1
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
APWG160002042021
BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION):: TANUKU
Present: Smt. K.Krishna Satya Latha,
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tanuku.
Friday, this the 22nd day of August, 2025
O.S. No. 29 of 2021
Between:
Mopidevi Ganeshwara Rao, S/o China Veeranna, 62 years, Male, Cultivation, D.No.3-36, Paidiparru, Tanuku Mandal, Cell No.9885251078.
... Plaintiff
And:
Kalluri Anjaneyulu, S/o Late Yella Rao, 34 years, Male, Business, D.No.20-1-29, Opp.Old Post Office, Sri Venkata Lakshmi Cycle Shop,
Tanuku. ... Defendant
This suit came up before me on 24.06.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.V.S.S.P.Rama Mohan and Sri N.V.S.Ramanujum ,learned Advocates for the plaintiff and Sri P.Apparao, learned Advocate for the de- fendant, upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defen- dant and upon perusal of the material on record, having stood over for con- sideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
1.This is the suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.,24,25,900 (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs
Twenty Five Thousand and Nine Hundred only) being the principal and interest due under the promissory note dated 08.03.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.,17,00,000/- (Rupees
Seventeen Lakhs only) along with subsequent interest and costs thereon.
2
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
2.The pith and marrow of the plaint is that:
[I]the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs., 17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen
Lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 08.03.2019 for the purpose of his business investment by executing a promissory note in favour of plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% per annum either to him or to his order on demand.
[ii]Subsequently, despite of repeated demands made by him, the defen- dant was postponing the repayment on some pretext or the other, as such the plaintiff got issued a notice dated 12.07.2021 to the defendant, having received the same, he did not give any reply and kept quite. Hence, this suit.
3.On receipt of the summons, the defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed the written statement by denying the material averments of the plaint, apart from raising several other contentions.
4. The gamut of the written statement filed by the defendant is that:
[I]the plaintiff suppressed the material facts and filed this suit to have wrongful gain, he has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff by execut- ing the promissory note on 08.03.2019. The plaintiff is doing money lending business without license, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs] from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with in- terest at the rate of 72% per annum at about 7 [Seven] years before the date of filing of the written statement, while lending the amount the plaintiff obtained two unfilled printed blank promissory notes and blank cheques with his signatures with a promise to return the same after the discharge of the debt due to him. He paid interest up to the end of March, 2020, later he failed to pay interest due to Pandamic situation and sustained loss in the business.
3
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
(ii)After receipt of the notice dated 12.7.2021, he approached the plain- tiff along with Sri Nandamuri Venkateswara Rao and Sri Chandanapu Sai and questioned him, for which he replied that it was issued only to threaten him, on payment of Rs., 5,00,000/-[Rupees Five Lakhs] which is due to him, he would not proceed against him, for which the defendant requested six months time, later filed this suit by fabricating the blank promissory notes which are available with him. The plaintiff is not having financial ca- pacity to lend such a huge amount of Rs.17,00,000/-[Rupees Seventeen
Lakhs] to the defendant that too without obtaining any immovable property as a security and the defendant had no necessity to borrow such a huge amount and any person who knows his financial status would not come for- ward to lend such a huge amount. Hence, the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-[Rupees Seventeen Lakhs] as alleged by the plaintiff and the attestors and scribe of the suit promissory note are the henchmen of the plaintiff, hence, sought to dismiss the suit.
5.After filing of the written statement, since, there was no likelihood of compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under section 89 of
Code of Civil Procedure, the matter was posted for settlement of issues.
6. Based on the above pleadings and material on record, my learned predecessor in office framed the following issues for trial:-
1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant or not? [Struck off as it is framed unnecessarily]
2.Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-[Rupees Seventeen Lakhs] or not?
3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?
4
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
4. To what relief?
(i)Based on the above pleadings and material on record, the following
Additional issue was settled:-
1. Whether the plaintiff was having financial capacity to lend Rs., 17,00,000/-[Rupees Seventeen Lakhs] as on the date of suit promissory note? 7. Rule 5 of Order XIV of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empowers the court to amend the issues or frame additional issues which are necessary for determining the matter in controversy between the parties and also strike out any issues that appear it to be wrongly framed or introduced before passing of the decree. On careful perusal of the pleadings and the evidence on record, it is manifest that the defendant having admitted his signature on the suit promissory note, denying his liability on the ground that it is not supported by the consideration. As issue No.1 is framed unnecessarily it is struck off .
8.During the trail, in substantiation of their respective contentions, plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got examined scribe of Ext.A-1 by name Sri Barre Srinivas as P.W.2 and exhibited Exts.A-1 to Exts. A-7, the defendant is examined himself as D.W.1 and got examined
Sri.Nandamuri Venkateswara Rao as D.W.2, but, no documentary evidence is adduced.
9.Heard both sides and perused the material on record meticulously, I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration for the argument advanced by the learned counsel.
10.Since, the defendant is challenging the financial capacity of the plaintiff, it is just and necessary to take up the additional issue at first for determination, accordingly, additional issue No.1 is taken up at first for determination.
5
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
11. Additional Issue No.1:-
1. Whether the plaintiff was having financial capacity to lend
Rs., 17,00,000/-[Rupees Seventeen Lakhs] as on the date of suit
promissory note? (I)The defendant in his written statement specifically asserted that the plaintiff was not having financial capacity to lend Rs., 17,00,000/-[Rupees
Seventeen Lakhs] as on the date of Ext.A.1 promissory note. Hence, it is pertinent to refer the law laid down as regards to the burden of proof. In a case between Rajaram S/o Sriramulu Naidu (Since Deceased) Through
Lrs., Vs., Maruthachalam (Since Deceased) Through Lrs., reported in 2023(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 547 (SC), our Honourable Apex Court distinguished the nature of the proof in civil cases and criminal proceedings and held as follows:
A distinguishing fact between the criminal proceedings and the civil proceedings in the present case is that, while in the criminal proceedings the complainant had failed to produce the promissory notes, in the civil proceedings, the complainant had proved the promissory notes. The High Court found that the Civil
Appeals were required to be decided on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities. The High Court found that the complainant had established that he was working as a LIC
Agent, that his father was owning extensive agricultural properties and that he was deriving agricultural income. The
High Court, on the basis of the evidence placed on record, relying on the preponderance of probability, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had the financial ability to lend the sum of Rs.3 lakh as on 20th October 1998. The High Court also found that the appellant’s wife was not examined as a witness in the said case so as to probabilize the defence plea. The High 6
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
Court found that the best available evidence was withheld by the defendants/appellants herein, as such, the principle of adverse inference was also applicable.
30. Though it was sought to be argued before the High Court that in view of the judgment in the criminal proceedings, the suit(s) was also liable to be dismissed, the High Court rightly observed that the adjudication in civil matters is based on preponderance of probabilities whereas adjudication in criminal cases is based on the principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent and the guilt of the accused should be proved to the hilt and the proof should be beyond all reasonable doubt.
31. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgments and orders passed by the High Court in the Civil Appeals.
The learned counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon a obiter dicta in a case between Vasantha Vs., Sekar reported in 2018(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 821(MADRAS) wherein it was held that ; plaintiff failed to show that she possessed sufficient solvency at the relevant time to advance the amount to defendant under the suit promissory note, both the attestors as well as scribe are inimical towards defendant, therefore, no safe credence could be attached to their testimony for accepting the plaintiff’s evidence, more so, when the plaintiff has the knowledge that economic status of the defendant is very weak, then it is highly preposterous that the plaintiff gave such amount to defendant and too without obtaining any acceptable security.
7
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
He also relied upon a ratio in a case between Kanakamedala
Venkata Krishna Prasad Vs., Peram Sai Swarupa and another reported in 2017(2) ALD(Crl) 981 the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity, much less to lend amount of Rs.5 lakhs as on the date of Ex.P1, non- examination of attestor and scribe, non-filing of any Income Tax
Returns, showing the debt covered under Ex.P1, discrepancy with regard to the mode of payment under Ex.P1, paid to the accused that is two versions of PW.1, with Ex.P4, the evidence of DW.1, the serial number of the cheque involved in the present case along with C.C.No.516 of 2015 are side by side in nature and in view of the decisions cited supra, the Court below concluded that the complainant has failed to prove the legally enforceable debt existing between him and the respondent
No.1/accused.
He also relied upon a ratio in a case between Basalingappa Vs.,
Mudibasappa reported in 2019(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (SC) financial capacity being questioned, it was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity. Court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence.
... it can be culled from the above ratio that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove his financial capacity as on the date of Ext.A.1, but, the nature of proof must be preponderance of probabilities. Hence, the evidence on record is to be evaluated in the light of the above precedent.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance upon the ratio in a case between Atluri Anuradh and Others Vs., Nuvvula Venkata Raju 8
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
reported in 2024(5) ALT 582(AP) wherein the Honourable High Court reiterated the manner in which the evidence is to be appreciated.
There can be no straight jacket formula for the appreciation of oral evidence of the witnesses, the credibility of the witnesses is the paramount consideration for the Court. As stated supra, it is not the case of the appellants that they are having enimity with
PW2 due to that enimity PW2 deposed falsehood against the defendants. The evidence of PW2 clearly establishes about the passing of consideration under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes and so also execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes by
Atluri Venkateswara Rao. To rebut the said evidence, the defendants did not adduce any cogent evidence. The appellants failed to discharge their burden to disprove the evidence of PW2, no cogent evidence is placed by the appellants to show that the suit pronotes are not supported by consideration and Ex.A1 and
Ex.A2 are forged transactions.
He also relied upon a ratio in a case between Kandati Sarada Vs.,
Godthi Satish Chowdary and others rendered on 21 October, 2024 reported in 2024(6)ALT 517
No true witness can escape from making some discrepant details. An untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. However, courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
The trial Court noted that the 1st Defendant did not assert that
P.Ws.2 and 3 are henchmen of the Plaintiff or that there exists 9
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
any animosity between the Defendants and these witnesses; indeed, no such suggestions were posed during their examination.
A witness is usually considered independent unless he or she springs from sources likely to be tainted. This generally means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the other party. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 to establish the existence of such enmity or grudge against the Defendants.
(ii) In order to prove his financial capacity, the plaintiff filed Exts.A.4 to
Exts.A.7. In support of his contention, the plaintiff deposed as P.W.1 through his chief evidence affidavit which is the replica of the plaint, as such, the same is not restated herein in order to avoid the repetition.
During the cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that as per Ext.A.4 he was having land to an extent of Acs., 1-54 cents in Tetali Village, he gets Rs., 40,000/- to 50,000/- per annum from the usufruct of his agricultural land, his total family expenses are Rs., 30,000/- to 40,000/- per annum, he also deposed that apart from the defendant he lent amount to two or three persons, he expressed his inability to say the quantum of the sum advanced by him to the said persons without verifying the book. He also admitted that he filed suit before this court against Puchala Venkata Balaji by contending that he lent Rs.,10,00,000/-[Rupees Ten Lakhs] on 08.08.2016 and filed complaint under the strength of the cheque, he lent
Rs.,5,00,000/-[Rupees Five Lakhs] to one Chamarthi Venkata Ramana
Murthy and filed O.S.408 of 2023 before the Civil Judge(Junior Division),
Tanuku against him , he filed complaint against him under the strength of the cheque, he also lent Rs. 10,00,000/-[Rupees Ten Lakhs] to one
Jamisetti Venkata Subramanyam on 08.08.2020 and he filed O.S.398 of 10
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
2021 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tanuku and complaint under the strength of the cheque. He deposed that he has not withdrawn the amount in order to give it to the defendant and the cash was available at his house, his son and daughter-in-law are doctors and he gets rents to a tune of Rs.,1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh] per month and he sold land situated at Rajamahendravaram in 2019 for Rs.,67,00,000/-[Rupees
Sixty Seven Lakhs], the sale consideration was credited into his account.
Though he admitted that he received consideration under the Ext.A.5 and
Ext.A.6 on 30.09.2019 and as per the Ext.A7 as on 02.05.2019
Rs.,16,11,596/-[Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and
Ninety Six] was lying in his account and the amount said to have lent under
Ext.A.1 was on 08.03.2019 and the sale consideration under Ext.A.5 and
Ext.A.6 was received on 30.09.2019 i.e., six months after the transaction said to have covered under Ext.A.1, his testimony cannot be discarded as regards to his financial capacity. His evidence shows that he owns Ac.1.54 cents of the land, it was put to him by the defendant that he lent the amounts to others also, his evidence discloses that he filed suits against some others based on the promissory notes, the averments of the written statement itself shows that he had capacity of giving Rs., 5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs] even seven years much before filing of the written statement. During the cross examination of the P.W.2 also nothing significant which could put dent to his testimony could be elicited, except putting the mere suggestion that the plaintiff had no financial capacity. The defendant deposed as D.W.1 by reiterating the averments of the written statement, during the cross examination, he pleaded ignorance as to whether the plaintiff is having land and deposed that he has not ascertained the financial capacity of the plaintiff even after filing of this suit, he does not know whether the son and daughter-in-law of the plaintiff are 11
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
doctors, he does not know whether the plaintiff is financially affluent than him, it is manifest from the above testimony of defendant that he is not having knowledge about the financial capacity of the plaintiff, in such a case how could he take a plea that the plaintiff was not having financial capacity. It appears from the same the above testimony that his plea as regards to the financial capacity of the plaintiff is a vague plea and it is unsubstantiated. The plaintiff by exhibiting Ext.A.4 and by disclosing his source of income during the cross examination which is unchallenged discharged his burden by raising preponderance of probabilities, but, the defendant could not discharge the burden that was shifted to him to disprove the same. Merely because, the attestor to Ex.A1 is the relative of the P.W.1 and the scribe is a known person to the plaintiff, it is not a good ground to discredit or disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 had corroborated the version of P.W.1 as regards all material particulars. Our
Honourable High Court in a case between P.C.Gunasekhar vs
C.Manoharlal in SECOND APPEAL NO.591 OF 2011 rendered on 11
April, 2024 in para No.15 held that
The trial Judge, erroneously dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff himself admitted that he has no financial capacity to lend amount without properly appreciating the evidence of P.W.1 who himself explained that though he has no financial capacity to lend money which was given by his son-in- law and once execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant is proved, it is for the defendant to prove that it is not supported by any consideration which he failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act.
12
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
The Honourable Supreme Court in a case between Mohideenkutty
Hajee Vs. Pappu Manjooran reported in (1996 (8) SCC 586), by following a number of earlier pronouncements, held that when a suit is based on a promissory note and the promissory note is proved to have been executed, Section 118
(a) raises a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration.
In the case of Kundan Lal Vs. Custodian Evacuee Property reported in (AIR 1961 SC 1316), the Supreme Court has held that the presumption under Section - 118 Negotiable Instruments
Act is one of law and a Court shall presume, inter alia, that the
Negotiable Instrument was made or endorsed for consideration.
his capacity to advance the loan amount was unbelievable and is without any substance.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon a ratio ina case between Smt., S. Sarojamma @ Saroja Vs., Ch. Maladri reported in 2024(5)ALT 168(AP) where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption aris-ing under Section 118(a) N.I.Act.
He also relied upon a case between a case between
R.Venkateswara Rao Vs. V.Satyavatamma reported in 2024(5) ALT 290(AP)
The evidence of PW1 to PW4 is consistent and cogent with regard to borrowing of amount of Rs.1,20,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 pronote, therefore, the plaintiff discharged his burden. Then the burden shifts to the defendant 13
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
to rebut the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. In the case on hand, the existence of consideration mentioned in the pronote was denied by the defendant with reference to the circumstance, which according to her, but the defendant failed to prove her defense,
He also relied upon a ratio in a case between Guthikonda
Viswanatham Vs., Guthikonda Venugopal Naidu reported in 2024(6)ALT 530(AP)
The Plaintiff and his witnesses possess no motive to fabricate the suit promissory note; similarly, PWs.2 and 3 have no compelling reason to testify falsely against the Defendant's interests, as they would derive no benefit from endorsing the
Plaintiff's claim unless there exists a kernel of truth within it. The evidence adduced by the Plaintiff stands, by any measure, adequate to substantiate the veracity, legitimacy, and binding nature of the suit promissory note denoted as Ex.A.1. It is well- established that rebuttal may be proffered through direct evidence or by establishing a preponderance of probabilities. In this instance, however, the Defendant has not successfully rebutted the presumption, not even by a preponderance of probabilities.
The learned Counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon a ratio in a case between Mandava Ramesh, Vijayawada Vs., Boddu Kranthikumar,
Vijayawada and another reported in 2023(1)ALT(Crl)6 (A.P)
Payment of money in cash beyond Rs.20,000/- is a violation of
Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act and breach of Section 269
SS of the Income Tax Act provides penalty under Section 271D of 14
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
the Act. However, advancement of loan to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs in cash is not prohibition in law and the same does not make any transaction unenforceable. As stated above, the consequence of breach would be imposition of penalty, but, the borrower cannot get any advantage out of it.
The above ratios squarely apply to the instant case, in the instant case also it was not suggested to the P.W.2 that due to the animosity against the defendant, he is deposing falsehood. On careful perusal of the evidence available on record, it is manifest that the plaintiff could discharge his burden, but, the defendant failed to adduce evidence to disprove the burden that is shifted to the defendant. Hence, keeping in view of the above ratios this issue is answered in Affirmative.
12. Issue No.2:-
Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by
consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-[Rupees Seventeen Lakhs] or not?
[I]As could be seen from the material on record, it is manifest that the defendant is admitting his signature on the Ext.A.1, but, contending that it was not supported by consideration, by taking advantage of the empty promissory note available with him, the plaintiff with the help of attestors and the scribe of Ext.A.1 fabricated it and filed this suit. Section 118 of
Negotiable Instruments Act lays down the statutory presumptions as to negotiable instruments. One of such presumption is that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Once, the defendant showed either by direct or circumstantial evidence or by use of other presumptions of law or fact that promissory note was not supported by the consideration in the manner stated therein, then the 15
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
evidential burden would shift to the plaintiff by reviving his legal burden to prove that the promissory note was supported by consideration, at that stage presumption under 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act would disappear. Hence, the testimonies of the P.W. 1 and P.W.2 have to be scrutinized in order to determine whether the defendant could rebut the presumption as to the consideration. During the cross examination by the learned defendant counsel nothing significant could be elicited. During the cross examination, the defendant tried to project himself that he is financially weak, as such, no prudent man would lend such a huge amount without security. But, it is palpable from his evidence that he is running a cycle shop and having properties, though, D.W.2 deposed that he approached the plaintiff along with the defendant questioning him to issue
Ext.A.2 claiming Rs., 17,00,000/-, his evidence is not convincing. On careful marshaling of the evidence on record, the defendant has not raised the probable defence. Mere not passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption, the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which the Court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not exist.". Since, no evidence has brought on record to believe that the consideration did not exist or it's non- existence was so probable that prudent man shall act upon the plea that it did not exist, it can invariably hold that Ext.A.1 was supported by consideration. Accordingly, this issue is answered in Affirmative.
16
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
13.Issue No.3:-
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant as prayed for? In view of the finding under Additional Issue No. 1 and Issue No.2, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered in Affirmative.
14.Issue No.4:-
4. To what relief? In view of the finding under Additional Issue No. 1 and Issue Nos.2 and 3, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree. Accordingly, this issue is answered in Affirmative.
In the result the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant.
The plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount of Rs.,24,25,900 (Rupees Twenty
Four Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand and Nine Hundred only)the plaintiff is also entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit to till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum till the realization on the principal sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- (Rupees
Seventeen Lakhs only).
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, prints are taken by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 22 nd day of August, 2025.
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Tanuku.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiff :
P.W.1 : 20.09.2023, 05.03.2024: Sri Mopidevi Ganeshwara Rao ;
P.W.2 : 19.06.2024:Sri Barre Srinivas.
17
O.S.No.29/2021
CJ (SD),TNK
For Defendant :
D.W.1 : 16.10.2024: Sri.Kalluri Anjaneyulu;
D.W.2 : 10.01.2025: Sri.Nandamuri Venkateswara Rao.
Documentary Evidence
For Plaintiff :
Ex A1/dt. 20.09.2023: Original Promissory note dated 08.03.2019 executed by the defendant/Sri Kalluri An- janeyulu in favour of plaintiff/Sri Mopidevi Ganeshwara Rao ;
Ex A2/dt. 20.09.2023: Office copy of legal notice dated 12.7.2021 along with relevant postal receipt.
Ex A3/dt. 20.09.2023: Postal tracking consignment confirming the delivery of original of Ex.A2.
Ex A4/dt. 20.09.2023: The extract of sale deed bearing No.2579 of 2000 dated 1.7.2000.
Ex A5/dt. 05.03.2024: The extract of sale deed dated 30.9.2019 ex- ecuted by the plaintiff/Sri Mopidevi Ganesh- wara Rao in favour of Velumuri Infra Builders and Developers, Rajamahendravaram vide Doc. Bearing No.8634/2019.
Ex A6/dt. 05.03.2024: The extract of sale deed dated 30.9.2019 ex- ecuted by the plaintiff/ Sri Mopidevi Ganesh- wara Rao in favour of Velumuri Infra Builders and Developers, Rajamahendravaram vide Doc.Bearing No.8633/2019.
Ex A7/dt. 05.03.2024: Account Statement of plaintiff/Sri Mopidevi Ganeswara Rao for the period 1.4.2019 to 31.3.2020 (marked subject to proof admissibil- ity and relevancy).
For Defendant : : Nil.
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Tanuku.