Smt K Jaya Lakshmi

1

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

GANNAVARAM

PRESENT: Smt K.JAYA LAKSHMI,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gannavaram.

Friday, this the 4th day of April, 2025

Original Suit No. 28/2021

Between:

Chimmi Ramesh, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/o. Chinnampeta, Chatrae Mandal, Krishna District.

... Plaintiff

And:

Smt. Kolli Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Rama krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged 67 years, R/o. D.No. 12-54, Telaprolu Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District.

... Defendant

Advocate for the plaintiff:Sri K.V.Ramana

Advocate for the defendant:Sri M/s.M.Kumar

Arguments heard on:2.4.2025

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 23.3.2021 directing the defendant to execute and register a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,55,000/- at the expenses of the plaintiff within a reasonable period fixed by the court, if the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff prays the Hon'ble court to execute and register the sale deed in his 2 favour on behalf of the defendant in accordance with the agreement of sale at the expenses of the plaintiff and also for alternative relief by directing the defendant to refund the amount of Rs.45,00,000/- with interest @18% per annum and for costs of the suit.

2.The case of the plaintiff in nut shell as per the plaint averments is as follows:

the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant orally agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff after the partition took place in between the defendant and his sons. Having trust on the defendant oral agreement, the plaintiff paid the advance sale consideration of Rs. 38,45,000/- through a bank transaction on different dates i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- on 28.2.2019; Rs. 1,50,000/- on 2.3.2019; Rs.

50,000/- on 13.3.2019; Rs.4,00,000/- on 16.3.2019; Rs. 5,00,000/- on 21.3.2019; Rs. 5,00,000/- on 22.3.2019; Rs.5,00,000/- on 25.3.2019;

Rs.7,00,000/- on 31.3.2019 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 2.4.2019 to the defendant’s account i.e. State Bank of India, Telaprolu Branch and

Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.2.2019, Rs. 2,00,000/- on 16.2.2019, Rs.1,00,000/- on 4.3.2019, Rs.1,00,000/- on 8.4.2019; Rs.20,000/- on 15.4.2019;

Rs.1,00,000/- on 29.4.2019 and Rs.25,000/- on 30.5.2019 to the account of the defendant’s granddaughter husband by name Maraju Rama Koteswara

Rao of Bangalore i.e. I.C.I.C.I. Bank, AICS Layout Branch, Bangalore.

3

It is further submitted that as assured by the defendant after the partition in between the defendant and his sons, the defendant entered into the written sale agreement, dated 23.3.2021 with the plaintiff. By which, the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a valid consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- and the defendant also received a sum of

Rs.38,45,000/- through the above bank transactions and also received

Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash on the date of execution of the agreement which totally Rs.40,45,000/- as part payment of the sale consideration and the receipt was acknowledged in the agreement itself. As per the conditions of the said agreement, the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,55,000/- has to be paid within 6 (six) months from the date of sale agreement and in the mean time, the defendant have to obtain the pattadar passbook by mutating her name in the revenue records with regard to the plaint schedule property.

Further, there is an interest clause was also inserted in the agreement if the plaintiff dragged the matter he has to pay the balance amount with the interest @24% per annum. Meanwhile, he secured the balance sale consideration and the same was informed to the defendant to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as the plaintiff was ready with the balance of sale consideration and informed to the defendant to get ready the mutation in her name and also to obtain the pattadar passbooks. Finally on 11.9.2021 the plaintiff and the mediators of transaction by name Chimmi

Prabhakar and Nallamothu Nani personally approached the defendant and 4 informed about the plaintiff’s readiness to pay the remaining the balance consideration and requested the defendant to execute the regular register sale deed. The defendant requested time for obtaining a pattadar passbook.

Though the plaintiff several times informed the defendant for his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and to perform her part of contract, the defendant failed to receive the balance sale consideration and postponing the same on some pretext or the other by giving formal replies. Therefore, on 14.1.2021 he gave a legal notice to the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in his favbour by receiving balance consideration. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant made a propaganda in and around the village that the defendant is intending either to transfer or to sell he plaint schedule property to her kith and kin with a fradulent intention in order to avoid to register the same to the plaintiff. As such, he constrained to file the suit.

3.On the other hand, the defendant filed written statement by denying most of the allegations mentioned in the plaint and contended that she never executed the suit agreement in favour of the plaintiff at any point of time by agreeing to sell the suit schedule property. Due to the defendant old age, her granddaughter looked after her bank account and after she got knowledge about her case, she enquired with her granddaughter, she informed that her husband Maraju Rama Koteswara Rao and the plaintifff are good friends and classmates and they are doing Real Estate Busienss. Her 5 granddaughter also informed that the plaintiff utilised her bank accourt to their real estate business, as a part of business, the granddaughter husband used her account without the consent of the defendant and knowledge. The defendant did not know the transfer the amounts in her accout. The defendant came to know that through her granddaughter that the alleged payments are made in different dates for the purpose of purchasing the land at Hyderabad through an agreement of sale. There is no agreement of sale in between the plaintiff and defendant and the documents are forged documents. She has no legal validity. The plaintiff is a political influenced person and she is an old aged woman and taking that advantage the plaintiff filed this suit in order to grab the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed for trial:

1) Whether the suit agreement of sale, dated 23.3.2021 is forged and fabricated as alleged by the defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of agreement of sale as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5.In support of the plaintiff case, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are examined and got marked the Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the defendant no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on her behalf.

6

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. When the matter is posted for arguments, inspite of giving several opportunities, the defendant remained absent without representation. Hence defendant side is treated as heard.

7.For the reasons to be recorded here after, my findings is as under:

FINDINGS

Issue No.1:-: Yes

Issue No.2:-: Yes

Issue No.3:- :Suit is decreed as per operative part of the judgment

REASONS IN SUPPORT OF MY FINDINGS

8.ISSUE Nos. 1 and 2:-

1)Whether the suit agreement of sale, dated 23.3.2021 is forged and fabricated as alleged by the defendant?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of agreement of sale as prayed for?

These two issues are intrinsically interlinked with each other and require common appreciation of facts and application of mind. Therefore, I take these two issues to answer simultaneously.

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant initially entered into the oral agreement that she intends to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff after the partition of the properties in between the defendant and her children. Believing her the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.38,45,000/- to the defendant through bank transactions on different dates. Later there was a 7 partition took place between the defendant and her family members. As assured by the defendant, she executed the agreement of sale, dated 23.3.2021 and prior to the oral agreement, the plaintiff paid the advance amount of Rs.38,45,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- and the plaintiff also paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash on the date of execution of sale agreement and the acknowledgment receipts were mentioned in the agreement. Subsequently inspite of repeated demand made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to execute the regular sale deed and postponed the same on some pretext or other.

9.On the other hand, the defendant contended that she never entered into the agreement and the signature on agreement, dated 23.3.2021 is a forged and fabricated. The main contention raised by the defendant in his pleadings that she never executed Ex.A1 agreement and the signature on it is forged and fabricated. Except the pleadings, the defendant failed to adduce evidence as well as failed to cross examine the plaintiff witnesses.

10.At this juncture, it is here pertinent to refer to a decision of our High

Court in S.Gangadhar Goud Vs. Chikkela Laxman and others reported in 2009(3) ALT 498 wherein it is held that:

mere filing of pleadings would not be sufficient in a case.

The pleadings, at the most, would help the Court,to identify the area of controversy and to frame issues. Once the issues are framed, the respective parties have to adduce evidence in support of or, opposition to the issues.

8

Even where a defendant is confident of the weakness of the plaintiff's case, he has to enter the witness box, at least, to speak to the contents of the written statement.

Failure in this regard is bound to entail in serious consequences.

The apex court in Vidhyadhar Vs Manikrao's case reported in AIR 1999 S.C.1441, held that where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.

In this case, except the pleadings of the defendant, no material evidence adduced by the defendant to prove her contentions. This being the suit for specific performance, though the defendant unchallenged the evidence of the plaintiff, the burden in on the plaintiff to prove his case.

11.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined the

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked the original agreement of sale deed, original tax receipts, office copy of legal notice, postal receipt, on line generated copy of postal track consignment, bank copy statement and certified copy of registered partition deed as Exs. A1 to A10 respectively.

He also got examined the P.W.2 to prove his case.

12.On going to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the recitals of

Exs. A1, A9 and A10, it clearly goes to speak that the defendant executed 9 the Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the advance sale consideration of Rs.40,45,000/- and moreover the recitals of

Ex.A1 goes to speak that the plaintiff deposited the amount in different dates in the account of defendant and also granddaughter of defendant.

Moreover, it is the pleadings of the defendant, the signature on Ex.A1 is a forged one. If really so, the defendant would have prove her contention by contesting the case and sending the signature to the expert opinion.

Moreover the defendant did not cross examine the plaintiff witnesses, further she did not come into witness box to prove her contention. Therefore, it clearly proved that the contention of defendant is false. Moreover the plaintiff proved his case by placing the Exs. A1 to A10.

13.Sec. 60 © of Specific Relief Act envisages that the plaintiff must prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract or always been and to perform the essential terms of the contract which are performed by him. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have deposed that as per the sale agreement, it was agreed upon that the plaintiff should pay the balance sale consideration, after the defendant got mutated his name in the revenue records within six months from the date of sale agreement and get the sale executed in the agreement in his favour.

14.It is the pleadings as well as evidence that the plaintiff is ready and willingness to perform his part of agreement and to get the sale completed in his favour, but the defendant did not come forward to get in part of her 10 perform. The plaintiff also got issued a legal notice under Ex.A6 to the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount and to register the regular registered sale deed, but the defendant did not come forward to perform her part of contract. However, it is not the case of the defendant she is always ready and willing to perform her part of contract. Though the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by demanding the defendant to execute the regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for the suit schedule property by receiving the balance of sale consideration. The the plaintiff proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract by issuing Ex.A6 notice and the defendant received the same under Ex.A7 and A8 respectively and she neither gave reply nor register the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration.

As such, the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 23.3.2021 as prayed for.

15.Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed supra, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. But the defendant failed to discharge her burden that the plaintiff is got forged and fabricated Ex.A1 and failed to perform her part of contract.

16.In view of these, it can safely be concluded that the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract. Hence, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11

17.ISSUE No.3:

3)To what relief?

In view of the answer to the issues Nos. 1 and 2, the suit shall be decreed.

18. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in terms of agreement of sale/Ex.A1 dated 23.3.2021 in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration as mentioned in the agreement within 90 (ninety) days from the date of judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it registered by the court under due process of law.

Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th day of April, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GANNAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff:

P.W.1: Chimmi Ramesh P.W.2:Chimmi Prabhakar Rao

Defendant NONE 12

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original agreement of sale deed, dated 23.3.2021 Ex.A2: Original Tax receipt standing in the name of defendant, dated 14.2.2007 Ex.A3:Original Tax receipt standing in the name of defendant, dated 9.6.2012 Ex.A4:Original Tax receipt standing in the name of defendant, dated 29.6.2014 Ex.A5:Original Tax receipt standing in the name of defendant, dated 4.5.2015 Ex.A6:Office copy of the legal notice, dated 14.10.2021 Ex.A7:Original postal receipt bearing No. RN828571013IN Ex.A8:Online generated copy of postal track consignment about legal notice, dated 14.10.2021 Ex.A9:Bank copy statement of account of the plaintiff in Axis Bank,

dated 7.1.2019 to 30.3.2019

Ex.A10: Certified copy of registered partition deed, dated 19.3.2021

Defendant:NIL

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GANNAVARAM

13

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

PRESENT: Smt K.JAYA LAKSHMI,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gannavaram.

Friday, this the 4th day of April, 2025

Original Suit No. 28/2021

Between:

Chimmi Ramesh, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/o. Chinnampeta, Chatrae Mandal, Krishna District.

... Plaintiff

And:

Smt. Kolli Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Rama krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged 67 years, R/o. D.No. 12-54, Telaprolu Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District.

... Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 23.3.2021 directing the defendant to execute and register a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration of

Rs.4,55,000/- at the expenses of the plaintiff within a reasonable period fixed by the court, if the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff prays the Hon'ble court to execute and register the sale deed in his favour on behalf of the defendant in accordance with the agreement of sale at the expenses of the plaintiff and also for alternative relief by directing the defendant to refund the amount of

Rs.45,00,000/- with interest @18% per annum and for costs of the suit.

2)Plaint presented on :25.10.2021 Plaint numbered on :25.10.2021

3)Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is

Rs.45,00,000/- under Sec. 50(1) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act, 1956 on which a Court fee of

Rs.47,426/- is paid under Section 26 of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act 1956.

4)Cause of action for the present suit arose in the year February, 2019 when the defendant offered to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and on that 14 the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same from the defendant for a sum of

Rs.45,00,000/- and when the defendant in different occasions received part consideration of the sale and in order to put the oral agreement in terms into writing, on 23.3.2021 when the defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- and the defendant also received a sum of Rs.38,45,000/ through bank transactions and Rs.2,00,000/- by cash on the date of execution of agreement which totaklly

Rs.40,45,000/- as part payment of the consideration and on 11.9.2021 when the plaintiff and the mediators of the transaction by name Chimmi Prabhakar and

Nallamothu Nani personally approached the defendant and informed about the plaintiffs readiness to pay the balance of sale consideration and requested the defendant to transfer the said property by a sufficient instrument by delivering all original documents of the title etc. and that the defendant did not come forward to register the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and on 14.10.2021 when the plaintiff got issued a legal notice demanding the defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance of sale consideration and on 16.10.2021 when the said notice was delivered to the defendant as per the postal track consignment and subsequent when the defendant making a propaganda in and around the village that she is intending either to transfer or to alieante the plaint schedule property to her kith and kin and at Telaprolu Village,

Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District, where the plaint schedule property is situated which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

5)This suit having come before me for final hearing on 2.4.2025 in the presence of Sri K.V.Ramana,Advocate for the plaintiff, of Sri M/s.M.Kumar,

Advocate for the defendant and upon perusing all the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

i)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs directing the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in terms of agreement of sale/Ex.A1, dated 23.3.2021 in favour of the plaintiff after 15 receiving the balance sale consideration as mentioned in the agreement within 90 (ninety) days from the date of judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it registered by the court under due process of law. ii)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.1,97,688/- towards the costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs. NIL towards the costs of the suit.

(Copy of plaint schedule attached to decree)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 4th day of April, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GANNAVARAM

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

S.NoDescriptionPlaintiffDefendant Rs.Rs.

1. Stamp on vakalath 2-00 No bill of costs memo filed

2. Stamp on plaint47,426-00

3. Stamp on process 60-00

4. Advocate fee (Sr.)1,50,000-00 Advocate fee (Jr.)

5. Writing charges 100-00

6. Typing Charges100-00 TOTAL: 1,97,688-00

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GANNAVARAM

Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record is liable to be destroyed within 3 years from the date of Decree or order.

16

1

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

GANNAVARAM.

PRESENT: Smt K.JAYA LAKSHMI,

Civil Judge (Senior Division)-, Gannavaram.

Monday, this the 7th day of April, 2025

Original Suit No. 17/2023

Between:

1) Veerapaneni Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Veerapaneni Narasimha Rao, Hindu, aged about 51 years, Employee, R/o. Gannavaram VillageGannavaram Mandal, Krishna District.

2) Veerapaneni Rushendramani, W/o. Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 43 years, Properties, R/o. Gannavaram VillageGannavaram Mandal, Krishna District.

...Plaintiffs

And

Yarlagadda Venkata Koteswara Dhanalakshmi, W/o. Yarlagadda Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Business, R/o. Kakulapadu, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

...Defendant

This suit having come for final hearing on 4.4.2025 before me in the presence of Sri K.V.Ramana, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri

P.Rambabu, Advocate for the defendant, after hearing and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.23,71,197/- (Rs.11,81,877/-+Rs.11,89,320/-) being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 25.8.2022 and 1.9.2022 2 respectively which were executed by the defendant for Rs. 9,80,000/- and

Rs.9,90,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and costs of the suit.

2.The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint averments succinctly is as follows:

on 25.8.2022 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 9,80,000/- from the plaintiffs for the purpose of purchasing of rice mill and in consideration there of executed an on demand promissory note on the even date agreeing to repay the same together with interest thereon at 24% per annum. The plaintiffs gave the said amount by way of cheques i.e. 1st plaintiff issued a cheque bearing No. 000020 for Rs.4,90,000/- drawn on

Bank of India, Gannavaram in favour of the defendant and the 2nd plaintiff issued a cheque bearing No. 008782 for Rs.4,90,000/- drawn on Bank of

India, Gannavaram in favour of the defendant. The defendant encashed the above said two cheques.

It is further submitted that again the defendant borrowed another sum of Rs.9,90,000/- on 1.9.2022 for the purpose of purchase of rice mill from the plaintiffs and on the same date, he executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiffs agreeing to repy the same with interest @24% per annum. The plaintiffs gave the said amount by way of cheques i.e. 1st plaintiff issued a cheque bearing No. 000021 for Rs.4,95,000/- drawn on

Bank of India, Gannavaram in favour of the defendant and the 2nd plaintiff 3 issued a cheque bearing No. 008783 for Rs.4,95,000/- drawn on Bank of

India, Gannavaram in favour of the defendant. The defendant encashed the above said two cheques. Subsequently inspite of repeated demands made by and on behalf of the plaintiff, he did not choose to discharge the debt due under the above said two promissory notes. Hence, they have constrained to file the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement in general denying the material allegations in the plaint inter alia contending that the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiffs and she did not receive any consideration from them. She did not execute any promissory notes in favour of the plaintiffs. She has no necessity to borrow such huge amounts. The said suit promissory notes are fabricated by the plaintiffs with the help of the scribe and attestors. The endorsement of the promissory notes also not executed by the defendant.

She further submitted that previously in the year of 2013 her husband by name Yarlagadda Venkateswara Rao used to job in

Veeranjaneya Rice Traders at Kakulapadu village, which is under the control of Munnangi Sheshagiri Rao, who is proprietor of the said Rice Mill.

Later the proprietor of the said Mill intended to expend his business and offered her husband, if he interested in business, he will allow him as shareholder in new industry. At that time, her husband stated his owner that his cousin brother by name Yalamanchili Chandra Sekhar is also 4 interested to enter into the said business. Accordingly her husband mediated the said Munanngi Seshagiri Rao and Yalamanchili Lakshmi

Chandra Sekhar and finally they were started a new rice mill under the name and style of Sai Hanuman Rice Traders situated at Kakulapadu village, Bapulapadu Mandal. For the above said business, they also obtained loan from Bank of India, Hanuman Junction Branch for establishment of Industry. At that time, her husband was operating manager and constucted the said industry and the same was used to maintained by him on behalf of the Yalamanchili Lakshmi Chandra Sekhar.

If any amount is necessary for the loss of business, her husband used to arrange the money initially from various formers and friends for the development of Rice Mill.

It is further submitted that course of collecting monies for the development of the Rice Mill on behalf of Yalamanchili Lakshmi Chandra

Sekhar, her husband borrowed monies from close acquintance persons. At the time of collecting a deposit amounts, her husband gave empty signed promissory notes and blank signed cheques and also signed empty non judiciary stamp papers on behalf of the Yalamanchili Chandra Sekhar.

It is further submitted that in the year 2017 her husband started

Pesticides shop at Penzendra Village, Gudlavalleru Mandal under the name and style of Bhagyalakshmi Fertilizers and Pesticides and doing business.

Later also her husband borrowed amount from the ryots of Penzendra 5

Village and surrounding villages also for developing the rice industry.

Subsequently, they came to know that the said Yalamanchili Chandra

Sekhar has collected crores of rupees from the various persons through her husband and that they approached the said Yalamanchili Chandra Sekhar asked for return amounts to the persons, as such, the said Yalamanchili

Chandra Sekhar put the sale of his share in the in the rice industry. At that time the husband of the defendant mediated the same before the elders for repayment of the amounts borrowed by him for the rice rice industry and on the mediation of the elders, the rice mill was handed over to the husband of the plaintiff by Chandra Sekhar, but the license and other documents are in the name of said Yalamanchili Chandra Sekhar. Since then the husband of defendant exclusively enjoyed the said property and did business with

Government on behalf of Yalamanachili Lakshmi Chandra Sekhar. The amounts from the Government was used to remit to the account of the

Yalamanchili Lakshmi Chandra Sehar and he used to transfer the same to

Yarlagadda Venkateswara Rao. In that connection also there is due from the Government to a tune of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- to Sai Hanuma Traders.

It is further submitted that her husband mortgaged the plaint schedule property obtained loan from Indian Bank, Eluru Branch in the name of defendant and cleared the some of the debts. Later on 1.7.2023 her husband left the house and where about of his not known to her. At that time, the plaintiffs demanded her to discharge the debts, which were given 6 by them to her husband, But her husband already filed Insolvent petition

before the XV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nuzvid and the same was

pending. The suait claim is contrary to the provisions of Section 269 SS of the Income Tac Act and the claime is illegal and the suit is bad. The plaintiffs are also not a registered money lender as required under the AP money lenders. The suit promissory notes were forged and fabricated. The interest claimed by the plaintiff is penal and usurious and hit by the provisions of the usurious loans Act. The cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff is also not correct and the same is created for the purpose of wrongful gain and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the suit promissory notes are forged and fabricated by the plaintiffs?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree amount?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 are examined and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked. On behalf of the defendant none are examined and no documents are marked.

6.Heard the plaintiff. When the matter is posted for arguments, the defendant remained absent without representation. Hence defendant side is treated as heard.

7

7.ISSUE No. 1:

1. Whether the suit promissory notes are forged and fabricated by the plaintiffs?

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant after borrowing a sum of

Rs.9,80,000/- and Rs.9,90,000/- from the plaintiffs on 25.8.2022 and 1.9.2022 respectively and executed two suit promissory notes agreeing to repay the same together with interest thereon at 24% per annum.

Subsequently inspite of repeated demands, he did not discharge the said debt.

8) On the other hand, the version of the defendant is that the suit promissory notes were forged and fabricated by the plaintiffs and she did not borrow any amount from the plaintiffs at any point of time.

9)In the instant case, the defendant took the plea of forged and fabricated the suit promissory notes, therefore, it is the burden of the defendant to prove the same. But in this case, the defendant did not come into the witness box to prove her contentions and also she did not choose to cross-examination the plaintiff witnesses.

10.In support of the version the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff is examined himself as PW1, in his affidavit which is admitted as his chief-examination while reiterating his version got marked the suit promissory notes and copy of bank statements as Exs.A1 to A4 respectively.

8

11.He also examined Bethala Naveen, who is attestor to Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes as PW2. By way of his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination, he corroborated the evidence of PW1 with regard to the execution of promissory notes by the defendant on after receiving consideration of Rs.9,80,000/- and Rs.9,90,000/- from the plaintiff. He further deposed that one Veerapaneni Nagendra Raja Rao signed as attestors and K.V.R.Kishore was scribed the suit promissory notes and the entire transaction took place in his presence and in the presence of the above said attestor and scribe.

12.The plaintiffs also got examined the scribe of Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes as P.W.3 and he corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in all material particulars with regard the execution of promissory notes. He also deposed that P.W.2 and one Veerapaneni Nagendra Raja Rao attested the said promissory notes and he scribed the same.

13.Though the defendant denied the suit transaction, she did not choose to cross-examine PW1 to PW3. Therefore the evidence of PW1 to PW3 which remained unchallenged proves the version of the plaintiff that the suit promissory notes are executed by the defendant and she received consideration.

14.As the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is remained unchallenged the plaintiffs discharged their burden to prove that the defendant executed the 9 suit promissory notes and received consideration. Moreover when once the plaintiffs proves the execution of the promissory notes, a presumption arises under section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act that the same is supported by consideration and the burden shifts on to the defendant to rebut the presumption and to prove her case, she did not choose to cross- examine PW1 to PW3. Therefore the evidence of PW1 to PW3 which remained unchallenged proves the version of the plaintiffs that the suit promissory notes are executed by the defendant and she received consideration. As already stated the defendant did not choose to adduce any evidence much less challenged the evidence let in by the plaintiffs.

Atleast the defendant herself did not come into witness box to depose on oath as to her version and make herself available for cross-examination.

15.At this juncture, it is here pertinent to refer to a decision of our High

Court in S.Gangadhar Goud Vs. Chikkela Laxman and others reported in 2009(3) ALT 498 wherein it is held that:

mere filing of pleadings would not be sufficient in a case.

The pleadings, at the most, would help the Court,to identify the area of controversy and to frame issues.

Once the issues are framed, the respective parties have to adduce evidence in support of or, opposition to the issues. Even where a defendant is confident of the weakness of the plaintiff's case, he has to enter the 10 witness box, at least, to speak to the contents of the written statement. Failure in this regard is bound to entail in serious consequences.

The apex court in Vidhyadhar Vs Manikrao's case reported in

AIR 1999 S.C.1441, held that where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.

16.Adverting to the above proposition in the case on hand also as the defendant failed to adduce any evidence her version cannot be considered.

Therefore,in the light of forgoing discussion in view of the unchallenged evidence of PW1 to PW3, the plaintiff proved their case. Therefore, this issue is answered affirmatively in favour of the plaintiff

17.ISSUE NO.2:

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree amount?

In view of discussion supra in issue No.1, it is clearly established that the suit promissory notes were executed by the defendant under sufficient consideration. Under these circumstances it can be said that the plaintiff is certainly entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

11 18ISSUE NO.3

3)To what relief?

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

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

Rs.23,71,197/- (Rs.11,81,877/-+Rs.11,89,320/-) together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs. 19,70,000/- (Rs.9,80,000/- +Rs.9,90,000/-).

Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7th day of April, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GANNAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiffs:

P.W.1: Veerapaneni Rajeswara Rao P.W.2: Bethala Naveen P.W.3:Kavuluru Venkata Rama Kishore

Defendant:- None 12

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Original 1st pronote executed by defendant in favour of plaintiffs,

dated 25.8.2022

Ex.A2:Original 2nd pronote executed by defendant in favour of plaintiffs,

dated 1.9.2022

Ex.A3:Bank copy statement of account issued by Bank of India, Gannavaram Branch in the name of 1st plaintiff, dated 27.9.2024

Ex.A4:Bank copy statement of account issued by Bank of India, Gannavaram Branch in the name of 1st plaintiff, dated 27.9.2024

Defendant: NIL

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GANNAVARAM.

13

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

GANNAVARAM.

PRESENT: Smt K.JAYA LAKSHMI,

Civil Judge (Senior Division)-, Gannavaram.

Monday, this the 7th day of April, 2025

Original Suit No. 17/2023

Between:

1) Veerapaneni Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Veerapaneni Narasimha Rao, Hindu, aged about 51 years, Employee, R/o. Gannavaram Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District.

2) Veerapaneni Rushendramani, W/o. Veerapaneni Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 43 years, Properties, R/o. Gannavaram Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District.

...Plaintiffs

And

Yarlagadda Venkata Koteswara Dhanalakshmi, W/o. Yarlagadda Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Business, R/o. Kakulapadu, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

...Defendant

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.23,71,197/- (Rs.11,81,877/-+Rs.11,89,320/-) being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 25.8.2022 and 1.9.2022 respectively which were executed by the defendant for Rs. 9,80,000/- and

Rs.9,90,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and costs of the suit.

2)Plaint presented on: 4.7.2023Plaint filed on: 4.7.2023

3)Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction u/s 50(1) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act is Rs. 23,71,197/- (Rs. 11,81,877/-+Rs.11,89,320/-) 14 on which a court fee of Rs. 28,852/- (Rs/14.426/-+Rs.14,426/-) was paid under Sec. 20(1) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, 1956.

4)Cause of action for the suit on 25.8.2022 and 1.9.2022 when the

Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 9,80,000/- and Rs.9,90,000/- respectively from the Plaintiffs and executed two suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same together with interest @24% per annum. Inspite of several demands, the defendant did not choose to discharge the said debt and where the suit promissory notes were executed and where the transaction took place, which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

5)This suit having come for final hearing on 4.4.2025 before me in the presence of Sri K.V.Ramana, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri

P.Rambabu, Advocate for the defendant, after hearing and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

1) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs.

2) that the defendant do pay a sum ofRs.23,71,197/- (Rs.11,81,877/- +Rs.11,89,320/-) to the plaintiffs together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs. 19,70,000/- (Rs.9,80,000/-+Rs.9,90,000/-).

15

3) that the defendant also do pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 1,13,750/- towards costs of the suit and the defendant do bear his own costs of

Rs.NIL towards the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 7th day of

April, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GANNAVARAM.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

S.NoDescriptionPlaintiffDefendants Rs.Rs.

1. Stamp on vakalat 2-00Exparte

2. Stamp on plaint51,426-00

3. Stamp on process180-00

4. Advocate fee (Sr.)50,000-00 Advocate fee (Jr.)16,666-00

5. Writing charges 100-00

6. Typing Charges100-00

7. Publication charges1,300-00

TOTAL: 1,18,474-00

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GANNAVARAM.

Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record is liable to be destroyed within 3 years from the date of Decree or order.

16

O.S.No. 17/2023 AFT 7.4.2025

1) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs.

2) that the defendant do pay a sum ofRs.23,71,197/- (Rs.11,81,877/- +Rs.11,89,320/-) to the plaintiffs together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs. 19,70,000/- (Rs.9,80,000/-+Rs.9,90,000/-).

3) that the defendant also do pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 1,13,750/- towards costs of the suit and the defendant do bear his own costs of

Rs.NIL towards the costs of the suit.

APKR1F0000092025

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge

AT GANNAVARAM ,KRISHNA

(Presided Over by Smt K.Madhavi Devi)

CC/2/2025

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Sub-Inspector of Police Atkuru Police Station Krishna District. Through Police Station Officer ATUKURU POLICE STATION 91, Atkuru Krishna District.

GANNAVARAM KRISHNA

Sub-Inspector of Police Atkuru Police Station Krishna District. VERSUS : Erukupati Arun Kumar Age: 40 Occupation : S/o late Nagabhushanam, 40 years, Indira Nagar, D.No.10-10, Perikeedu Village of Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

2:Erukupati Mery Age: 60 Occupation : W/o Late Nagabhushanam 60 years Indira Nagar D.No.10-10 Perikeedu Village of Bapulapadu Mandal Krishna District.

3:Yerukupati Raju Age: 45 Occupation : S/o Late Nagabhushanam 45 years D.No.3-32-1 Vennanapudi Village Nandivada Mandal Krishna District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: S.H.O. Atkuru P.S. Krishna District.,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 08-03-2025)

Both parties are present and matter settled before National Lok-Adalath. Accordingly, award is passed.

Date : 08-03-2025 (Smt K.MADHAVI DEVI)

Senior Civil Judge

GANNAVARAM KRISHNA

APKR1F0000082025

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge

AT GANNAVARAM ,KRISHNA

(Presided Over by Smt K.Madhavi Devi)

CC/1/2025 (PROSECUTION): State - Sub-Inspector of Plice Unguturu P.S. Krishna District. Through Police Station Officer UNGUTURU POLICE STATION , Unguturu P.S. Krishna District.

GANNAVARAM KRISHNA

State - Sub-Inspector of Plice Unguturu P.S. Krishna District. VERSUS : Matta Jhansi Rani alias Jhansi Age: 26 Occupation : W/o Suresh, 26 years, Caste SC Madiga, Manikonda Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District.

2:Matta Suresh Age: 33 Occupation : S/o Pitcheswara Rao 33 years Caste SC-Madiga Manikonda Village Unguturu Mandal Krishna District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: S.H.O. Unguturu P.S. Krishna District., Advocate for appearing for Matta Jhansi Rani alias Jhansi Advocate appearing for , 2 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 08-03-2025)

Both parties are present and matter settled before National Lok-Adalath. Accordingly, award is passed.

Date : 08-03-2025 (Smt K.MADHAVI DEVI)

Senior Civil Judge

GANNAVARAM KRISHNA

APKR1F0000102025

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge

AT GANNAVARAM ,KRISHNA

(Presided Over by Smt K.Madhavi Devi)

CC/3/2025

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Sub-Inspector of Police Gannavaram P.S. Krishna District. Through Police Station Officer GANNAVARAM POLICE STATION 524, Gannavaram P.S. Krishna District

GANNAVARAM KRISHNA

Sub-Inspector of Police Gannavaram P.S. Krishna District. VERSUS : Arikoti Sangeetha Rao Age: 45 Occupation : S/o Koteswara Rao, 45 years, Mala, D.No.2-23, Buravancha Village, Nuzivedu Mandal, Eluru District.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: S.H.O. Gannavaram P.S. Krishna District., Advocate for appearing for Arikoti Sangeetha Rao Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 498 A of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 08-03-2025)

Both parties are present and matter settled before National Lok-Adalath. Accordingly, award is passed.

Date : 08-03-2025 (Smt K.MADHAVI DEVI)

Senior Civil Judge

GANNAVARAM KRISHNA