Smt.K.Latha

O.S.No.98/2020 1 JCJ., Court, Nandalur

Dated:18/04/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NANDALUR

Present : Smt.K.Latha,

Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur

Thursday, this the 18th day of April, 2024.

O.S.No.98/2020

Singam Adi Narayana Reddy, S/o S.Subba Reddy, aged 57 years, cultivation,

Pullampet post Pullampet Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

....Plaintiff.

Vs.

Akepati Subramanyam Reddy, S/o Subbi Rami Reddy, aged 45 years, business,

R/o Nunevaripalli village, Sangaraju apartment, Rajampet town and Mandal, YSR

Kadapa District.

...Defendant.

This suit is coming on 12.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. O.V.krishna Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri

D.Narasimhulu, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,36,580/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs thirty six thousands five hundred and eighty only) against the defendant with interest at 24% p.a from the date of suit till realization and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of plaint are that :

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.07.2014 and he executed suit “A” promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant paid part payment of Rs.2,000/- on 24.07.2017 and Rs.4,98,000/- on 26.08.2017 and the same was endorsed on the back side of suit A promissory note.

O.S.No.98/2020 2 JCJ., Court, Nandalur

Dated:18/04/2024

Again the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.07.2014 and he executed suit “B” promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant paid part payment of Rs.2,000/- on 24.07.2017 and Rs.4,98,000/- on 26.08.2017 and the same was endorsed on the back side of suit B pronote.

Except the above said part payments the defendant failed to discharge the suit debt. Hence the suit 3. On the other hand, the defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and submitted that, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10 lakhs from plaintiff on 30.07.2014 and executed two separate promissory notes each Rs.5 lakhs in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with 24% pa., on 24.07.2017 the defendant paid an amount of Rs.2000/- to each promissory note as part payment and endorsed the same on the back side of A & B promissory notes. On 26.08.2017 the defendant paid an amount of

Rs.4,98,000/- to the plaintiff towards A and B promissory notes and endorsed the same on the back side of A & B promissory notes. On the repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant agreed to pay the balance amount on 30.07.2020 and on the said date the plaintiff came to the house of defendant at

Rajampet and calculated the interest up to 30.07.2020 and directed the defendant to pay the balance amount of Rs.7,36,688/- under A and B promissory notes. Immediately the defendant paid an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the plaintiff on 30.07.2020 under A and B promissory notes and also agreed to pay balance amount of Rs.36,688/- within a week. The plaintiff received Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff and promised that he will return A and B promissory notes within two days as they are in the custody in his wife and she is away from the house for two days. On demand made by the defendant the plaintiff agreed and issued receipt for Rs.7,00,000/- which was received by the plaintiff from the defendant and on instructions of plaintiff the payment receipt was prepared and plaintiff signed and issued the receipt for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- before the elders/attestors. Later the plaintiff failed to return the A and B promissory notes

O.S.No.98/2020 3 JCJ., Court, Nandalur

Dated:18/04/2024

and demanded interest 48% pa. The defendant also issued legal notice to the plaintiff on 09.11.2020 for return of A & B promissory notes and to pay balance amount of Rs.36,688/-. The same was received by the plaintiff on 17.11.2020 and issued reply notice on 19.11.2020 with false allegations. The defendant again issued reply notice on 23.11.2020 and the same was received by his counsel on 27.11.2020. even now the defendant is ready to pay balance amount of

Rs.36,688/-. Hence he prays the court to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues are settled for trial:

1) Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the defendant has discharged the suit amounts?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim?

4) To what relief?

5. During the trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. On the other hand, the defendant himself filed his evidence affidavit and examined as DW.1. One Thamba Subramanyam who is scribe of

Ex.B1 is examined as D.W2. One Rampa Sunil Kumar reddy who is attester of

Ex.B1 is examined as D.W3 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 are marked.

6.Heardarguments on both sides.

7.Issues No.1 & 2:

To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW- 1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6.

8. PW.1/S.Adinarayana Reddy, who is plaintiff being PW1 filed his chief evidence affidavit mostly reiterating the contents of the plaint. Where in cross examination PW.1 admitted that, he knew the contents of his chief evidence affidavit and written statement filed by the defendant. P.W1 did not specifically denied the contents of written statement in his chief evidence affidavit. The

O.S.No.98/2020 4 JCJ., Court, Nandalur

Dated:18/04/2024

defendant has to pay the balance amount of Rs.7,36,688/- after deducting part payments in total promissory notes amounts along with interest. The defendant issued notice on 9.11.2020 and PW.1 also issued reply notice for the said notice through his counsel on 19.11.2020. P.W1 further admitted that the defendant also again issued reply notice for reply notice dated 23.11.2020. PW.1 voluntarily said that when the suit was pending the defendant issued notice. PW.1 did not issue any legal notice to the defendant prior to filing of this suit.

9. The gist of evidence of defendant and his witnesses:

DW.1/Akepati Subramanyam Reddy who is defendant filed his chief evidence affidavit being DW.1 mostly by reiterating the contents of written statement, where in cross examination DW.1 stated that he borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.07.2014 for the purpose of building contract. He sustained loss in the said contract. The plaintiff doing finance business, the plaintiff did not issue any notice to DW.1 for payment of balance of suit promissory notes amounts. DW1 further stated that, the plaintiff did not brought the promissory notes for which even though he demanded for return of promissory notes he issued only cash receipt. He do not know when the plaintiff filed the present suit and he do not know whether the plaintiff filed the present suit on 02.11.2020 or not.

10.D.W2/T.Subramanyam who is scribe of Ex.B1 deposed on same lines as deposed by D.W.1.wherein cross examination D.W.2 stated that he know the contents of his chief evidence affidavit and he do not know the averments of the plaint, he has no prior acquaintance with the plaintiff. He has acquaintance with the defendant. D.W2 knows Rampa Sunil Kumar Reddy who is attester of Ex.B1 since 4 or 5 years. He know that, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10 lakhs from plaintiff for the purpose of building works. The defendant residing at

Sangaraju Apartments. DW2 went to the house of defendant in between 10.30

Am to 11.00 AM and after 1 hour he scribed Ex.B1. D.W2 further stated that, he know about Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 suit promissory notes. An amount of Rs.5 lakhs under Ex.A1. He know the suit amounts under Ex.A1 and Ex.A4. After discharging the amount of Rs.7 lakhs the defendant asked the plaintiff for return

O.S.No.98/2020 5 JCJ., Court, Nandalur

Dated:18/04/2024

of promissory notes and the plaintiff stated that, he did not brought the same and he will give later, and defendant did not pay the balance amount to the plaintiff.

DW2 further stated that, DW2 do not know about the Ex.B2 Legal notice dated 09.11.2020 issued by the defendant’s counsel to the plaintiff.

11.D.W3/Rampa Sunil Kumar Reddy who is attester of Ex.B1 deposed that, he is attester of Ex.B1 receipt and also deposed in same lines as deposed by

DW2. Where in cross examination DW3 stated that, he is doing contract work at

Bangalore since 5 years. Sangaraju Apartment is situated in the road situated towards house of Amarnath Reddy, Z.P Chairman. DW3 went to Sangaraju

Apartment at about 1.00 PM and he stayed at 1.45 PM. His brother’s house also situated near to house of Amarnath Reddy. He has acquaintance with the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.7 lakhs to the plaintiff in his presence and he do not know whether the plaintiff doing finance business at

Pullampet. DW3 further stated that, he do not know whether the defendant issued legal notice to the plaintiff under Ex.B2 or not during the pendency of the present suit i.e., on 09.11.2020 by stating that, he discharged the entire debt amount to the plaintiff. He do not know about Ex.B4 acknowledgment. DW3 further stated that, he do not know whether the defendant issued legal notice to the plaintiff before filling suit by demanding for return of pro-notes under Ex.A1,

Ex.A4.

12. Documentary evidence on behalf of the plaintiff:

On perusal of entire record Ex.A.1 is Original suit “A” promissory note

dated 30.7.2014 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2 is Part payment endorsement of Rs.2,000/- dated 24.7.2017 endorsed on the back side of original A promissory note. Ex.A.3 is Part payment endorsement of Rs.4,98,000/- dated 26.8.2017 endorsed on the back side of original A promissory note. Ex.A4 is Original suit “B” promissory note dated 30.7.2014 for

Rs.5,00,000/- executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff. Ex.A5 is Part payment endorsement of Rs.2,000/- dated 24.7.2017 endorsed on the back side of original

B promissory note. Ex.A.6 is Part payment endorsement of Rs.4,98,000/- dated 26.8.2017 endorsed on the back side of original B promissory note.

O.S.No.98/2020 6 JCJ., Court, Nandalur

Dated:18/04/2024

13. Documentary evidence on behalf of the defendant:

Ex.B.1 is Cash receipt of Rs.7,00,000/- dated 30.7.2020 issued by the plaintiff in favour of defendant. Ex.B.2 is Legal notice dated 9.11.2020 issued by the defendant’s counsel to the plaintiff. Ex.B.3 is Postal receipt dated 13.11.2020,

Ex.B.4 is Postal acknowledgment dated 17.11.2020, Ex.B.5 is Reply notice issued by the learned counsel for plaintiff to the defendant counsel dated 19.11.2020. Ex.B.6 is Reply notice issued by the defendant’s counsel to the plaintiff’s counsel dated 23.11.2020. Ex.B.7 is Postal receipt dated 24.11.2020 and Ex.B.8 is Postal acknowledgment dated 27.11.2020.

DISCUSSION:

14.The contention of defendant that on 30.7.2020 the plaintiff went to house of defendant at Rajampet and the defendant paid Rs.7,00,000/- out of Rs.7,36,688/- and the plaintiff also issued receipt by putting his signature on it in the presence of witnesses and scribe and he deposed false. The defendant demanded for return of promissory notes as he discharged the amount, but he did not return the same and stated that he will give later and stated that the defendant has to pay only balance amount of Rs.36,638/- only. Even though the defendant discharged the entire debt amount except Rs.36,638/- he filed false suit for his illegal monitory benefit and this suit is not maintainable.

15.During cross examination D.W.1 admitted that, he did not issue any notice to the plaintiff as he is ready to pay the balance amount to the plaintiff. D.W1 further admitted that he mentioned in his chief evidence affidavit that, he is an agricultural coolie. D.W1 voluntarily stated that, he is taking the agricultural land for lease and doing cultivation. D.W1 did not mention the names of attester either in his chief evidence affidavit or in his written statement. D.W1 did not issue any legal notice to the plaintiff for return of promissory notes. DW.1 issued legal notice with acknowledgment due on 09.11.2020 to the plaintiff by demanding the return of promissory notes. D.W1 received signed acknowledgment with date from plaintiff. DW.1 further admitted that the plaintiff issued reply notice to the notice sent by him on 19.11.2020 under Ex.B5. DW.1 issued reply notice to the reply

O.S.No.98/2020 7 JCJ., Court, Nandalur

Dated:18/04/2024

notice issued by the plaintiff for Ex.B5 and after issuing the reply notice he filed the written statement before the Court.

During cross examination D.W2 admitted that he know the defendant sustained huge loss in the said building works. D.W2 further admitted that before filling of this suit the defendant did not issue any notice to the plaintiff for return of promissory notes.

16.The contention of plaintiff that he never went to the house of defendant and the defendant never paid an amount of Rs.7 lakhs to the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not issue any receipt for said amount and DW.1 deposed false. The plaintiff never asked DW.1 to pay balance amount of Rs.36,688/- and to take back the promissory notes and DW.1 deposed false. The contents mentioned in Ex.B6 i.e., “ he has no knowledge about filling of the present suit” is false and he has knowledge about the suit. The further contention of plaintiff that D.W1 forged the signature of the plaintiff on basis of acknowledgment with old date and created

Ex.B1 and the plaintiff never issued Ex.B1 and he deposed false. D.W1 is confronted Vakalat and Ex.B1. The further contention of plaintiff that the signature of plaintiff in Vakalat and in Ex.B1 are not one and the same and DW.1 forged the signature of plaintiff and created the Ex.B1 to escape suit liability. The plaintiff never came to his house and he never paid the Ex.B1 amount and he have no financial capacity to pay Rs.7 lakhs as he is an agricultural coolie and he deposed false. In view of influence of his relative MLA he used to borrowed amount from the persons and DW.1 did not repay the said amount to the persons. The further contention of plaintiff that, D.W1 borrowed amounts from his own brothers and evade the amounts to them and he did not repay amounts to them and he deposed false. The plaintiff never demanded 48% interest per annum and the promissory notes are not in custody of wife of plaintiff and the said promissory notes was kept at office of plaintiff and as he forged the Ex.B1 and the suit is not maintainable.

The further contention of plaintiff that, the plaintiff never came to the house of defendant and the defendant never paid any amount of Rs.7 lakhs to discharge the debt and he never issued any receipt to that effect under Ex.B1 and DW2 deposed false to help the defendant. The defendant forged the signature of the

O.S.No.98/2020 8 JCJ., Court, Nandalur

Dated:18/04/2024

plaintiff under Ex.B1 receipt by seeing the signature of plaintiff containing in Ex.B4 postal acknowledgment by putting old date. D.W.2 was confronted Ex.B1 and

Ex.B4. The signature of plaintiff on Ex.B4 and the alleged signature of plaintiff in

Ex.B1 are not one and the same there is difference. The further contention of plaintiff that, on 30.07.2020 the defendant never paid Rs.7 lakhs to the plaintiff and he never put his signature in Ex.B1 and it is a forged one and he deposed false. The defendant has no financial capacity to pay Rs.7 lakhs as part payment under Ex.B1 as he sustained huge loss in his business and to escape his liability the defendant created Ex.B1 by forging the signature of the plaintiff. D.W2 voluntarily said that, he sold away his house and paid Rs.7 lakhs to the plaintiff.

The further contention of plaintiff that, the defendant issued 2 notices to the plaintiff after filing of this suit and later he filed written statement before the court and he deposed false. The plaintiff is entitled for decree and DW2 intentionally deposed false for the purpose of this suit.

The further contention of plaintiff that, the defendant never paid an amount of Rs.7 lakhs to the plaintiff and DW3 deposed false. As the defendant is doing coolie work and he has no finance capacity to discharge the balance of amount of two pro-notes to the plaintiff. D.W.3 never went to the house of defendant and the defendant never discharged the balance amount to the plaintiff and D.W3, plaintiff and scribe of Ex.B1 created the document under Ex.B1. The further contention of plaintiff that, D.W3, defendant and scribe forged the signature of the plaintiff by seeing the acknowledgment under Ex.B4 and created Ex.B1 payment receipt

dated 30.07.2020. D.W3 is confronted Ex.B1 and Ex.B4. The alleged signature of

plaintiff on Ex.B1 and Ex.B4 are different and not one and the same and the plaintiff never put his signature under Ex.B1. On 30.07.2020 the plaintiff never visited the house of defendant and the defendant never discharged the amount of

Rs.7 lakhs to the plaintiff and the plaintiff never issued Ex.B1 to the defendant in his presence and DW3 deposed false.

17.On perusal of entire record execution of promissory notes are admitted and part payments was also admitted by the defendant. The defendant took a plea of discharge. The burden lies on the defendant to prove his plea. In order to prove his contentions the defendant adduced evidence of DW1 to DW3 coupled with the

O.S.No.98/2020 9 JCJ., Court, Nandalur

Dated:18/04/2024

documentary evidence under Ex.B1 to Ex.B8. DW2 and DW3 i.e., the attester and scribe supported the version of DW1 in all aspects. The plaintiff simply denied the receipt under Ex.B1 and it cannot be consider. Even the plaintiff cross examined the DW1 to DW3 in length through his counsel, but he did not elicit anything against defendant and nothing is elicited to discredit their testimony in connection with receipt under Ex.B1.

18.When oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence strong enough to primafacio acts of version of defendant, the burden again shifted to the plaintiff. The burden to prove that, the plaintiff did not execute the receipt is on the plaintiff but the plaintiff failed to prove his burden.

19.Let us see what is done by the plaintiff. Except denying suggestions and except denying the execution of Ex.B1 he did not made any effort to establish that, he did not put his signature on Ex.B1 receipt and the signature does not belongs to him. The plaintiff simply took a plea that, the defendant forged his signature on Ex.B1 by seeing the signature under Ex.B4 postal acknowledgment.

What prevented him to send the document for expert for comparison of his signature on Ex.B1. The defendant did not take any steps either by filling petition or by adducing cogent evidence to prove his contentions. Therefore the plaintiff failed to discharge his burden and also failed to prove that, the signature on

Ex.B1 receipt is not belongs to him and it is a forged one. Hence the court has to accept the version of defendant which is nearer to the truth. The defendant proved by adducing cogent evidence he discharged the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- under Ex.B1/receipt to the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled only the balance amount of Rs.36,580/-. Accordingly the issue no.1 to 3 are answered in favour of defendant.

ISSUE NO.3:

20. In view of the findings on Issues No.1 to 3, since the defendant admitted his liability of Rs.36,580/- the suit is partly decreed.

21. In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against defendant for an amount of Rs.36,580/- (Rupees Thirty Six thousand, Five hundred and eighty only) with subsequent interest @ 12 % p.a., from the date of

O.S.No.98/2020 10 JCJ., Court, Nandalur

Dated:18/04/2024

suit, till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.36,580/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on laptop corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- K.Latha,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDALUR.

// Appendix of Evidence //

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :- For Defendant :-

P.W.1 : S.Adinarayana Reddy DW.1: A.Subramanyam Reddy

D.W.2.Thamba Subramanyam

D.W.3: Rampa Sunil Kumar Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff :-

Ex.A.1 :Original suit “A” promissory note dated 30.07.2014 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2: Part payment endorsement of Rs.2,000/- dated 24.07.2017 endorsed on the back side of original A promissory note.

Ex.A.3: Part payment endorsement of Rs.4,98,000/- dated 26.08.2017 endorsed on the back side of original A promissory note.

Ex.A4: Original suit “B” promissory note dated 30.07.2014 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff.

Ex.A5: Part payment endorsement of Rs.2,000/- dated 24.07.2017 endorsed on the back side of original B promissory note.

O.S.No.98/2020 11 JCJ., Court, Nandalur

Dated:18/04/2024

Ex.A.6: Part payment endorsement of Rs.4,98,000/- dated 26.08.2017 endorsed on the back side of original B promissory note.

For Defendant : -

Ex.B1: Cash receipt of Rs.7,00,000/- dated 30.7.2020 issued by the plaintiff in favour of defendant.

Ex.B.2: Legal notice dated 9.11.2020 issued by the defendant counsel to the plaintiff.

Ex.B.3: Postal receipt dated 13.11.2020,

Ex.B.4: Postal acknowledgment dated 17.11.2020,

Ex.B.5: Reply notice issued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to the defendant’s counsel dated 19.11.2020.

Ex.B.6: Reply notice issued by the defendant’s counsel to the plaintiff’s counsel

dated 23.11.2020.

Ex.B.7: Postal receipt dated 24.11.2020

Ex.B.8: Postal acknowledgment dated 27.11.2020.

Sd/- K.Latha,

J.C.J.Nandalur.

// True Copy //

Junior Civil Judge,

Nandalur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NANDALUR

Present : Smt.K.Latha,

Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur.

Thursday, this the 18th day of April, 2024.

O.S.No. 101/2023

Narapusetty Sarawathi W/o Balaram @ Balaramaiah, aged 30 years

Hindu, house wife, resident of Pettagadda street, Nandalur village

Nandaluru Mandal, Annamayya District...Plaintiff.

Vs.

Narapusetty Venkata Ramana S/o Venkata Subbaiah, aged 40 years

Hindu,business, resident of Pettagadda street, Nandalur village

Nandaluru Mandal, Annamayya District....Defendant.

This suit is coming on 12.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. D.Narasimhulu, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri

A.V.Subramanyam, advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,57,800/- (Rupees Two Lakhs, Fifty seven thousand, eight hundred only) against the defendant with interest at 24% p.a from the date of suit till realization and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of plaint are that :

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from one Narapusetty

Balaram @ Balaramaiah on 25.08.2020 and he executed suit promissory note in his favour by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Inspite of 2 repeated demands made by Narapusetty Balaram @ Balaramaiah the defendant failed to discharge the suit debt and used to postpone the same on some pretext or other. Later the said Narapusetty Balaram transferred the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff who is his wife on 25.08.2020 and empowering to collect the promissory note amount with interest from defendant. The said Narapusetty

Balaram @ Balaramaiah made transfer endorsement on the back of the suit promissory note on 18.03.2023 by virtue of transfer endorsement and as such the plaintiff became a holder in due course. Hence the suit.

3. On the other hand, the defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further submitted that, the said N. Balaram @

Balaramaiah is none other than the brother of this defendant and the said

N.Balaram has purchased the mango garden of this defendant in the year 2000 for Rs.3,00,000/- and paid Rs.1,50000/- to this defendant as an advance and after that due to covid-19 there was no business as such the said Balaram failed to pay the amount and demanded this defendant to repay the said advance amount as there is no business. But this defendant refused to repay the advance amount. After that there were disputes arose in between the said Balaram and this defendant, due to that disputes and only to get wrongful gain the said

Balaram created suit promissory note by forging the signature of defendant. So the suit promissory note is a forged one. There are disputes in between the father of this defendant and his brothers in respect of partition of properties. The transfer endorsement made on the back side of suit promissory note is fabricated one and not in accordance with the original promissory note date. Hence the suit is not maintainable under law. The defendant is not living by doing business and on the other hand this defendant is living by doing agriculture, and this defendant is a small farmer. Hence the interest claimed at the at of 24% p,a is not maintainable under law. This defendant is a small farmer even if the suit debt is true the suit debt is deemed to have been discharged as per the Act 7/1987. Since the suit promissory note itself is a forged one and the aid N.Balaram cannot transfer the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot became a holder in due course. Hence the suit is not maintainable under law and this defendant is 3 not aware of issuing legal notice to this defendant and the plaintiff has managed the postal authorities and got it false endorsement. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues are settled for trial:

1) Whether the suitpromissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim ?

3) Whether the signature of defendant on suit promissory note is a forged one ?

4) Whether the contents of promissory note was written by defendant ?

5) Whether the transfer endorsement dated 18.03.2023 on the back side of promissory note is valid, genuine and binding on the defendant?

6) To what relief ?

5. During the trial, the plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. One N.Vasu is examined as P.W.2. On behalf of defendant, the defendant himself examined as D.W1 and no documents are marked.

6.Heardarguments on both sides.

7.Issues No.1 & 2:

To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff who is holder in due course, she herself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.

8. P.W1/N.Saraswathi who is holder in due course, filed her chief evidence affidavit being PW1 mostly reiterating the contents of the plaint. Where in cross examination PW.1 admitted that, the defendant is elder brother of her husband and her father-in-law is having four sons. P.W1 further admitted that, her father-in- law and her sons not having talks due to property disputes. The date of promissory note was mentioned in Ex.A2 transfer endorsement and in Ex.A2 the 4 date of promissory note was mentioned as on 25.08.2025. P.W1 voluntarily stated that, her husband said that, it is mentioned by mistake.

During cross examination P.W1 stated that, she do not know about partition of property in between her father-in-law and his sons. Ex.A2 was scribed at her house at evening hours. P.W2 is her brother in law. P.W1 further stated that, at about 1 year back her husband went to Kuwait i.e., on 27.03.2023. The defendant brought the promissory note which is already scribed on the said date and she was also present along with her husband. The defendant informed her and her husband that, he himself scribed the promissory note. The defendant put his signature in their presence and at the time herself and her husband were present.

The defendant handed over the promissory note in her house. The defendant is residing in their opposite house in their street. Ex.A1 is executed by defendant on 25.08.2020. P.W1 further stated that, her husband transferred the Ex.A1 in her name on 18.03.2023. Her husband brought one person and he scribed the transfer endorsement and she do not know his name. She do not know whether his name was mentioned in Ex.A2 or not as she do not know English language.

She know the contents of transferred endorsement. One revenue stamp was affixed in Ex.A1 promissory note. At present her husband is working at Kuwait.

The defendant is living by doing cultivation. She do not know whether the defendant received legal notice or not.

9.P.W2/ M.Vasu who is attester of Ex.A2 filed his chief evidence being P.W2 by reiterating the evidence of P.W.1, where in cross examination P.W2 stated that, the defendant is his elder brother. At the time of execution of Ex.A1 he was also present and he saw the borrowing amount by defendant from plaintiff. Ex.A1 was scribed in the house of PW1 at about 10.00 AM. In his presence the defendant borrowed amount from plaintiff and put his signature on Ex.A1 and scribed the same and went away. The defendant himself brought the Ex.A1 promissory note and also revenue stamp. In his presence the defendant filled the

Ex.A1 promissory note with his own hand writing. At the time of Ex.A1 he along with PW1, defendant and his brother Bala Ramaiah were present. The date of

Ex.A2 is 18.03.2023. At about 10 years back they all brothers partitioned the 5 property. Ex.A2 was scribed in morning hours in the shop of PW1. The said shop is situated at Aravapalli road, near bus stand. The promissory note was transferred in the name of PW1 by his brother and he put his signature and he did not go through the contents. One third person scribed Ex.A2 brought by his brother.

10. During cross examination P.W2 admitted that, he did not put his signature as witness under Ex.A1. P.W2 and the defendant has no talks. Since 5 or 6 years he has no talks with defendant. P.W2 voluntarily stated that, now and then he will talk with his brother i.e., defendant and there is no any serious disputes in between them.

The gist of evidence of defendant :

11.D.W1/Narapusetty Venkata Ramana who is defendant filed his chief evidence affidavit being DW.1 mostly by reiterating the contents of written statement, where in cross examinationD.W1 admitted that, the plaintiff is wife of his own younger brother and from the date of his marriage he is residing separate family and his parents are alive. D.W1 admitted that, he did not state in his written statement and in his chief evidence affidavit that, his brother Balaramaiah purchased mango usufruct from him in the year, 2000 for Rs.3 lakhs and paid

Rs.1.5 lakhs to him as advance.

During cross examination D.W1 stated that, he is doing vegetable business. At present he is residing at Nandalur in his father’s house. D.W1 used to put his signature in Telugu and also English languages. D.W1 is confronted

Written Statement, Vakalat and his chief evidence affidavit and he admitted his signatures found in English language on them. D.W1 is confronted Ex.A1 promissory note and he denied his signature found in Telugu language. D.W1 do not know whether Balaramaiah executed transfer of promissory note in favour of his wife or not.

12. Documentary evidence on behalf of the plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is Original Suit promissory note dated.25.08.2020 for Rs.1,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Narapusetty Balaram @ Balaramiah who 6 is husband of Pw.1. Ex.A2 is Transfer Endorsement executed by the Narapusetty

Balaram @ Balaramiah in favour of plaintiff on 18.03.2023 for Ex.A1 Promissory note. Ex.A3 is Office copy of legal notice issued to the defendant by the learned counsel for plaintiff dated.17.08.2023 along with Postal Receipt.

13. Documentary evidence on behalf of the defendant:

No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defendant.

DISCUSSION:

14.The contention of defendant that, as the defendant is doing cultivation and she is not entitled to demand the interest @ 24% p.a. P.W1 voluntarily said that, the defendant also doing kirana shop business and also vegetable business. The defendant never received legal notice and the postal receipt is not belongs to the said post and she filed false suit against the defendant and she deposed false.

15. The contention of plaintiff that, his parents gave the house situated at

Lebaka village and he sold away the same. The parents of D.W1 gave agricultural land for an extent of Ac 2.50 cents at Lebaka village and he beat to his parents indiscriminately for want of properties and his parents also filed criminal case against him at Nandalur PS. For want of properties, D.W1 tried to kill his parents and his parents are leading pathetic life due to fear of D.W1 and he used to harassed them by demanding properties. D.W1 also running kirana shop and he is doing business, he is liable to pay @ 24% interest per annum. The further contention of plaintiff that D.W1 himself scribed Ex.A1 promissory note and he put his signature in Telugu language with a view to mislead the court and he intentionally put his signature in Telugu language on Ex.A1 promissory note. D.W1 intentionally put his signature in English language in Vakalat, Written statement and his chief evidence affidavit. The further contention of plaintiff that, on 25.08.2020 D.W1 borrowed an amount of Rs1.5 lakhs from Balaramaiah who is husband of plaintiff and he executed suit promissory note in favour of

N.Balaramaiah with his own hand writing and he deposed false with intent to escape suit liability. The further contention of plaintiff that he also issued notice to

D.W1 and he managed the postal authorities and returned the notice and he know 7 about transfer of promissory note by his brother and he intentionally deposed false. D.W1 himself executed and also scribed promissory note under EX.A1 and he intentionally deposed false by denying the suit liability and his evidence is not maintainable. The further contention of plaintiff that, D.W1 intentionally put his signature in Telugu language on Ex.A1 with intent to escape suit liability and he deposed false. At the time of execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 his younger brother

Vasu was present and witnessed the same and also attested in transfer endorsement and as they are own brothers the said Balaramaiah did not obtain the attesters signatures on Ex.A1 and D.W1 is liable to pay the suit amount.

The learned counsel for defendant relied on the judgment reported in

2002 Suppl. (2) ALD 5. The same is not applicable to the present case.

16.The execution of a document is different from signing a document. The execution of document means signing a document written out read over and understood and doesn’t consist of merely signing a blank paper. The presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act cannot be extended unless execution of instrument is either admitted or proved. Once, the execution is denied, it is for the person, who makes the claim on the instrument, to prove it. In case of the plea of forgery, how the court has to appreciate the evidence on record was already decided by the number of pronouncements. If the defendant denies the execution of the document and pleads forgery, it is sufficient to adduce the evidence that the defendant signed the document and it is not necessary to show that the party who signed the document knew the contents of the document. When the defendant denied the execution and passing of the consideration under the hundi, the plaintiff has to prove only the execution of the document. When once the plaintiff proves the execution, the presumption under Section 118-A of N.I. Act comes into operation and then the burden of proving no consideration would be shifted to the defendant and he has to prove the same.

17. The contention of defendant is that, the brother-in-law of P.W1 by name

Vasu and the defendant are having property disputes and she deposed false. On 27.03.2023 her husband did not went to Kuwait and prior to 18.03.2023 he went to Kuwait and he never transferred the Ex.A1 promissory note in her favour and 8 he never put his signature on Ex.A2 and she deposed false. The further contention of defendant that, P.W2, the defendant and other brothers are having property disputes with regard to partition. At the time of Ex.A2 P.W2 and his brother never present and P.W2 deposed false. P.W2 never put his signature on

Ex.A2 on the said date and later PW1 obtained his signature on Ex.A2 as a witness and filed false suit. P.W2 never present at the time of Ex.A1 and he do not know anything about this case and he deposed false on instructions of his brother.

18.The defendant did not adduce any single peace of document to prove his contentions. Therefore, the defendant cannot disprove the contentions of the plaintiff. The evidence of DW.1 is not sufficient to prove the contention of defendant and to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff. Mere putting suggestions and taking different pleas is not sufficient to prove the case without adducing any documentary evidence.

19. On perusal of entire evidence on record, Let us see what is done by the defendant., ? the defendant took contradictory pleas :-  Firstly the defendant took a plea that, he never executed Ex.A1 and the husband of P.W1 created Ex.A1 promissory note and handed over to her.

Secondly, the defendant took a plea that, P.W1 created Ex.A2 transfer endorsement and also created the signature of Vasu and her husband and filed false suit against the defendant and due to mangoes disputes in between them, she created Ex.A1 promissory note and also created Ex.A2 transferred endorsement and filed false suit. But the defendant did not take any steps to prove his contentions.

Thirdly the defendant took a plea that, as he is an agriculturist and small farmer and he is not liable to pay debt amount and it is deemed to be discharged as per the Act 7 of 1987.

Lastly, the defendant took a plea that, as he did not execute the Ex.A1 promissory note and her husband has no right to transfer the same in her name 9 under Ex.A2. But the defendant failed to prove his contentions by adducing cogent evidence.

20. The pleas taken by the defendant itself quite contradictory. The defendant did not adduce any corroborative and cogent evidence. The evidence of DW1 and pleas taken by him, do not inspire confidence, and it creates cloud on defendant’s case. The defendant did not adduce any single piece of document

before the court and he did not take any steps to prove his contentions.

21 . The positive evidence let in by PW1 & 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A3 are sufficient to assume prima facie execution and drawing of presumption under

Sec.118 (a) NI Act. Once presumption is drawn, the court may presume that,

Ex.A1 is supported by consideration and defendant borrowed the amount from plaintiff and he executed promissory note. Then, the onus to prove that Ex.A1 is promissory note will shift to the shoulders of defendant. But the defendant failed to discharge the onus on him. The transfer endorsement under Ex.A2 is valid and genuine. Mere mentioning the wrong date i.e. year 2025 in Ex.A2 is not shaken the evidence of P.W1 and P.W2 already P.W1 deposed that it is mistakenly mentioned.

22.When the evidence of PW1 & 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, the plaintiff is able to prove the execution of Ex.A1 and her husband made transfer endorsement in her favour and she is holder in due course.The plaintiff proved the consideration was passed under suit promissory note and signature on Ex.A1 belongs to the defendant and PW.2 also corroborated the evidence of PW.1 that, the husband of plaintiff made transfer endorsement in favour of plaintiff under

Ex.A2 in his presence and he is attestor of Ex.A2. The defendant failed to prove that, the signature on Ex.A1 is not belongs to him and the contents of promissory note was not written by him.

23.The defendant nothing material could be elicited from the cross examination to disbelieve their version and discredit their version which is supported by the promissory note.

10

24.In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the plaintiff established that the defendant executed Ex.A1, promissory note having borrowed the money there under from husband of P.W1. Further the defendant failed to prove he is an agriculturist. Accordingly the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount along with costs as prayed for.

25.As far as the interest aspect is concerned, the plaintiff has claimed it at the rate of 24% per annum. Since the suit debt is an unsecured, and as the same was borrowed for his family necessities, and the claim of interest at the rate of 24% per annum is reasonable and it is not either usurious or exorbitant and therefore, the same can be allowed without there being any hesitation.

Therefore the plaintiff is entitled the suit amount, therefore this issue no 1 to 5 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.6:

26. In view of the findings on Issues No.1 to 5 above the plaintiff is entitled for a decree with costs as prayed for.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against defendant for an amount of Rs.2,57,800/- (Rupees Two Lakhs, fifty seven thousand and eight hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 12 % p.a., from the date of suit, till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- .

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on laptop corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- K.Latha,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDALUR.

11

// Appendix of Evidence //

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :- For Defendant :-Nil

P.W.1 : Narapusetty Saraswathi.D.W.1. N.Venkata Ramana

P.W.2: N.Vasu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff :- For Defendant : - Nil

Ex.A1: Original Suit promissory note dated.25.08.2020 for Rs.1,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Narapusetty Balaram @

Balaramiah who is husband of Pw.1.

Ex.A2: Transfer Endorsement executed by the Narapusetty Balaram @

Balaramiah in favour of plaintiff on 18.03.2023 for Ex.A1 Promissory note.

Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice issued to the defendant by the learned counsel for plaintiff dated.17.08.2023 along with Postal Receipt.

Sd/- K.Latha,

J.C.J/NDL.

// True Copy //

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDALUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NANDALUR

Present: Smt. K.Latha, Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur

Wednesday, this the 24th day of April, 2024.

O.S.No. 11 /201 6

Boggala Venkata Subba Reddy @ Pedda Venkata Subba Reddy

S/o Papi Reddy, aged about 60 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Pullareddipalli village h/o Ananthasamudram,

Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District …. Plaintiff.

Vs.

1 Boggala Nadipi venkata Subba Reddy s/o Papi Reddy,aged 38 years, Hindu, cultivation 2 Polimera Pulla Reddy s/o Subba Reeddy, aged 45 years,

Hindu, cultivation 3 Chowduri Siva Sankar Reddy s/o Malla Reddy, aged 30 years, Hindu, cultivation 4 Chowduri Madhavi w/o Siva Sankar Reddy, aged 26 years,

Hindu, house wife

All are residing at Pullareddipalli village H/o

Ananthasamduram Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District … Defendants.

This suit is coming on 22.02.2024, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri O.V.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri P.Vallabha

Rao, Advocate for the Defendant, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2 2.The brief averements of the plaint are as follows:

The 1st defendant is the younger brother of the plaintiff. Other defendants are distant relatives of plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff is a poor and landless person. The Government after detailed enquiry as per the Government scheme the then Mandal Revenue officer, Pullampet issued DKT patta No. 7/96,

dated 10.9.1986 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.

Since then the plaintiff and his family members within their manual labour removed the throney bushes, small plants and made it fit for cultivation. The plaintiff dug a bore well and obtained electricity service connection bearing

S.C.No. 431 and irrigating various crops in the suit schedule property. Thus the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of same with absolute rights.

The revenue authorities after enquiry issued pattadar pass book title deed,1-B namuna and No.3. adangal in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. Recently the revenue authorities affixed stickers and

Rajamudra ( round seal) on the pass book of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also obtained agricultural loan from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Vathalur on depositing of his title deed. All the concerned revenue records and other records clearly shows that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Recently the defendants made illegal efforts to grab the suit schedule property as they are having lands adjacent to the suit schedule property. The defendants have no manner of any right, in the suit schedule property made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. That few days back the defendants highhandedly threatened plaintiff with dire consequences and mad an attempt to dispossesses the plaintiff from suit schedule property.

Therefore the plaintiff is inclined to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner. Hence this suit.

3.On the other hand defendant filed the written statement by denying the contents of the plaint and submitted that, the suit property is joint family property of father of this defendant namely Nadipi Venkata Subba Reddy, plaintiff and defendant No.1. During life time of father of defendant No.4 the plaintiff and 3 defendant No.1 jointly approached the revenue authorities for assignment of land in suit survey number which was already in possession of their ancestors. For the sake of convenience with the consent of other brothers the assignment was made in the name of plaintiff though DKT patta stand in the name of plaintiff. The suit schedule property was was in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiff, father of defendant namely Boggala nadipi Subba reddy and D1. The father of defendant Nadipi Venkata Subba Reddy died about 12 years back leaving behind this defendant as his heir.

After death of her father this defendant being joint owner requested the plaintiff and her other paternal uncle orally and through elders of the village to allot her share in the family properties. On the repeated request of this defendant on 30.4.2012 the plaintiff, defendant and Chinna Venkata Subba reddy entered into the partition deed at the intervention of the elders. In the said partition an extent of Ac.0.61 cents out of an extent of Ac.3.24 cents in suit survey number fell to the share of defendant No.4 and since then defendant No.4 is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of Ac 0.61 cents in suit survey number without any hit or hindrance. The description of document dated 30.4.2012 it is very clear and vigilant that the suit property was not excessively assigned in favour of plaintiff, but it is joint property of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and this defendant. Since the

D4 is in exclusive possession of Ac.0.61 cents which was allotted under unregistered deed dated 30.4.2012 the question of causing inconvenience to the plaintiff’s possession does not arise. Hence they prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Heard both sides.

The learned counsel for plaintiff filed written arguments by reiterating the evidence on record.

5. Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties to the suit, the following issues are settled for trial :

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men and agents from interfering with the 4 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property as prayed for?

3. To what relief ?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff B.Venkata Subba Reddy himself is examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. One C.Pedda Venkata Subba

Reddy examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant No.4

C.Madhavi herself is examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 is marked. Defendant No.1 examined as D.W.2

ISSUES NO 1 & 2:

The G ist of evidence of the Plaintiff and h is witness es as follows:

7.PW1/B.Venkata Subba Reddy who is plaintiff filed his chief evidence affidavit being PW1 mostly reiterating the contents of the plaint. Wherein, in cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that, the father of defendant No.4 by name

Nadipi Venkata Subba Reddy and one Chinna venkata Subba Reddy are own brothers. Nadipi Venkata Subba Reddy is no more. The defendant No.1 is his younger brother. One Boggala Nadipi Venkata Subba Reddy is different person and Gurivi Reddy is different person. PW1 further admitted that, in Ex.A1 it is mentioned that Boggala venkata Subba Reeddy, but not Pedda Venkata Subba

Reddy. PW1 knows about partition deed executed by PW1, defendant No.4 and

Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy. PW1 further admitted that, he and D1 and his younger brother Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy are having ancestral immovable properties and earlier they all brothers i.e. Chinna Venkata Subba reddy, defendant No.1 and himself enjoyed jointly to the said ancestral properties.

PW1 further admitted that, on the date of issuance of DKT patta under Ex.A1,

PW1 is having ancestral immovable properties.

During cross examination PW1 stated that, he cannot say survey number and extent of suit schedule property. He cannot say the place of property situated in Sy.No. 1446/2. At about 30 years back the Government issued DKT patta under Ex.A1 in his favour. He is an illiterate. He do not know in Ex.A2 it is mentioned that, the property is his own but not mentioned in anywhere it is a

DKT and also no where mentioned in Ex.A2 that, it is a Government property. He do not know whether it was mentioned in Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 that, the suit schedule property is a ancestral property but not Government patta. PW1 do not 5 know whether they gave share of Ac 0.61 cents in Sy.No.1446/2 to the defendant no.4 by name Madhavi in the said partition deed or not.

8. P.W2 C.Pedda Venkata Subba Reddy who is third party to the suit filed his chief evidence affidavit being PW2 by reiterating the evidence of PW1 where in cross examination PW2 stated that, he cannot say his agricultural lands survey numbers of suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is situated at

Annasamudram village, he cannot say in whose agains the plaintiff filed the suit.

He cannot say when the plaintiff got dug a bore well and obtained electricity service connection in the suit schedule property. He cannot say when plaintiff got revenue documents of suit schedule property. P.W.2 voluntarily said that the

Government issued DKT patta in favour of plaintiff with regard to suit schedule property. PW2 stated that, DKT issued infavour of plaintiff by the Government and due to typographical mistake it was mentioned that, DKT issued in favour of defendant.

The gist of evidence of defendant and her witnesses :

9.DW1/Chowduri Madhavi who is defendant No.4 filed her chief evidence affidavit being DW1 mostly sailing with her written statement. Wherein, in her cross examination D.W.1 stated that, she do not know why the plaintiff filed the present suit. The suit schedule property is situated at Pullareddy palli,

Ananthasamudram village fields. She cannot say the survey number and extent of suit schedule property. The plaintiff is her senior paternal uncle i.e., elder brother of her father. The suit schedule property is ancestral property. Her father having three brothers. The contents of her chief evidence affidavit i.e., para no.1 fourth line i.e., “for the sake of convenience with the consent of other brothers the assignment was made in the name of plaintiff through the DKT patta stood in the name of plaintiff are false”. She do not know whether the DKT patta is salable property or not and she do not know whether the government issued pattadar passbook and title deed to he plaintiff or not. She put her signatures on Ex.B1 along with plaintiff her junior paternal uncles by name Naidpi Venkata Subba

Reddy and Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy. The name of wife of Chinna Venkata

Reddy by name Veeramma is not mentioned in Ex.B.1.DW1 further stated that, she got her share Ac 0.61 cents as per Ex.B1 and she has given Ac 0.20 cents 6 to the plaintiff as per the instructions of the elders. She cannot say the names of scribe and attester of Ex.B1.

10. DW2/B.Venkata Subba Reddy who is defendant No.1 filed his chief evidence affidavit being DW2 mostly sailing with his written statement and evidence of DW1. Wherein cross examination DW.2 stated that, the suit schedule property is a joint family property purchased by him, plaintiff and other two brothers. He does not know the survey number and extent of suit schedule property and he do not know why this suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. One Bala Subramanyam scribed partition agreement who is no more.

Documentary evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.

11.On perusal of documents, Ex.A1 is DKT form patta dated 10.9.1986 issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Pullampet in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2 is pattadar pass book, dated 13.5.1998 issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Pullampet in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A3 Electricity book issued by APSPDCL in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A4. 1-B namuna issued by Mandal Revenue officer, Pullampet in favour of plaintiff and Ex.A5 No.3 adangal issued by Madnal Revenue officer,

Pullampet in favour of plaintiff.

Documentary evidence on behalf of the defendant.

12.On perusal of documents, Ex.B1 unregistered partition deed, dated 30.4.2021 relating to suit schedule property. (Stamp duty penality collected vide challan dated 27.04.2023).

DISCUSSION:

13. The contention of defendants that, the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and D4 in possession and enjoyment of some portion of suit schedule property i.e., an extent of Ac 0.61 cents in Survey number 1446/2 and they deposed false. The suit schedule property is ancestral property and it is not a Government land, in order to grab the share of D4 the plaintiff filed false suit. The further contention of defendants that, PW2 do not know anything about this case and he deposed false to help the plaintiff.

14.The contention of plaintiff that,the father of DW1 and her junior paternal uncles recommended to the revenue authorities to assigned the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. At request of DW1 they never executed Ex.B1 and she deposed false. The further contention of plaintiff that, joint property status will 7 not applicable to DKT pattas. Ex.B1 was created for sake of her convenience as per their wish and will and it is not maintainable. The Government assigned the DKT patta to the plaintiff in the year1986 and he has been possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of assignment of patta even till today.

Ex.B1 is not having legal validity and it is not maintainable. DW1, D1 to D3 are noway concerned to the suit schedule property and she deposed false. The plaintiff is entitled the decree as he is in possession and enjoyment of the same since 1986. The further contention of plaintiff that, they never partitioned the property and on 30.04.2012 Chinna venkata Subba Reddy who is one of his brother was in Kuwait and there is no partition between them and DW2 deposed false. The share of DW2 is not mentioned in the partition agreement filed by the D4 before the Court. DKT paata can issue only one individual but not group or joint family. The suit schedule property is not a joint family property and the issuance of DKT patta and after enquiry Thasildar issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of plaintiff for suit schedule property and DW2 deposed false. The core contention of plaintiff that, the partition agreement is created document and they never partitioned the property and DW2 deposed false for the purpose of this suit and from the date of issuance of DKT patta in favour of plaintiff the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants are noway concerned to the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction and they never partitioned the property.

15.During cross examination DW1 admitted that, they did not file any proof of documents before the court as the suit schedule property is a joint family property and also ancestral property. As per Ex.B1 she got Ac.0.61 cents in the suit schedule property. Chinna venkata Subba Reddy went to Kuwait at about 10 years back and he used to came to India for 3 years. DW1 further admitted that, she cannot say the share of remaining persons as per Ex.B.1. She did not file any proof of documents before the court as she is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. She did not issue any notices to the plaintiff before execution of Ex.B1 as per law.

16.During cross examination DW2 admitted that,he did not file any proof of document before the court to show that the suit schedule property is a joint 8 family property. Generally DKT property is not alienable and it cannot be sold away to any person. D.W.2 further admitted that only he and D.W1 put their signatures on partition agreement.

17.The factual aspects on record the case of the defendants that, the suit schedule property is a joint property and they got partitioned the same and D4 is in possession and enjoyment of Ac 0.61 cents out of Ac 3.24 cents of suit schedule property. Admittedly the defendants did not file any proof of documents to show that, D4 is in possession and enjoyment of Ac 0.61 cents i.e., some portion of suit schedule property on the date of filling of the suit. The defendants did not file any proof of documents before the court to show that, the suit schedule property is a joint family property of plaintiff and defendants, except Ex.B1 partition deed. Further the defendants did not prove the Ex,.B1 partition deed and during cross examination, it is not confronted with the signature of PW1/plaintiff. The defendants did not examine any witnesses to prove the Ex.B1 partition deed. Ex.B1 partition deed is a Un registered document and it is marked for collateral purpose. Even the court assume that, the suit schedule property is partitioned, but DW1 did not adduce any single document or any other cogent evidence before the court to show her possession and enjoyment of Ac 0.61 cents on the date of filling of the suit.

18.On the other hand the plaintiff filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents and proved his legal possession/settled possession of the suit schedule property on the date of filling of the suit and his possession should be protected. The defendants utterly failed to prove the suit schedule property is a joint property and they also failed to prove the partition deed under Ex.B1. The defendant also failed to prove that, D4 is in possession and enjoyment of portion of suit schedule property i.e., Ac 0.61 cents. The defendants did not adduce any evidence against case of plaintiff. On perusal of evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5, the plaintiff proved his legal possession/settled possession of suit schedule property on the date of filling of the suit and he is entitled for permanent injunction.

19.The oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 clearly established the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

Therefore, he certainly entitled for relief of permanent injunction.

9 20. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the case of the plaintiff is appears to be nearer to the truth rather than the defendant. In view of the above discussion, it can safely say that the plaintiff could able to establish his possession over the plaint schedule property on the date of filing of suit. The plaintiff is entitled the discretionary relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly the issue no.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

Issue no.3:

21.In view of findings in Issue No.1 and 2, since the Plaintiff able to establish his legal possession/settled possession over the plaint schedule property, and he is entitled for permanent injunction.

22.In the result the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendants restraining the defendants and their men and also agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property by way of permanent injunction.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- K.Latha,

Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1:B.Venkata Subba Reddy @ Pedda Venkata subba Reddy

P.W.2: C.Pedda Venkata Subba Redy

For Defendant:

DW.1: C.Madhavi

D.W.2: B.Venkata Subba Reddy

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: DKT patta dated 10.09.1986 issued by Mandal Revenue

Officer Pullampet in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : Pattadar pass book dated 13.05.1998 issued by Mandal 10

Revenue Officer, Pullampet in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A3: Electricity book issued by APSPDCL in the name of plaintiff.

Ex.A4. 1-B namuna issued by Mandal Revenue officer, Pullampet in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A5 : No.3 adangal issued by Madnal Revenue officer, Pullampet in favour of plaintiff.

For Defendant:

Ex.B1 : unregistered partition deed, dated 30.04.2021 relating to suit schedule property.

Sd/- K.Latha,

J.C.J., Nandalur.

// True Copy //

Junior Civil Judge,

Nandalur.

Case Historyhttp://172.17.71.140/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.php?appFlag=kiosk#

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet

Case No. :OS/0000021/2024 Buddareddigari Prathapa Reddy Vs Gudipati Rama Naidu

Date : 16-04-2024

Business: The counsel for the plaintiff filed. Memo stating that that the case is settled out of court and the plaintiff notpressing the suit. Memo recorded. The suit is dismissed as not pressed without cost. IA.72/2024- The counsel for thePetitioner/ plaintiff filed. Memo stating that that the case is settled out of court . Memo recorded. The attachment effected on 19.03.2024 is here by raised. The raising order communicated to the sub-register, Rajampet on payment of process. This petition is dismissed. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED Disposal Date: 16-04-2024 Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet 1 of 129/05/25, 12:25

Case Historyhttp://172.17.71.140/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.php?appFlag=kiosk#

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet

Case No. :OS/0000020/2024 Naga Narayana Reddy Vs Akepati Narayana Reddy

Date : 23-04-2024

Business: The counsel for the plaintiff filed memo stating that, that the case is settled out of court and the plaintiff not pressing the suit. Memo recorded the suit is dismissed as not pressed. IA.70/204- IA.70/24 the counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff filed Memo stating that, that the case is settled out of court. Memo recorded attachment raised on 26.02.2024 is here by raised the raising order communicated to the Sub-registrar, Rajampet on payment of process this petition is dismissed. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED Disposal Date: 23-04-2024 Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet 1 of 129/05/25, 12:25