ex.P1 to P6, Ex.P1 Cheque bearing No.160557 for Rs.10,00,000/- of State Bank of India issued by the accused dt.16.09.2016. Ex.P2 Cheque return memo issued by Andhra Bank with an endorsement of insufficient of funds dt.26.9.2016. Ex.P.3 Return endorsement issued by Andhra Bank, dt.20.09.2016. Ex.P4 Statutory notice got issued by the complainant to accused dt.29.6.2016.Ex.P5 Postal receipt dt.30.09.2016 Ex.P.6

Acknowledgment.Without any hesitation it is held that the accused is not rebutted the presumption u/sec.139 of the N.I. Act. Hence so also the other contentions raised on behalf of the accused find no merits.

13) In view of the foregoing reasons, clear discussion and crystalised legal position, it is held that the complainant is proved to discharge the initial burden in establishing the legally enforceable debt due between her and the accused Ex.P1 Cheque bearing No.160557 for Rs.10,00,000/- of State Bank of India issued by the accused dt.16.09.2016. Ex.P2 Cheque return memo issued by Andhra Bank with an endorsement of insufficient of funds dt.26.9.2016. Ex.P.3 Return endorsement issued by Andhra Bank, dt.20.09.2016. Ex.P4 Statutory notice got issued by the complainant to accused dt.29.6.2016.Ex.P5 Postal receipt dt.30.09.2016 Ex.P.6

Acknowledgment towards discharge of the any such legally enforceable debt, but the accused is not rebutted the presumption U/S. 139 of the NI

Act by raising a probable defence. Accordingly the Points No. 1 and 2

are answered infavour of the complainant and against the accused.

14) POINT No.3: In view of the findings answered to points 1 and 2 the the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of

Negotiable instrument Act,1881. Accused is liable for punishment U/s.138

NI Act. Accordingly point No.3 is answered.

15) In the result:-The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of Negotiable instrument Act,1881 accordingly she is

Convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day of 30th January 2023.

8 Spl.Magistrate Court CC.No.462/2016 Prathipadu Dt.31-01-2024

J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

(FAC) SPL.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

Hearing the Sentence:

Accused called present and he was questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, he has reported that he do not know the complainant and he did not issue cheque to the complainant and further submitted that he is suffering with ill health and having old age aliments as such the court may take lenient view while imposing punishment. This court is not infavour of exercising any power U/s 360 Cr.P.C. so also Probation of

Offenders Act, since the accused issued a cheque knowingly and well known about the consequences of issuing cheque even he has no balance in her account and the facts of the case clearly discloses that the accused is not entitled for any sympathy since he knowingly issued a cheque which is dishonoured. In the circumstances, the offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act is proved against the accused. Hence, Accused

is found guilty for the offence U/s.138 of N.I Act, and she is

convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.PC., for the said offence and

accordingly accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of ONE YEAR for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act and she

shall pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs only)

within two months from the date of this order and in default of

payment of compensation, she shall undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of TWO MONTHS.

The accused is also informed about the right of appeal of this judgment and also informed about the right of legal aid as per Section 304

Cr.P.C.

A copy of judgment is furnished to accused at free of cost.

9 Spl.Magistrate Court CC.No.462/2016 Prathipadu Dt.31-01-2024

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day of 30th January 2023.

J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

(FAC) SPL.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Penaganti Babji None P.W.2: Rapeti Srinivas P.W.3: Penaganti Srinivasa Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Cheque bearing No.160557 for Rs.10,00,000/- of State Bank of India issued by the accused.

Ex.P.2: Cheque return memo issued by Andhra Bank with an endorsement of insufficient of funds dt.26.9.2016.

Ex.P.3: Return endorsement issued by Andhra Bank, dt.20.09.2016 with an endorsement insufficient funds.

Ex.P.4: Statutory notice got issued by the complainant to accused dt.29.6.2016 as Ex.P4.

Ex.P.5: Postal receipt dt.30.09.2016

Ex.P.6: Acknowledgment.

Defence:

Nil

J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

FAC) SPL.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

Ex.P1 Cheque bearing No.160557 for Rs.10,00,000/- of State Bank of India issued by the accused. Ex.P2 Cheque return memo issued by Andhra Bank with an endorsement of insufficient of funds dt.26.9.2016. Ex.P.3 Return endorsement issued by Andhra Bank, dt.20.09.2016. Ex.P4 Statutory notice 10 Spl.Magistrate Court CC.No.462/2016 Prathipadu Dt.31-01-2024 got issued by the complainant to accused dt.29.6.2016.Ex.P5 Postal receipt dt.30.09.2016 Ex.P.6 Acknowledgment.

Tru

Spl.Magistrate Court Prathipadu 11 C.C.462/16 Dated.31.01.2024

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE :: PRATHIPADU

PRESENT: Sri K.Bhanu,

J.F.C. Magistrate, Prathipadu

(fac) Special Magistrate,Prathipadu

Wednesday, the 31st day of January, 2024.

CALENDAR CASE NO : 462/2016

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Date of Offence:16-09-2016

Date of filing of complaint:28-11-2016

Date of arrest of Accused----

Date of Release of accused on bail :----

Date of commencement of Trial:05-06-2017

Date of close of Trial:01-12-2023

Date of sentence or order:31-01-2024 Crime No. and Name of the P.S:----

Name of the Complainant:Penaganti Babji, S/o.Venkata Ramana, aged 38 years, business, R/o.D.No. 1-77-7, Somarayanampeta, Kirlampudi mandal, E.G.Dt., Kirlampudi PS limits. Name of the accused:Adabala Sriramachandra Murty, S/o.Rama Rao, aged 42 years, political leader, R/o.Near Ramalayam, Palem village, Kirlampudi mandal, Kirlampudi PS limits. Offence:U/s 138 N.I.Act.

Finding :Found Guilty

Sentence:Accused is found guilty for the offence U/s.138 of N.I Act, and she is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.PC., for the said offence and accordingly accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ONE

YEAR for the offence U/s.138 of

N.I.Act and she shall pay compensationof Rs.2,00,000/

Spl.Magistrate Court Prathipadu 12 C.C.462/16 Dated.31.01.2024 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) within two months from the date of this order and in default of payment of compensation, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of TWO MONTHS.

J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

FAC) SPL.MAGISTRATE

PRATHIPADU

Copy submitted to :

TheHon’bleChiefJudl.Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.CivilJudge, Rajamahendravaram.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.53/2019 PRATHIPADU 1 Dated:15-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

PRATHIPADU

Present: Sri K.BHANU

Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Prathipadu

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

O.S.No.53/2019

Between :

Vankayala Sitamahalakshmi, W/o.Lakshminarayana, aged 54 years, House wife, Cheruvugattuveedhi, Yeleswaram village and mandal, Prathipadu J.C.Cj.

... Plaintiff.

AND

Chakravarthula Brahmaji, S/o.Rama Rao, aged 55 years, Nearendrapatnam village, Jaggampeta mandal, Peddapuram JCJ.

... Defendant.

This suit came up on 08-04-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.C.Pullaiah, Advocate for the Plaintiff; and Sri B.V.Sivannarayana, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,16,780/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand seven hundred and eighty only) basing on a promissory note Dt.01-05-2016 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff together with interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit

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

The brief facts of the plaint are the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.68,000/- from the plaintiff on 01-05-2016 to meet his family expenses and on the even date, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a on demand. Later, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount to the plaintiff. On that, the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant on 20-04-2019 for repayment of the debt with accrued interest, but the

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.53/2019 PRATHIPADU 2 Dated:15-04-2025 defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. The defendant is not entitled for debt relief laws as he is doing business. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint and further contended that he has no acquaintance with plaintiff at any time, hence he had no need or necessity to borrow such a huge amount from an unknown person like plaintiff. The defendant suspects the suit promissory note is rank forgery and not supported by consideration. The plaintiff never demanded for return of promissory amount against him and the defendant did not receive notice as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff might have managed the postal authorities in getting acknowledgment. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1) Whether the promissory note Dt.01-05-2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and supported by consideration?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5. Substantiating the suit claim, the plaintiff herself has been examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. The defendant got examined himself as DW.1 and no documents marked.

6. Heard the both sides.

7) Issue No.1 AND No.2 answering together. The contention of plaintiff is relying plaint averments on the adduced evidence of plaintiff is as PW1 and Reiterating the averments made in the plaint, PW.1 has submitted evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief to substantiate her case, the plaintiff got marked Dt.01.05.2016 as Ex.A.1, Legal notice Dt.20-04- 2019 as Ex.A.2, Postal acknowledgment as Ex.A.3, During cross-examination PW.1 stated that she has properties in her name and she did not mention her properties either in plaint or in her chief affidavit. She has one Kirana shop at Yeleswaram. She is not an income tax assessee. She has been doing interest

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.53/2019 PRATHIPADU 3 Dated:15-04-2025 business since 8 years. The interest business has been run on her husband name. The interest business not registered. She filed this suit against the defendant and he is resident of Narendrapuram. The defendant aged about 51 years, her age is about 58 years. She cannot say age of defendant by seeing him at present. She filed suit to recovery of amount Rs.68,000/- The defendant working as a Fishing business man at the time of lending money and also for his daughters marriage. She do not know whether defendant borrowed amount for his daughter's marriage mentioned in promissory note. Her husband shown to her Ex.A1 prior to ending of the limitation of 3 years, subsequently she filed suit against the defendant. The scribe of Ex.A1 one Nethi Venkatarao is belonging to her community but not her relative. She know attestors namely Buggala Rajababu, and Chaganti Chakrarao and they are native of Narendrapatnam village. She can produce Attestor before this court for deposing evidence. One Chaganti Chakrarao used to take money from them for interest business. The defendant borrowed money from them for 2 times in the year of 2014 and 2015, for that transaction the defendant executed promissory note and repaid the amount. Ex.A1 transaction concern the husband not lend money at the house of Defendant at Narendrapatnam. Witness adds that the defendant came to her house and received money. Ex.A1 has two LTI's one belongs to defendant, and 2nd one is belongs to Chaganti Chakrarao. She do not know who brought the Stamp pad. Her husband put the LTI's of defendant and one Chaganti Chakrarno on Ex.A1. She cannot say which pen used on Ex.A1 for scribe and defendant and it done by her husband. She has gone through Ex.A1 prior to filing of this suit. she denied that the defendant never borrowed any amount from her and not executed Ex.A1 and no transaction took place.

8.The defendant to establish his case examined himself as DW.1 reiterating the averments in the written statement During cross-examination DW.1 stated that he is resident of Narendrapatnam village. It is at a distance of 4 to 5 KM., from Yeleswaram. He do not know the plaintiff who filed the suit. He has pleaded in his written statement that he did not borrow the money. The 2nd attestor of Ex.A.1 is his villager. He do not know the first attestor. He do not know the scribe. He denied the suggestion that the scribe was brought by him. He do not know the plaintiff who is present in court hall today. He do not know the husband of the plaintiff by name Lakshmi Narayana. He denied the suggestion that the 2nd attestor and himself used to go to the provision shop of plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff got acquaintance with him through the 2nd attestor and he

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.53/2019 PRATHIPADU 4 Dated:15-04-2025 borrowed the suit debt from the plaintiff on that acquaintance. He denied the suggestion that he threatened the 2nd attestor and scribe not to depose on behalf of the plaintiff. He is thumb impressionist. The thumb impression in vakalath confronted to him does not belong to him. The thumb impression in the written statement confronted to him belongs to him. The thumb impression in Ex.A.1 does not belong to him. He denied the suggestion that the thumb impression in Ex.A1 and in the written statement are similar. He can send the Ex.A.1 to the expert for comparison. He denied the suggestion that the thumb impression in Ex.A.1 belongs to him and he is deposing falsehood.

9(a)The discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, unless the contrary is proved execution of Ex.A1. As stated above the defendant failed to establish their plea and failed to raise proper defense to rebut the plaintiff evidence to disbelieve the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff proved that Ex.A1 execution, transaction of the same and consideration of same proved. On behalf of defendant to rebut so other contentions raised by the defense counsel find no merits. It is an admitted fact that there was an acquaintance between plaintiff and defendant known each other. The attestors 1 and 2 and scribe of Ex.A1 not come forwarded to depose evidence to support the plaintiff version and the execution of Ex.A1 the same and defendant examined as Dw.1 2 himself denied the thumb impression on Ex.A1 and consideration.

9(b) The plaintiff is proved the initial burden in establishing the debt due between her and the defendant on basing of Ex.A1 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff but the defendant is not rebutted the presumption a probable defense. The defendant had been sufficient opportunity to adduce their evidence the defendant not availed the opportunity except Dw.1 adduced evidence and the plaintiff adduced evidence Pw.1 only deposed during cross-examination execution pro-note Ex.A1 01.05.2016 remaining deposed evidence supported the plaintiff version. The deposed evidence of Pw.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 document behalf of plaintiff to prove as per pleadings and evidence considering the evidence of plaintiff coupled with Ex.A1 execution proved explicitly.

9(c)The defendant did not file any document except his oral adduced evidence and more over oral evidence of suggestions posed in cross of plaintiff/Pw.1

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.53/2019 PRATHIPADU 5 Dated:15-04-2025 evidence proved futile in evidence to disprove plaintiff and cross also not having weight to disprove plaintiff version. The defendant did not file interlocutory application to send Ex.A1 to experts opinion concern. The defendant took plea in his written statement but not chose any steps to send Ex.A1 to experts opinion. No further steps taken by the defendant to disprove Ex.A1 thumb impression of defendant and defendant version to rebut the presumption against Ex.A1 defendant plea is futile to support his contention.

9(d) This court has refereed the citation:-

The Supreme Court Of India uphelded in Balram Etc. vs Laxmi

Narayan on 9 June 2016 in Civil Appeal No(s). 3345-3346/2008.

These appeals are directed against the Judgment and order passed by the High Court in F.A. Nos. 161 of 2007 and 162 of 2007, where the High Court after hearing the parties, has set aside the decrees which were passed in the two suits filed before the Trial Court in respect of two promissory notes. The learned trial court granted decrees for an amount of Rs.69175/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and for an amount of Rs.61560/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the two promissory notes on the basis of which the suits had been filed.

It appears that the High Court while dealing with the facts of the case, left out consideration the aspect that the appellants had been able to prove the execution of the promissory notes by the respondent, by duly examining witnesses and also by the hand-writing expert who opined that the said documents had been executed by the respondent. The High Court also disregarded the fact that though in view of the denial of the execution of the promissory notes by the respondent /defendant, the onus was on him to adduce the evidence of rebuttal, he had failed to do so. In our view, the High Court also had gone wrong in disbelieving the case Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND of the appellants – plaintiffs on the ground that in the notice Date: 2016.06.10 16:43:29 IST Reason: issued prior to the institution of the suits, there was no reference of the promissory notes or the date(s) of the transaction of loan. In our opinion, not only a notice is not a per-requisite for the institution of suit of the kind as involved, it is trite law that the institution of a suit or filing of a plaint by itself tantamount to notice with regard to the facts narrated therein. The High Court

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.53/2019 PRATHIPADU 6 Dated:15-04-2025 was thus in error in not accepting the case of the appellants – plaintiffs on the ground that the notice did not refer to the promissory notes or the date(s) of the transaction. In our opinion, the trial court had evaluated the evidence in the correct legal perspectives and had decreed the suits of the appellants on a due consideration of all materials in proof of the execution of the promissory notes by the respondent / defendant had failed to discharge his onus to disprove the said documents. In the view of that, we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and affirm the judgments and orders passed by the Trial Court in the matter. The suits as a consequence stand decreed. The appeals are allowed in the afore stated terms.

9 (e) The burden of denial of the execution of the promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 is on the defendant, the onus on him to adduce the evidence to rebuttal execution of Ex.A1, he had failed to do so and he did not taken steps as prayed by him by filing a petition for sending the handwriting expert of forensic science to disprove the thumb impression on Ex.A1 not belongs to defendant to obtain expert opinion to draw notion as plead by him. The Dw.1 admitted that he know the 2nd attestor belongs to his village and don't know the 1st attestor and scribe, he admitted in his evidence but to disprove the execution of Ex.A1 defendant not chose bring attestors and scribe before court. Neither plaintiff nor defendant brought attestors and scribe. The Pw.1 cross-examination elicited that evidence is on the point not helpful to the defendant, mere denial of transaction of Ex.A1 by defendant / Dw.1 not savvy to rebut the same.

9(f)The appreciation of the overall facts this believing that promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 execute by defendant and recording evidence palpably explicit that the defendant had failed to discharge their onus to disprove the said document Ex.A1. The afore-stated terms circumstances taking into consideration the findings which had been recorded by the court. The defendant not proved his version pertaining to alleged Ex.A1 to disbelieve execution of Ex.A1 and the plaintiff proved the alleged Ex.A1 the contrary is proved preponderance of possibilities treated as genuine in favour of plaintiff. With above said observation this court opined that the suit promissory i.e., Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and it is supported by consideration and plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Hence this court intends to

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.53/2019 PRATHIPADU 7 Dated:15-04-2025 decree the suit. Accordingly the ISSUE No. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

10. Issue No.3:

To what relief?

In view of foregoing discussion on issues 1 and 2, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

[

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,16,780/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand seven hundred and eighty only) with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% percent per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.68,000/-

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of April, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

PRATHIPADU

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For Plaintiff:-For Defendant

PW.1: Vankayala Sitamahalakshmi DW.1: Chakravarthula Brahmaji

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note Dt.01-05-2016 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.68,000/- Ex.A2 : O/c of Legal notice Dt.20-04-2019 got issued by the plaintiff to defendant. Ex.A3 : Postal receipt.

For Defendant:-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.53/2019 PRATHIPADU 8 Dated:15-04-2025

Nil

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

PRATHIPADU

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.62/2018 PRATHIPADU 1 Dated:11-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

PRATHIPADU

Present: Sri K.BHANU

Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Prathipadu

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

O.S.No.62/2018

Between :

Kinthada Appa Rao, S/o.Pydiah, aged 48 years, business, Ramalayam street,

SC Peta, Lampakalova Village, Prathipadu mandal,Prathipadu JCJ limits.

... Plaintiff.

AND

Puttapalli Simhachalam, W/o.Late Anand, aged 46 years, Senior Assistant,

District Cooperative officer office, Near R.T.O., office, Kakinada, Kakinada

Mandal, Kakinada J.C.J limits.

... Defendant.

This suit came up on 04-04-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.V.Sivannarayana, Advocate for the Plaintiff; and Sri B.Palaramudu, Advocate for defendant defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of

Rs.2,66,933/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty six thousand nine hundred and thirty three only) basing on a promissory note Dt.02-02-2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff together with interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

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

The brief facts of the plaint are the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 02-02-2017 to meet his family

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.62/2018 PRATHIPADU 2 Dated:11-04-2025 expenses and on the even date, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a on demand. Later, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount to the plaintiff. On that, the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant on 05-06- 2018 for repayment of the debt with accrued interest, the defendant received the same and got issued reply Dt.12.06.2018 with false allegations and the plaintiff got issued rejoinder Dt.16.06.2018. The defendant did not comply with the demand nor pay any amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint and further contended that the plaintiff by name Kinthada Appa

Rao and this defendant used to work in the same department and hence, the plaintiff had taken the samples of signatures of this defendant on several papers by way of xerox copies and had practiced the signatures of this defendant and to have wrongful gain by illegal means got filed this suit and also filed another suit O.S.61/2018 through his wife Damayantha and another suit in the name of one Chinnam Appa Rao as O.S.63/2018 by forging the signatures of this defendant. The defendant further submits that he has no need or necessary to borrow a huge amount from the plaintiff under the suit promissory note and also basing on other two promissory notes which are filed In O.S.61/2018 and 63/2018. All the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suits have colluded with each other and got issued three legal notices through same advocate with false allegations. No consideration was passed to this department under the suit demand promissory note. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial?

1) Whether the suit promissory note Dt.02-02-2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and supported by consideration?

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.62/2018 PRATHIPADU 3 Dated:11-04-2025

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5. Substantiating the suit claim, the plaintiff himself has been examined as PW1 and got examined Pws 2 to 4 and marked Ex.A1 to A6. On behalf of defendant Dws 1 and 2 are examined and no documents marked.

6. Heard the both sides arguments.

7) Issue No.1 AND No.2 answering together.

The contention of plaintiff is relying plaint averments on the adduced evidence of plaintiff is as PW1 and Reiterating the averments made in the plaint, PW.1 has submitted evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief to substantiate his case, the plaintiff got marked Promissory note Dt.02-02- 2017 as Ex.A.1, Legal notice Dt.05.06.2018 as Ex.A.2, Postal acknowledgment as Ex.A.3, Reply notice Dt.12.06.2018 as Ex.A.4, Rejoinder notice Dt.16.06.2018 as Ex.A.5 and Postal acknowledgment as Ex.A.6.

During cross-examination PW.1 stated that he is working as a junior

Assistant at Co-operative Society, Lampakalova village and he used to drawn salary of Rs.20,000/- as on the date of Ex.A1 pronote. He denied that except his salary there are no other source of income to his family and his salary is not sufficient to maintained his family. He denied the suggestion that himself and defendant used to met daily in the office. He admitted that the defendant is permanent Government employee in Co-operative department.

It is true that and he is under suspension at present. The scribe of Ex.A1 is resident of Prathipadu and he is doing finance business. He know both the attestors of Ex.A1. Ex.A1 pronote was executed by the defendant at her house on 02.02.2017 and the defendant borrowed an amount from him for her family expenses. He denied that the defendant has no necessity to borrow amount from him and they created the Ex.A1 to gain unlawfully from the defendant. He admitted that his wife filed OS.61/2018 against the defendant and he filed another suit in OS.62/2018 against the same

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.62/2018 PRATHIPADU 4 Dated:11-04-2025 defendant. He denied the suggestion that he filed another suit OS.63/2018 on the name of one Chinnam Appalaraju against the defendant. He denied the suggestion that the defendant never borrowed amount from him and his wife and he created pronotes with the help of attestors and scribe of Ex.A1 pronote;PW.2-Thorla Vijendra, attestor of suit promissory note supported the case of plaintiff. During cross-examination PW.2 stated that according to him the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2 lakhs from PW.1 at about 06.00 P. M on 02.02.2017. He denied the suggestion that

PW.1 is his relative and brother-in-law by curtest. He admitted he used to attend the church of PW 1 for prayers. PW.1 is the elder of the said church at

Lampakalova. At the time of execution of Ex A1 himself, PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 and the defendant was present at the house of PW.1 on 02.02.2017. The defendant borrowed an amount for her necessities. The defendant put her signature on Ex.A1 after receipt of cash consideration. He put his signature

as 1st attestor with blue ink pen;PW.3-KuncheManeswara

Rao, another attestor of suit promissory note also supported the case of plaintiff. During cross-examination PW.3 stated that according in to him the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2 lakhs from PW.1 at about 06.00 P.

M on 02.02.2017. PW1 is the elder of the said church at Lampakalova. At the time of execution of Ex.A1 himself PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 and the defendant were present at the house of PW1 on 02.02.2017. The defendant borrowed amount for her necessities. The defendant put her signature on Ex.A1 after receipt of cash consideration. He put his signature as 1st attestor with blue ink pen; PW.4-Darapu Srinivas deposed that he is scribe of suit promissory note and he supported the case of plaintiff. During cross-examination

PW.4 stated that he know PW.1 and husband Appa Rao, PW.2 and also members of the said church. The defendant borrowed an amount from PW.1 on 02-02-2016 at about 6 P.M at the house of PW.1 in Lampakalova village for her family expenses. PW.1 arranged the consideration of Rs.100/- notes.

The rate of interest is 24% p.a. Himself, PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 and defendant were present at the time of execution of Ex.A.1. He denied that the contents of Ex.A.1 is not correct. He admitted that he scribed about three pro-notes.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.62/2018 PRATHIPADU 5 Dated:11-04-2025

He denied that defendant is never borrowed any amount from PW.1 and himself ,Pws.1,2,and 3 created Ex.A.1 pronote for the purpose of the suit.

8.The defendant to establish her case examined herself as DW.1 reiterating the averments in the written statement During cross- examination DW.1 stated that he has taken plea in his written statement that Ex.A.1 suit promissory note is rank forgery and not supported by consideration. She admitted that prior to filing of this suit the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 legal notice to her and received the same. and she got issued reply notice to the Ex.A2 and plaintiff got issued a rejoinder notice also vide

Ex.A4 and A5. She admitted that PW.1 sent the copy of the Ex.A1 pronote along with Ex.A5 rejoinder notice to her and later the plaintiff filed this suit against her. She did not got issue any police report against the plaintiff and the allegation that the plaintiff forged her signature and filed 3 false suits.

She is an educated women and doing job in Co-operative department, DCCB,

Kakinada. Previously she worked at DCCB Branch, Peddapuram for about 5 years and 6 months. The witness denied the signatures on her chief-affidavit and the signature on Ex.A1 suit pro-note. The witness admitted the signatures on suit summons and written statement. She denied the suggestion that she borrowed an amount from the plaintiff and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note;DW.2-Posapalli Venkayya Babu, relative of

DW.1 filed chief affidavit and supported the case of defendant. During cross-examination DW.2 stated that He admitted defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff. He was present at the time of passing consideration between plaintiff and defendant. On repayment of debt proof receipts not received by defendant and not requested for return of promissory notes. He can remember and identify signature of the defendant on promissory notes if shown to him. He is relative of the defendant, he is acquaintance with the defendant. He is not doing job along with defendant.

Defendant is working as a Junior Engineer in Cooperative department.

9 (a)The discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, unless the contrary is proved execution of Ex.A1. As stated above

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.62/2018 PRATHIPADU 6 Dated:11-04-2025 the defendant failed to establish their plea and failed to raise proper defense to rebut the plaintiff evidence to disbelieve the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff proved that Ex.A1 execution, transaction of the same and consideration of same proved. On behalf of defendant to rebut so other contentions raised by the defense counsel find no merits. It is an admitted fact that there was an acquaintance between plaintiff and defendant known each other. The attestors Pw.2, Pw.3 and scribe Pw.4 of Ex.A1 admitted execution of the same and defendant witness i.e.,Dw.2 himself admitted signature on Ex.A1 and consideration.

9(b) The plaintiff is proved the initial burden in establishing the debt due between her and the defendant on basing of Ex.A1 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff but the defendant is not rebutted the presumption a probable defense. The defendant had been sufficient opportunity to adduce their evidence the defendant not availed the opportunity except Dw.1, Dw.2 adduced evidence and the plaintiff adduced evidence Pw.1 to Pw.4. Pw.4 deposed during cross-examination execution pro-note Ex.A1 02.02.2016 and except execution date of Ex.A1 reaming deposed evidence of Pw.4 supported the plainitff version. The deposed evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 document behalf of plaintiff to prove as per pleadings and evidence considering the evidence of plaintiff coupled with Ex.A1 execution proved explicitly.

9(c)The defendant did not file any document except his oral adduced evidence and more over oral evidence of suggestions posed in cross of plaintiff/Pw.1, Pw.2, Pw.3, Pw.4 evidence proved futile in evidence to disprove plaintiff and cross also not having weight to disprove plaintiff version. The defendant filed IA No. 348/ 2023 to send Ex.A1 to forensic Lab same is allowed for expert opinion concern. The Ex.A1 sent to APFSL

Mangalagiri. The joint director off APFSL Mangalagiri endorsed letter stating that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink of signature of defendant on the promissory note and document of Ex.A1 returned to this court. No further steps taken by the defendant to disprove Ex.A1 signature of

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.62/2018 PRATHIPADU 7 Dated:11-04-2025 defendant and defendant version to rebut the presumption against Ex.A1 defendant plea is futile to support her contention.

9(d)The appreciation of the overall facts and circumstances taking into consideration the findings which had been recorded by the court. The defendant not proved his version pertaining to alleged Ex.A1 for disbelieve execution of Ex.A1 and the plaintiff proved the alleged Ex.A1 the contrary is proved preponderance of possibilities treated as genuine in favour of plaintiff. With above said observation this court opined that the suit promissory is true, valid and binding on the defendant and it is supported by consideration and plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for.

Hence this court intends to decree the suit. Accordingly the ISSUES No. 1, 2 a are answered infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

10. Issue No.3:

To what relief?

In view of foregoing discussion on issues 1 and 2, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

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

Rs.2,66,933/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty six thousand nine hundred and thirty three only) with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% percent per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only)

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

PRATHIPADU

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT O.S.62/2018 PRATHIPADU 8 Dated:11-04-2025

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For Plaintiff:-For Defendant

PW.1: Kinthada Appa Rao DW.1: Puttapalli Simhachalam PW.2: Thorla Vijendra DW.2: P.Venkayyababu PW.3: Kunche Maneswara Rao PW.4: Darapu Srinivas.

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note Dt.02-02-2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : O/c of Legal notice Dt.05.06.2018 got issued by the plaintiff to defendant.

Ex.A3 : Postal acknowledgment from defendant.

EX.A4 : Reply notice got issued by the defendant dt.12.06.2018 to the plaintiff.

EX.A.5: Rejoinder notice Dt.16.06.2018 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.A.6: Postal acknowledgment from defendant for EX.A.5.

For Defendant:-

Nil

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

PRATHIPADU

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT 1 O.S.61/2018 PRATHIPADU Dated:11-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

PRATHIPADU

Present: Sri K.BHANU

Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Prathipadu

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

O.S.No.61/2018

Between :

Kinthada Damayanthi, W/o.Appa Rao, aged 42 years, house wife, Ramalayam street, SC Peta, Lampakalova Village, Prathipadu mandal,Prathipadu JCJ limits.

... Plaintiff.

AND

Puttapalli Simhachalam, W/o.Late Anand, aged 46 years, Senior Assistant, District Cooperative officer office, Near R.T.O., office, Kakinada, Kakinada Mandal, Kakinada J.C.J limits.

... Defendant.

This suit came up on 04-04-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.V.Sivannarayana, Advocate for the Plaintiff; and Sri B.Palaramudu, Advocate for defendant defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of

Rs.2,73,600/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy three thousand six hundred only) basing on a promissory note Dt.12-12-2016 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff together with interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit

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

The brief facts of the plaint are the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 12-12-2016 to meet her family expenses and on the even date, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT 2 O.S.61/2018 PRATHIPADU Dated:11-04-2025 interest at 24% p.a on demand. Later, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount to the plaintiff. On that, the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant on 05-06- 2018 for repayment of the debt with accrued interest, the defendant received the same and got issued reply Dt.12.06.2018 with false allegations and the plaintiff got issued rejoinder Dt.16.06.2018. The defendant did not comply with the demand nor pay any amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint and further contended that the plaintiff by name Kinthada Appa

Rao and this defendant used to work in the same department and hence, the husband of the plaintiff had taken the samples of signatures of this defendant on several papers by way of xerox copies and had practiced the signatures of this defendant and to have wrongful gain by illegal means got filed this suit through his wife i.e., plaintiff herein and also filed another suit in his name as O.S.62/2018 and another suit in the name of one Chinnam

Appa Rao as O.S.63/2018 by forging the signatures of this defendant. The defendant further submits that she has no need or necessary to borrow a huge amount from the plaintiff under the suit promissory note and also basing on other two promissory notes which are filed In O.S.62/2018 and 63/2018. All the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suits have colluded with each other and got issued three legal notices through same advocate with false allegations. No consideration was passed to this department under the suit demand promissory note. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1) Whether the suit promissory note Dt.12-12-2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and supported by consideration?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT 3 O.S.61/2018 PRATHIPADU Dated:11-04-2025

5. Substantiating the suit claim, the plaintiff herself has been examined as PW1 and got examined Pws 2 to 4 and marked Ex.A1 to A6. On behalf of defendant Dws 1 and 2 are examined and no documents marked.

6. Heard the both sides the arguments.

7) Issue No.1 AND No.2 answering together.

The contention of plaintiff is relying plaint averments on the adduced evidence of plaintiff is as PW1 and Reiterating the averments made in the plaint, PW.1 has submitted evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief to substantiate her case, the plaintiff got marked Promissory note

Dt.12-12-2016 as Ex.A.1, Legal notice Dt.05.06.2018 as Ex.A.2, Postal acknowledgment as Ex.A.3, Reply notice Dt.12.06.2018 as Ex.A.4, Rejoinder notice Dt.16.06.2018 as Ex.A.5 and Postal acknowledgment as Ex.A.6

During cross-examination PW.1 stated she did not file copy of the bank pass book. Her husband is working in Co-operative society at Lampakalova.

She used to did financial transactions on behalf of her husband. She denied the suggestion that her husband is drawn salary of Rs.10,000/- only at PACS.

Lamapakalova, as such she has no capacity to lend money to the defendant under Ex.P1 promissory note. She filed this suit against the defendant who is also working in Co-operative Society, Kakinada. She admitted that her husband and defendant are working in same department and her husband filed two suits ie., 05.62/2018 and 05.63/2018 against the defendant before this Court. One Darapu Srinivas (PW.4) is the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note and she is the resident of Prathipadu village. She know the PW1 and she has got acquaintance with PW.4. She do not know whether PW.4 is the scribe of promesorry note suits in OS 62/2018 and OS.63/2018. PW.2 and 3 who are the attestors of Ex A1 pro-note was also present at the time of execution of

Ex.A1 She denied the suggestion that the defendant never borrowed any amount from her and she never executed Ex.A1 in her favour and herself,

PW.2 to PW.4 created Ex.A1 to grab away the money from defendant. The defendant borrowed amount from her on 12.02.2016 and executed Ex.A1

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT 4 O.S.61/2018 PRATHIPADU Dated:11-04-2025 pro-note at about 06.00 PM at her house in Lampakalova village. The PW.2 is the first attestor and PW3 is second attestor on Ex.A1. The defendant put her signature on one Revenue stamp affixed on Ex A1. The defendant borrowed an amount from her for her family expenses;PW.2-

Bunga David Raju, attestor of suit promissory note supported the case of plaintiff. During cross-examination PW.2 stated that the defendant borrowed an amount from PW.1 on 12.02.2016 at about 6.00 PM at the house of PW.1 in Lampakalova village. PW.1 arranged the consideration of

Rs.100/- notes. The rate of interest is 24% p.a. Herself, Pw.1, Pw.3 and Pw.4 and defendant were present at the time of execution of Ex.A.1. PW.4 is the resident of Prathipadu. He admitted himself PW.3 and PW.4 are used move closely; PW.3-Posapalli Jakkayya another attestor of suit promissory note also supported the case of plaintiff. During cross-examination PW.3 stated that The defendant borrowed an amount from PW.1 on 12.02.2016 at about 6 P.M at the house of PW.1 in Lampakalova village. PW.1 arranged the consideration of Rs.100/- notes. The rate of interest is 24% p.a. Himself,

PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 and defendant were present at the time of execution of

Ex.A.1. PW.4 is the resident of Prathipadu. Since one year he is working as

VRO at Sarabhavaram village. He admitted himself, PW.3 and PW.4 are used move closely;PW.4-Darapu Srinivas deposed that he is scribe of suit promissory note and he supported the case of plaintiff. During cross- examination PW.4 stated that he know PW.1 and husband Appa Rao, PW.2 and also members of the said church. The defendant borrowed an amount from PW.1 on 12.02.2016 at about 6 P.M at the house of PW.1 in

Lampakalova village for her family expenses. PW.1 arranged the consideration of Rs.100/- notes. The rate of interest is 24% p.a. Himself,

PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 and defendant were present at the time of execution of

Ex.A.1.

8.The defendant to establish her case examined herself as DW.1 reiterating the averments in the written statement During cross- examination DW.1 stated that she know the defence pleaded in her written statement and she know the contents of her chief-affidavit. She has

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT 5 O.S.61/2018 PRATHIPADU Dated:11-04-2025 taken plea in her written statement that Ex.A1 suit pro-note is rank forgery and not supported by consideration. She admitted that prior to filing of this suit the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 legal notice to her and received the same.

She admitted that she got issued reply notice to the Ex.A2 and plaintiff got issued a rejoinder notice also vide Ex.A4 and A5. She admitted that PW.1 sent the copy of the Ex.A1 pro-note along with Ex.A5 rejoinder notice to her and later the plaintiff filed this suit against her. She did not got issue any police report against the plaintiff and the allegation that the plaintiff forged her signature and filed 3 false suits. She admitted that she is an educated women and doing job in Co-operative department, DCCB, Kakinada.

Previously she worked at DCCB Branch, Peddapuram for about 5 years and 6 months. The witness denied the signatures on her chief-affidavit and the signature on Ex.A1 suit pronote. The witness admitted the signatures on suit summons and written statement. She denied the suggestion that she borrowed an amount from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 pronote, as such she is liable to pay the suit amount; DW.2-Posapalli Venkayya Babu, relative of DW.1 filed chief affidavit and supported the case of defendant.

During cross-examination DW.2 stated that he admitted defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff. He was present at the time of passing consideration between plaintiff and defendant. On repayment of debt proof receipts not received by defendant and not requested for return of promissory notes. He can remember and identify signature of the defendant on promissory notes if shown to him. He is relative of the defendant, he is acquaintance with the defendant. He is not doing job along with defendant.

Defendant is working as a Junior Engineer in Cooperative department.

9(a)The discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, unless the contrary is not proved execution of Ex.A1. As stated above the defendant failed to establish their plea and The plaintiff and witness of plaintiff i.e,. Pw.1 to Pw.4 mentioned in chief-affidavits the execution date of

Ex.A1 is 12.12.2016 surprisingly during cross-examination of Pw.1 to Pw.4 deposed that the execution date of Ex.A1 is 12-02-2016 to raise doubt on the date of chief-affidavit whereas 12-12-2016 and deposed in cross examination

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT 6 O.S.61/2018 PRATHIPADU Dated:11-04-2025 is 12-02-2016 the plaintiff evidence is sixes and sevens to disbelieve the claim of the plaintiff on basing of deposed evidence execution date of Ex.A1.

9(b)The plaintiff not proved that Ex.A1 execution date. On behalf of defendant to rebut so other contentions raised by the defense counsel find merits on the point of deposed evidence Pw.1 to Pw.4 execution of Ex.A1

date 12-02-2016. It is an admitted and deposed evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4.

The Plaintiff as Pw.1 and attestors Pw.2, Pw.3 and scribe Pw.4 of Ex.A1 admitted in chief affidavits date is 12-12-2016 and deposed in cross- examination is execution of the Ex.A1 date 12-02-2016 is differed with plaint pleadings and list of document mentioned date and Ex.A1 is 12.12.2016.

9(c) The plaintiff is not proved the initial burden in establishing the debt due between her and the defendant on basing of Ex.A1 executed date itself is deposed evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4 is sixes at sevens.The plaintiff is not proved the presumption a probable deposed evidence. The plaintiff had been sufficient opportunity to adduce her evidence, availed the opportunity except Pw.1 to Pw.4 adduced evidence and the plaintiff adduced evidence

Pw.1 to Pw.4 deposed during cross-examination execution pro-note Ex.A1 12.02.2016. The execution date of Ex.A1 deposed evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4 not supported the plainitff version. The deposed evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4 and execution date of Ex.A1 document behalf of plaintiff not proved as per pleadings and evidence considering the evidence of plaintiff not established and not proved Ex.A1 execution explicitly.

9(d)The defendant did not file any document except his oral adduced evidence and more over oral evidence of suggestions posed in cross of plaintiff/Pw.1, Pw.2, Pw.3, Pw.4 evidence proved in evidence to disprove plaintiff and cross also having weight to disprove plaintiff version. The Ex.A1 execution date deposed by Pw.1 to Pw.4 is differed with mentioned in chief- affidavits as well as in plaint mentioned is sixes at sevens not reliable to believe the version plaintiff.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT 7 O.S.61/2018 PRATHIPADU Dated:11-04-2025 9(e)The appreciation of the overall facts and circumstances taking into consideration the findings which had been recorded by the court. The defendant proved his version pertaining to alleged Ex.A1 for disbelieve execution of Ex.A1 and the plaintiff not proved the alleged Ex.A1. The contrary is not proved preponderance of possibilities treated as not genuine in favour of plaintiff. With above said observation this court opined that the suit promissory is not true, not valid and not binding on the defendant and it is not supported by execution date of Ex.A1 same is deposed by Pw.1 to Pw.4 plaintiff is not entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Hence this court intends to dismiss the suit. Accordingly the POINTs No. 1, 2 are answered infavour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

10. Issue No.3:

To what relief?

In view of discussion on issues No.1 & No.2 the suit is liable to be dismissed Accordingly, the Point No.3 is answered.

RESULT :-

In the result, the suit is dismissed. with out costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

PRATHIPADU

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined For Plaintiff:-For Defendant PW.1: K.Damayanthi DW.1: Puttapalli Simhachalam PW.2: Bunga David Raju D.W.2: P.Venkayyababu PW.3: Posapalli Jakkayya PW.4: Darapu Srinivas.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT 8 O.S.61/2018 PRATHIPADU Dated:11-04-2025

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note Dt.12-12-2016 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : O/c of Legal notice Dt.05.06.2018 got issued by the plaintiff to defendant.

Ex.A3 : Postal acknowledgment from defendant.

EX.A4 : Reply notice got issued by the defendant dt.12.06.2018 to the plaintiff.

EX.A.5: Rejoinder notice Dt.16.06.2018 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.A.6: Postal acknowledgment from defendant for EX.A.5.

For Defendant:- Nil

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

PRATHIPADU

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : PRATHIPADU

Present: SRI K.BHANU

Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Prathipadu

Wednesday, the 16th day of April, 2025

O.S.44/2020

Between :

Smt.Kondi Durga, W/o.Bhadram, aged 44 years, house wife, R/o.D.No.3-37, Prathipadu village and mandal, JCJ court, Prathipadu jurisdiction.

.. Plaintiff.

And

Gompa Yesubabu, S/o. Sankurayya, aged 53 years, R/o.D.No.8-361, Prathipa du village, Prathiapdu mandal, JCJ court Prathipadu jurisdiction.

. .. Defendant

This suit came up on this day, 16-04-2025 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Veerraju, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri M.Jawahar Ali, Advocate for defendant, this court delivered the following;

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff called present. Counsel of plaintiff present and filed memo stating that the matter is settled before elders out of court. The plaintiff is not interested to proceed with further with this case. Filed memo by praying the Hon’ble Curt not press the suit. Perused the memo, same is recorded. Hence, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Given my hand and seal of this court, on this the 16th day of April, 2025.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Prathipadu

Appendix of Evidence NO oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Prathipadu

Plaint presented on : 19-02-2020 Plaint filed on : 18-03-2020

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : PRATHIPADU

Present: SRI K.BHANU

Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Prathipadu

Wednesday, the 16th day of April, 2025

O.S.44/2020

Between :

Smt.Kondi Durga, W/o.Bhadram, aged 44 years, house wife, R/o.D.No.3-37, Prathipadu village and mandal, JCJ court, Prathipadu jurisdiction.

.. Plaintiff.

And

Gompa Yesubabu, S/o. Sankurayya, aged 53 years, R/o.D.No.8-361, Prathipadu village, Prathiapdu mandal, JCJ court Prathipadu jurisdiction.

. .. Defendant

This suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.8,31,000/- on the foot of registered mortgage deed.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 19-01-2018 when the defendant had borrowed amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and defendant had executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of schedule property and got it registered at S.R.O office, Prathipadu and later the defendant failed to repay the amount and at Jagapathinagaram, village where the mortgage property situated is within the jurisdiction of this court.

Value of the suit:

Principal amount borrowed.. Rs.6,00,000-00

Interest on Rs.6,00,000/- @18% p.a. from 19.1.2018 to 9.02.2020 .. .. Rs.2,31,000-00 ---------------------- Total .. Rs.8,31,000-00 ------------------------- A court fee of Rs.10,736/- is paid U/s.20,Sch.I,Art 1(b) of APCF and S.V.Act.

This suit came up on this day, 16-04-2025 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Veerraju, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri M.Jawahar Ali, Advocate for defendant,this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

i) That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed; ii) That there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, on this the 16th day of April 2024.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Prathipadu

Costs of suit

NO costs memo filed on either side.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Prathipadu

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : PRATHIPADU

Present: Katam Bhanu

Civil Judge(Jr.Division), Prathipadu

[ Tuesday, the 7th day of January, 2025

O.S.288/2023

Between :

Tatikonda Gopikrishnaveni,W/o.Rambabu, aged 45 years, House wife, near M.P.P Center, Mandapam village, Sankhavaram mandal.

.. Plaintiff.

And

Badugu Mahalakshmi, w/o.Nookaraju, aged 50 years, house wife, near Dommeti Satyanarayana house, S.C.Peta,Mandapam village, Sankhavaram mandal.

. .. Defendants

This suit came up on this day, 07-05-2025 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Ramakrishna Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri M.Gangadhara Rao advocatea for defendant, this court delivered the following;

JUDGMENT

I.A.31/25 is allowed. Main suit is advanced from 07.02.2025 today ie., on 07.01.2025. Plaintiff called present and filed memo sating that the matter is settled out of court and not interested to proceed with this case.

Hence, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Given my hand and seal of this court on this the 7th day of January, 2025.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Prathipadu

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Prathipadu

Plaint presented on:17-11- 2023 Plaint filed on:17-11- 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : PRATHIPADU

Present: Katam Bhanu

Civil Judge(Jr.Division), Prathipadu

[ Tuesday, the 7th day of January, 2025

O.S.288/2023

Between :

Tatikonda Gopikrishnaveni,W/o.Rambabu, aged 45 years, House wife, near M.P.P Center, Mandapam village, Sankhavaram mandal.

.. Plaintiff.

And

Badugu Mahalakshmi, w/o.Nookaraju, aged 50 years, house wife, near Dommeti Satyanarayana house, S.C.Peta,Mandapam village, Sankhavaram mandal.

. .. Defendants

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.3,28,918/- basing on promissory note Dt.22.11.2020 for Rs.2,14,000/-.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 22.11.2020 when the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff by executing promissory note and defendant failed to repay the amount and at Mandapam village of Sankhavaram village where the transaction took place is within the jurisdiction of this court.

Value of the suit: Rs.3,28,918/-

A court fee of Rs.5,716/- is paid U/s.20,Sch.I,Art 1(b) of APCF and S.V.Act.

This suit came up on this day, 07-05-2025 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Ramakrishna Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri M.Gangadhara Rao advocate for defendant, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

i) That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed; ii) That there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, on this the 7th day of December, 2024.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Prathipadu

Costs of suit

NO costs memo filed on either side.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Prathipadu

Note: “The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order”.