Sri.K.Hari Babu

O.S.No.174 of 2021 1 II Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Nuzvid.

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

- CUM – II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

NUZVID.

PRESENT: Sri. K.Hari Babu,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Cum – II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.

Wednesday, this the 10 th day of April, 2024.

O.S.No.174/2021

BETWEEN

Gurajala Perumallu, S/o.Ranga Rao, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, Polasanapalli Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District.

... Plaintiff

AND

Chinta Subba Rao, S/o.Venkatesu, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, Gollapalli Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District. … Defendant

This suit came before this court on 04.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Syed Farooq, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri G.Prasada Rao,

Advocate for the Defendant and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,86,000/- with subsequent 1.

interest and costs, based on a promissory note.

The plaint averments in brief are that the defendant approached the plaintiff 2.

and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.08.2019 for his family necessities and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the above amount with interest at

O.S.No.174 of 2021 2 II Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Nuzvid.

24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the above amount. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

Defendant filed written statement interalia contending that the defendant 3.

never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time. The father of the plaintiff namely Rangarao and the defendant are close friends. About five months back, the father of the plaintiff passed away. Plaintiff had shown two promissory notes to the defendant and asked him to identify whether the thumb impression on the promissory notes belongs to him. Defendant denied the same.

Plaintiff is under the impression that the defendant had borrowed from his father.

The thumb impression of the promissory note is forged. The two attestors and the scribe are close associates of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is not having capacity to lend such huge amount to the defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial: 4.

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 28.08.2019 is forged?

2. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 28.08.2019 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

4. To what relief ?

During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined PW.s 1 and 2 and exhibited 5.

Ex.A1 on his behalf. Defendant examined DW.s 1 and 2. No documentary evidence was adduced by the defendant.

Heard both sides. 6.

Issue Nos.1 & 2

O.S.No.174 of 2021 3 II Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Nuzvid.

On the aforesaid evidential backdrop, it is the larger contention of the 7.

learned counsel for the plaintiff that when the defendant was struggling with finance, PW.1 extended his helping hand by parting with the amount covered under

Ex.A1 enabling him to tide over from the financial exigencies, however, he has no amount of goodness, and made PW.1 to land in litigation. The testimonial assertions of PW.1 and PW.2 are attempted hard to be assailed, however, nothing infirm is elicited in the cross examination so as to doubt the integrity of Ex.A1.

The defendant did not offer any good deal of reason, much less satisfactory as to why he did not send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed thumb impression with that of the admitted thumb impression available on record, and that perse clearly demonstrates that the defendant entertained vicious desire in order to extricate himself from the civil liability. Therefore, the suit liability has to be fastened against the defendant.

Resisting the arguments, it is vehemently canvassed by the learned counsel 8.

for the defendant that there is no jural relationship of debtor and creditor in between PW.1 and DW.1. Ex.A1 promissory note is document of questionable character, and the court cannot be the venue to enforce void document. Just because, the defendant did not send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert, there is no weighty presumption that the case of the defendant is unmeritorious. PW.1, PW.2 and the other attestor and the scribe covered under Ex.A1 are one mind gang and put up a collective front and fabricated and forged Ex.A1 in order to obtain fraudulent profit. Therefore, the suit liability cannot be fastened against the defendant.

O.S.No.174 of 2021 4 II Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Nuzvid.

The scope of controversy is discussed under different heads which are stated 9.

below.

Whether PW.1 withstood the test of cross examination without loosing

10.

the credibility?

In this context, the Court feel it appropriate to reproduce the cross examination of PW.1.

Suggestions

1)The defendant never borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from you by executing Ex.A1?

Ans: False

2) The thumb impression of the defendant on Ex.A1 is forged by you?

Ans: False

3) The two attestors and the scribe are your henchmen?

Ans: False

Whether PW.2 is witness of truth and his testimony inspires confidence?

11.

PW.2, deposes in his evidence that ‘the transaction covered under Ex.A1 was taken place in his presence on 28.08.2019 at the house of PW.1. At the time of transaction, himself, PW.1, another attestor and the scribe were present. In his presence, the defendant executed Ex.A1 and received consideration of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

A witness, who testifies the facts on oath shall be presumed to be true, unless his testimony is badly effected in the cross examination, and put it in other words,

O.S.No.174 of 2021 5 II Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Nuzvid.

that the credibility or the believability of the witness is a main stay, on which, the case of the party would crown the success. In the case on hand, PW.s 1 and 2 are tested in the cross examination very elaborately, however, their evidence remained unshaky and instills confidence.

Whether PW.1 is harboring any inimical vendetta against DW.1 for

12.

forging his signature on Ex.A1?

It is the basic stand of DW.1 that Ex.A1 do not bear his thumb impression and his thumb impression is imitated on Ex.A1.

Now, this pertinent aspect has to be tested on the touchstone of the probability components. Motive impels or incites a person to commit a crime or to implicate or enmesh a person to suffer the ordeal of the prosecution. DW.1 categorically concedes during cross examination that the relationship in between him and PW.1 is cordial. In such a case, where is the compelling necessity for

PW.1 to forge the thumb impression of DW.1. Thus, in the light of this material, the Court hold and conclude logically that the plea propounded by the defendant that Ex.A1 is a forged document is a plea of despair and not worth of any credence.

As to what prompted DW.1 not to send Ex.A1 to the handwriting

13.

expert?

It is the case of DW.1 that Ex.A1 doe not bear his thumb impression. If that be the case, what held back DW.1 not to send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert.

O.S.No.174 of 2021 6 II Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Nuzvid.

DW.1 emphatically asserts during cross examination that he had taken steps for sending the disputed thumb impression with admitted thumb impression for comparison. However, it is to be noted that no such steps were taken by him. No cogent reason is assigned as to why he maintained delightful silence without sending Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert.

Whether the testimony of DW.2 weakens the case of the defendant in a

14.

great measure?

DW.2 asserts during cross examination that the defendant got issued legal notice to the plaintiff disputing the promissory note that was shown to the defendant claiming the thumb impression of the defendant therein. However, it is not the contention of the defendant that the he got issued legal notice to the plaintiff. Thus, this discrepancy purports to convey a message that DW.2 is a big lier.

In the ultimate analysis and for the reasons as mentioned above, the Court is 15.

of the opinion that the defendant executed Ex.A1 in favour of PW.1 and has been making hectic efforts to avoid the debt. In view of the above reasons, these two issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.3

In view of the findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit deserves to be decreed 16.

with costs. Therefore, the issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of 17.

Rs.2,86,000/- together with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

O.S.No.174 of 2021 7 II Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Nuzvid.

filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% from the date of decree till its realisation on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 10 th day of April, 2024.

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF

PW.1/.. G.Perumallu

PW.2/.. A.Gopala Rao

FOR DEFENDANT

DW.1/.. C.Subba Rao

DW.2/.. J.Venugopala Swamy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1/.. Original suit promissory note, dated 28.08.2019 executed for Rs.2,00,000/-.

FOR DEFENDANT

.. Nil ..

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.

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

- CUM- II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

NUZVID.

PRESENT: K. Hari Babu,

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Cum- II Addl Judicial First Class

Magistrate,

Nuzvid

Thursday, this the 4 th day of April, 2024

O.S.No.440/2020

Between:

Veerla Ramesh, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 40 years, Hindu, Agriculture and R/o Valasapalli, Musunuru Mandal.

... Plaintiff

And

1. Veerla Venkateswararao, S/o Subbarao @ Subbaiah, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Agriculture and R/o Valasapalli, Musunuru Mandal.

2. Veerla Nagendra Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 37 years, Hindu, Agriculture and R/o Valasapalli, Musunuru Mandal.

3. Angadala Jyothi, W/o Dharmaraju, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Housewife and R/o Valasapalli, Musunuru Mandal.

4. Veerla Nageswaramma, W/o Venkateswararao, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Properties and R/o Valasapalli, Musunuru Mandal.

… Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri

Sd.Farooq, counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri P.Ram Babu, counsel for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Suit is filed by for preliminary decree of partition of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties into 3 equal shares by metes and bounds among plaintiff, 2nd defendant and 1st defendant and allot one such share to the plaintiff; while allotting 1/3rd share consider to allot properties which are shown in plaint ‘B’ schedule properties which are in possession as per tentative arrangement and allot other properties also to plaintiff if he get more than

Ac.0.27 ½ cents; pass a final decree in terms of preliminary decree on separate application; directing 1st and 2nd defendants to pay future mesne profits from the date of filing of suit till he put in possession his share of properties and for costs of the suit.

Inspite of the conditional order, dated 25.03.2024, the plaintiff failed to adduce his evidence. It appears that the plaintiff has no interest to prosecute his case. Hence, the suit is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 04th day of April, 2024.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-II Addl. Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Nuzvid.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

– Nil –

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum- II Addl. Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Nuzvid.

O.S.No.100/2024 1 I Addl Civil Judge’s Court(Jr.Div),

Nuzvid

.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE( JUNIOR DIVISION) - CUM -

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NUZVID.

PRESENT: Sri. K.Hari Babu,

Principle Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid. FAC/ I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum - I Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nuzvid.

Monday, the 30 th day of September, 2024.

Original Suit No.100/2024

Between:

Nagabandi Naga Venkata Giridar, S/o Late Khadar Babu, Hindu, 54 years, R/o Vissannapeta village and mandal.

... Plaintiff

And

Kanakamedala Prem Kumar, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Proprietor of Sri Venkateswara Poultry Forms, Hindu, 52 years, R/o Mukkollupadu village, Nuzvid Rural Mandal.

… Defendant

This suit is coming for final hearing before me on 30.09.2024 in the presence of Sri P.

Ram Babu, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri. I. Janaki Ram, Advocate for defendant and having been stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:-

:J U D G M E N T:

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,27,600/- with subsequent interest and costs.

2.Full satisfaction memo filed by the plaintiff stating that he has received an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- from the defendant towards full and final settlement and therefore, he prays to dismiss the suit and raise the attachment of the petition schedule property which was effected in

O.S.No.100/2024 2 I Addl Civil Judge’s Court(Jr.Div),

Nuzvid

. I.A.231/2024. Full satisfaction memo is recorded and the suit is dismissed as adjusted out of court.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30th day of September, 2024.

Principle Civil Judge(Junior Division) FAC/I Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nuzvid

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: None

FOR DEFENDANT:

None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Nil

FOR DEFENDANT:

.. Nil ..

PCJ(Jr.Div) ,NZD FAC/ I ACJ(Jr.Div) ,NZD

E.P.No.112/2023

O.S.No.142 of 2022 1 II Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Nuzvid.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -

CUM – II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

NUZVID.

PRESENT: Sri. K.Hari Babu,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum – II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.

Thursday, 25 th day of April, 2024.

E.P.No.112/2023 in O.S.No.142/2022

Between

Chandaka Raja Rama Mohan Rao, S/o Appa Rao, Hindu, aged about 72 years, Retired Employee, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Nuzvid.

...Petitioner/D.Hr

AND

Angaluri Deevana Vidya Arathi, W/o D.Bose, aged about 45 years, Teacher, ZPH School, Annavaram, Nuzvid Mandal.

...Respondent/J.Dr

This case is coming before me on 25.04.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri

Y.S.Dorai, Advocate for the Petitioner/D.Hr and the Respondent/J.Dr remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

OR DE R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner/D.Hr under Order 21 Rule 48 C.P.C to attach the J.Dr salary for recovering the decree debt and directing the Headmaster, Z.P.School,

Annavaram who is Salary Disbursing Officer of J.Dr to send the same to this court in the interests of justice.

E.P.No.112/2023

O.S.No.142 of 2022 2 II Additional Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division),

Nuzvid.

2.The Counsel for the D.Hr filed full satisfaction memo for Rs.1,50,000/-. The same is recorded and the same is dismissed.

Office is directed to communicate the same to the concerned Drawing and

Disbursing Officer to raise the attachment order.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 10thday of April, 2024.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-II Addl. Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Nuzvid.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

– Nil –

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum- II Addl. Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Nuzvid.

O.S.No.269/2024 1 I Addl Civil Judge’s Court(Jr.Div),

Nuzvid

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE( JUNIOR DIVISION) - CUM -

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NUZVID.

PRESENT: Sri. K.Hari Babu,

Principle Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid. FAC/ I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum - I Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nuzvid.

Tuesday, the 12 th day of November, 2024.

Original Suit No.269/2024

Between:

Sunkara Lakshmaiah, S/o Raghavulu, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Near Bala Swamy Kalyana Mandapam, Eedara village, Agiripalli mandal, Eluru District.

... Plaintiff

And

Mandepudi Venkata Ramana, W/o Venkateswara Rao, House wife, R/o Mallaiah Kirana shop, Bhogapuram village, Pedavegi mandal, Eluru District.

… Defendant

This suit is coming for final hearing before me on 12.11.2024 in the presence of Sri K.

Suman and Sri. Kaja Venkateswara Rao, Advocates for Plaintiff and Sri N. Murali Krishna,

Advocate for defendant and having been stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:-

:J U D G M E N T:

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,06,320/- with subsequent interest and costs.

O.S.No.269/2024 2 I Addl Civil Judge’s Court(Jr.Div),

Nuzvid

2.Full satisfaction memo filed and the same is recorded. Hence, the suit is dismissed as adjusted outside the court.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 12th day of November, 2024.

Principle Civil Judge(Junior Division) FAC/I Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nuzvid

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: None

FOR DEFENDANT:

None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Nil

FOR DEFENDANT:

.. Nil ..

PCJ(Jr.Div) ,NZD FAC/ I ACJ(Jr.Div) ,NZD