Sri.k.guru Aravind

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ADONI.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

Tuesday, 21st day of November, 2023

O.S.NO.220/2021

Between :

G.Kistappa :: Plaintiff.

And:

G.Giri Kumar :: Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 20.11.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V.Sriramulu Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. Y.Devraj Advocate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,63,400/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote, dt.26.02.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.95,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

The brief averments of the plaint as follows:

2.It is submitted that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.95,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.02.2018 and executed a promissory note for his necessities on the even date agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the amount along with accrued interest. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit against the defendant.

3.After receipt of summons from this Court, the defendant appeared before this Court through his counsel and filed written statement.

4.The brief averments stemming out from the written statement of the defendant as follows :

The defendant denied all the averments mentioned in the plaint in verbatim. He further submitted that, no consideration was passed to him under 2 the suit promissory note. The plaintiff has no financial capacity to pay the amount under the suit promissory note. The plaintiff and defendant are close friends. Some misunderstandings cropped up between them. Keeping the said misunderstandings in mind the plaintiff created the suit promissory note by forging the signature of defendant with the help of other stake holders . The signature on the suit promissory note was not belongs to him. There is no need for the defendant to borrow any amount from the plaintiff. The suit promissory note is a created and fabricated document . There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. Hence, the defendant requested this Court to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 26.02.2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs.1 and 2 and exhibited the document Ex.A1. On behalf of defendant D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

7.Heard both sides.

Issue Nos.1 & 2:

8.In order to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff filed his chief affidavit by reiterating all the averments mentioned in the plaint and same is treated as chief examination of PW.1. He also exhibited the document under Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note dated 26.02.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. In order to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and passing of consideration under it, he also examined PW.2 who is the scribe of

Ex.A1 promissory note. They categorically deposed in their evidence with regard to the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note and passing of consideration to the defendant in their presence. While cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 nothing was elicited with regard to execution of promissory note and passing of consideration under it and to prove the allegations mentioned in the written statement except some denials.

3

9.In order to prove the allegations in the written statement, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and reiterated all the averments mentioned in the written statement. While cross-examination he stated that ”he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff. The signature on Ex.A.1, vakalath, and written statement was not belongs to him”.

10.On scrutiny of the entire evidence and documents available on record, the main case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had borrowed an amount of

Rs.95,000/- in the presence of scribe and executed Ex.A1 promissory note on the even date mentioned in it in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by him, the defendant failed to pay any amount under EX.A.1.

Hence, the present suit. Whereas, the contention of the defendant is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff by executing Ex.A.1 promissory note. The signature on the Ex.A.1 was not belongs to him. The plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend such huge amount under Ex.A.1. Keeping the misunderstandings between him and plaintiff Ex.A.1 was brought into existence by forging his signature with the help of scribe. Hence, the defendant requested the court to dismiss the suit.

11.In order to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and exhibited the document Ex.A1. He also examined PW.2 who is the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note. They categorically deposed with regard to the presence of all the stake holders at the time of execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and passing of entire consideration to the defendant. By examining PWs.1 and 2 and marking Ex.A1, the plaintiff discharged his burden with regard to the execution of Ex.A1 pronote by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.The counsel for defendant cross examined

PWs.1 & 2 at length. But nothing was elicited to disprove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and passing of consideration under it, except some denials.

The plaintiff discharged his burden by examining PWs.1 and 2 and by marking

Ex.A1 with regard to the passing of consideration and execution of Ex.A1 pronote by the defendant. Now the burden shifts on to the shoulders of defendant to establish the allegations mentioned in the written statement to deny the relief to the plaintiff.

12. The core contention of defendant is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff by executing Ex.A.1 promissory note. As per the averments in 4 the written statement Ex.A.1 promissory note is a created and forged document.

As per the contention of defendant the said promissory note was created by the plaintiff by forging the signature of defendant keeping some misunderstandings between them. Except the said bald allegation in the written statement there is no piece of evidence before the court to accept the same. As seen from the written statement the particulars of the misunderstandings between the plaintiff and defendant were not mentioned. For the first time during the course of cross- examination of the plaintiff it was came into light that there is a boundary dispute between the plaintiff and defendant. As per the cross-examination of D.W.1 the land of defendant was situated four or five lands away from his land. When such is the case the aspect of boundary dispute does not arise as contended by the defendant. For the sake of defence only that it was put forth during the course of cross-examination for the first time. Except the said cross-examination there is no supporting evidence from the side of defendant to establish the aspect of civil dispute among them. During the course of cross-examination the defendant categorically admitted that he did not initiate civil proceedings to redress his grievance against the plaintiff with regard to the alleged boundary. In the absence of any such evidence this court is not inclined to accept the contention of defendant with regard to the circumstances forced to create Ex.A.1 by the plaintiff. At the same time it is an admitted fact that both plaintiff and defendant are close friends and belongs to same village. In those circumstances there is every possibility to borrow the amount by the defendant from the plaintiff bunderEx.A.1 promissory note. In order to post pone the payment due under

Ex.A.1 promissory note. The defendant might have set up a false defence and same cannot be taken into consideration. At the same time the said cross- examination is not reflected from the written statement. As such the said cross- examination has no evidentiary value to place any reliance on it. In this regard this court is not inclined to accept the contention of defendant with regard to boundary dispute raised during the course of cross-examination.

13. The other contention of defendant is that the signature on Ex.A.1 does not belongs to him. The said signature was forged by the plaintiff in order to harass the defendant by one way or other keeping the misunderstandings in mind. But, there is no evidence to that effect to believe the contention of defendant. During the course of cross-examination the defendant categorically admitted that he did not initiate any proceedings to take the Ex.A.1 promissory note to the hand writing expert. If really the contention of defendant is true and correct he did not 5 kept quite without initiating any proceedings against the plaintiff with regard to the signature on Ex.A.1. No prudent man would kept quite without initiating any proceedings when a false claim is initiated against him. Except the allegations mentioned in the written statement there is no positive evidence on record to support the said allegations. As such the said allegations are mentioned in order to avoid the debt due under Ex.A.1 to the plaintiff. At the same time the cross- examination of the defendant itself sufficient to come to a proper conclusion with regard to the truth in his contention. As seen from the said cross- examination the defendant bluntly denied the signature on the vakalath, written statement along with the signature on Ex.A.1. It clearly shows the negative attitude of defendant towards the plaintiff. He was not in a position to identify his own signature. As such the evidence of defendant is not trustworthy and same cannot be taken into consideration with regard to the signature on Ex.A.1. There is no necessity for the plaintiff to create Ex.A.1 by forging the signature of defendant. The non initiation of any proceedings from the side of defendant also support the contention of plaintiff. In view of the afore mentioned reasons this court is not inclined to believe the allegations mentioned in the written statement. The said allegations are mentioned by the defendant without any basis and to drag the proceedings for some more time and in order to trouble the plaintiff by one way or other. Hence, this court is not inclined to believe the case of defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit. Accordingly, the issue Nos.1 & 2 are answered.

Issue No.3:

14.In view of answer to issue Nos.1 and 2, this suit shall be decreed.

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,63,400/- with subsequent interest @12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter @6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of

Rs.95,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1/K.Kistappa D.W.1/G.GiriKumar P.W.2/H.Jaganatha Reddy 6

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1/06.02.2017 Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff For Defendant: NIL

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

.

7

Plaint presented on 26.07.2021 Plaint numbered on 28.07.21

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ADONI.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

Tuesday, 21st day of November, 2023

O.S.NO.220/2021

Between :

G.Kistappa S/o. G.Mahalingappa, Business, Hindu aged about 60 years, Santhekudlur village, Adoni. :: Plaintiff.

And:

G.Giri Kumar S/o.G.Eranna, Hindu, Aged about 49 years, Business, H.No.16/203, Raya Nagar, Adoni. :: Defendant

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,63,400/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote, dt.26.02.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.95,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs of the suit. Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,63,400/- and Court fee of Rs.4,126/- is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act. This suit is coming before me on 20.11.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V.Sriramulu Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. Y.Devraj Advocate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and decree:

1. that the defendant is hereby directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,63,400/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal sum of Rs.95,000/-; and.

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,293/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. .

8

MEMO OF COSTS

S.NoParticularsDefendant

Plaintiff

1.Vakalat2-00-

2.Plaint Fees 4,126-00-

3.Process65-00-

5. Advocate fee Nil--

6.Typing charges 50-00-

7.Writing charges50-00- Total4,293-00

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. .

Note: The parties are hereby directed to apply for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as soon as possible within three years as the record will liable to be destroyed three years after the date of decree of order.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI.

PRESENT: Sri K.GURU ARAVIND,

Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur.

FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni

Friday, the 12 th Day of January, 2024

O.S.No.293/2019

Between :

1. K.Shankaraiah @ Shankaramurthy, S/o.K.Allaiah, Aged 40 years, agriculturist, H.No.1-211/1, Doddanageri village.

2. K.Bharathi, W/o.K.Shankaraiah, Aged 38 years, H.No.1-211/1, Doddanageri village.

.... Plaintiffs

and

1. Golla Shivamma, W/o.Mallikarjuna, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, agriculturist, Doddanageri village.

2. Golla Ramanjineyulu, S/o.G.Mallikarjuna, Hindu, Aged about 35 years, agriculturist, Doddanageri village.

3.Golla Srinivasulu, W/o.Mallikarjuna, Hindu, Aged about 30 years, agriculturist, Doddanageri village.

.... Defendants

This case coming before me on 12-01-2024 in the presence of Sri.K.Abdul Rasheed, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri.B.C.Narasimhulu, Advocate for defendants 1 to 3; this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

I.A.23/2024 is allowed. Suit is advanced to today. Plaintiff counsel filed a memo not pressing the suit. Memo recorded. Hence, suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of January, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiffs:For Defendants: --Nil--

Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

PRESENT: Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Monday, the 17 th Day of October, 2022

O.S.No.411/2019

Between :

1. K.Murali Mohan, S/o.G.K.Obulapathi, Aged 40 years, H.No.3/37/2, Reddyvari palyam, Tadipathri, Ananthapur District.

2. P.Sukumar Babu, S/o.P.Jonnaiah, Aged 37 years, Hindu, H.No.16/18-12/C, Rayanagar, Adoni.

.... Plaintiffs

and

1. S.Sajid, S/o.S.Allabakash, Muslim, Aged about 40 years, Shah Cut Piece, B.N.Talkies Road, Adoni.

2. G.Mohammed Esa, S/o.G.Abdul Sattar, Aged about 35 years, H.No.2/257-1, Bharpet, Adoni.

3. N.Mohammed Ghouse, S/o.N.Chand Basha, Muslim, aged about 36 years, Goldsmith, Near: Lakshmamma Temple, Adoni.

4. Pattikonda Naseema Banu, W/o.Pattikonda Alam Basha, Muslim, Housewife, Aged 40 years, H.No.26/541, Kowdalpet, Adoni.

.... Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and their men, servants and relatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff’s over the suit schedule property for elaborating the rasta existing towards western side about 7 feet in width and for costs of the suit.

This case coming before me on 17-10-2022 in the presence of Sri.M.Yaseen Basha, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri.L.K.Jeevan Singh, Advocate for D1, D2 and D4 and the D3 remained exparte; this court doth order and decreed as follows:

DECREE

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 17 th day of October, 2022.

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

MEMO OF COSTS

Nil (Not certified)

Schedule

Open place is situated in the Registration District of Kurnool and Sub Registration District of Adoni within the limits of Adoni Municipality in Survey No.222/2 and 225/B2 to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents with the following boundars:

Boundaries:

East: Ravi Estate; West: 7 feet rastha; North: Victoria Vijaya Lakshmi; and South: Remaining open place belonging to P.Fakkruddin.

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI.

PRESENT: Sri K.GURU ARAVIND,

Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur.

FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni

Friday, the 12 th Day of January, 2024

O.S.No.254/2023

Between : S.Padma, w/o.S.Srinivasulu, aged about 40 years, Hindu, H.No.21/332-B, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Nagar, Adoni

.... Plaintiff

and

1. Kotekal Padmamma, W/o.K.Narasimhulu, H.No.21/514-151-7, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Nagar, Adoni. (Died by her L.R D2)

2. Kotekal Ramakrishna, s/o.K.Narasimhulu,, H.No.21/514-151-7, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Nagar, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Busines, Adoni.

.... Defendants

This case coming before me on 12-01-2024 in the presence of Sri.G.SrinivasaMurthy,AdvocatefortheplaintiffanddefendantNo.2 summons served; this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

I.A.24/2024 is allowed. Suit is advanced to today. Plaintiff counsel filed a memo not pressing the suit. Memo recorded. Hence, suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of January, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff:For Defendants: --Nil--

Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

PRESENT: Smt.V.V.N.V.Lakshmi,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Monday, the 17 th Day of October, 2022

O.S.No.411/2019

Between :

1. K.Murali Mohan, S/o.G.K.Obulapathi, Aged 40 years, H.No.3/37/2, Reddyvari palyam, Tadipathri, Ananthapur District.

2. P.Sukumar Babu, S/o.P.Jonnaiah, Aged 37 years, Hindu, H.No.16/18-12/C, Rayanagar, Adoni.

.... Plaintiffs

and

1. S.Sajid, S/o.S.Allabakash, Muslim,

Aged about 40 years, Shah Cut Piece, B.N.Talkies Road, Adoni.

2. G.Mohammed Esa, S/o.G.Abdul Sattar, Aged about 35 years, H.No.2/257-1, Bharpet, Adoni.

3. N.Mohammed Ghouse, S/o.N.Chand Basha, Muslim, aged about 36 years, Goldsmith, Near: Lakshmamma Temple, Adoni.

4. Pattikonda Naseema Banu, W/o.Pattikonda Alam Basha, Muslim, Housewife, Aged 40 years, H.No.26/541, Kowdalpet, Adoni.

.... Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and their men, servants and relatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff’s over the suit schedule property for elaborating the rasta existing towards western side about 7 feet in width and for costs of the suit.

This case coming before me on 17-10-2022 in the presence of Sri.M.Yaseen Basha, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri.L.K.Jeevan Singh, Advocate for D1, D2 and D4 and the D3 remained exparte; this court doth order and decreed as follows:

DECREE

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 17 th day of October, 2022.

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

MEMO OF COSTS

Nil (Not certified)

Schedule

Open place is situated in the Registration District of Kurnool and Sub Registration District of Adoni within the limits of Adoni Municipality in Survey No.222/2 and 225/B2 to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents with the following boundars:

Boundaries:

East: Ravi Estate; West: 7 feet rastha; North: Victoria Vijaya Lakshmi; and South: Remaining open place belonging to P.Fakkruddin.

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADONI.

C.C.No. 408/2023 in Crime in FIR No. 170/2023 ========================= 8-12-2023 Accused is present. Police identified him.

Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation leveled against him, for which he pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. Charge U/Sec.7(1) of EC Actis framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. For which Accused voluntarily admitted the offence and pleaded guilty, without any force, coercion, undue influence and mistake of fact, or law. Accused is heard on the question of quantum of sentence, for which Accused stated that he is the sole breadwinners of their families and pleaded for mercy of the Court. Considering the facts and circumstances in this case i.e., that the Accused acted without any social responsibility, this Court is not inclined to extend the beneficial provisions of Sec.360 Cr.P.C. and Probation of Offenders Act IN THE RESULT, considering the admission made by the Accused, he is found guilty of the offences U/Sec.7(1) of EC Act and accordingly convicted U/Sec.241 Cr.P.C. Accused is sentenced to stand till the rise of the court and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand) for the offence U/Sec.7(1) of EC Act in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of 4 months. The bail bonds of the Accused, if any shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. No property is produced in this case before this Court, as such no specific order is passed concerning property. However the unmarked case property in this case if any, shall be disposed off in accordance with law, subject to the orders of concerned authorities under E.C Act.

Additional Junior Civil Judge

In the Court of :Principal Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :OS/0000286/2023 HARIJANA BAJARAMMA Vs HARIJANA NARASANNA

Date  : 05-01-2024

Business: Judgment pronounced. Vide separate judgment. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,01,280/- p.a. with subsequent interest at 12 percent p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree thereafter at 6 percent p.a. from the date of decree till realization on

principal sum of Rs.60,000/-

Nature of Disposal: DECREED WITH COSTS Disposal Date: 05-01-2024

Principal Junior Civil Judge