Smt. K.Madhavi Devi

1 Fair Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM

PRESENT: - SMT. K.MADHAVI DEVI

Senior Civil Judge,

Friday, this the 17 th day of November, 2023 :: A.S.No. 30/2018 Between:- Gajula Naga Raja Kumari W/o Gottimukkala Nagesh Babu, Hindu, Aged 42 years, Teacher, MPP School, Pootlagudem Village, Atchampeta Mandal, Gunturu District. … Appellant/ Defendant in O.S.No 242/2016

And

Sabbella Udaya Prakash Reddy, S/o China Rama Reddy, Aged 42 years, Business and Cultivation, R/o Anaparthi Village and Mandal, East Godavari District.

… Respondent/ Plaintiff in O.S.No. 242/2016

On appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Anaparthi dt.26.06.2018 in O.S.No.242/2016.

O.S.No. 242/2016

Between:-

Sabbella Udaya Prakash Reddy, S/o China Rama Reddy, Aged 42 years, Business and Cultivation, R/o Anaparthi Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. … Plaintiff.

And

Gajula Naga Raja Kumari W/o Gottimukkala Nagesh Babu, Hindu, Aged 42 years, Teacher, MPP School, Pootlagudem Village, Atchampeta Mandal, Gunturu District. … Defendants

This appeal is coming before me on 16.11.2023 for arguments and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, judgment and decree of the trial court and other connected papers on record and of Sri N.Nanda Babu, Advocate for appellant/Defendant and of Sri N.M.S.Rao, Advocate for respondent/Plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2 Fair Judgment :: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment passed by the Court of Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Anaparthi dated 26.06.2018 in O.S.NO. 242/2016.

2. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.242/2016 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Anaparthi. The lower Court after appearing both parties through their counsels

conducted trial and Decreed the suit. Hence the appellant/defendant preferred this appeal by aggrieving the decree and judgment of the suit in O.S.No.242/2016 on the file of trial Court.

3. For the sake of convenience and for better appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial court, to avoid unnecessary repetition and confusion, the parties in this appeal, hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the trial court i.e. plaintiff and defendant.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that ; the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 03.08.2014 from the plaintiff for the purpose of family expenses and to discharge sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff for repayment of the said amount, but defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff, as such the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice dated 19.09.2016 and the defendant received the said notice on 26.09.2016, but the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of suit amount.

3 Fair Judgment

5. The defendant filed written statement by denying the avernments of the plaint and contended that she does not know the plaintiff even till today and there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant neither borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor executed any promissory note in his favour at any point of time and the husband of defendant addicted to vices and the husband of defendant contacted debts from several persons for his vices and the alleged 2 nd attester of the suit promissory note S.Raja Sekhara Reddy is also one of his creditor and the said S.Rajasekhara Reddy used to come to the house of defendant at

Tenali for recovery of his debt from the defendant’s husband the defendant got irritation about the frequent visits of S.Rajasekhara Reddy to her house and she showed signs of annoyance at him.

From then on-wards, S.Rajashekara Reddy stopped to come to the house of the defendant and bore grudge against her and also it is further contention of the defendant is that in view of the defendant’s husband’s suspension, the long leave and indebtedness to several persons,the said

S.Rajasekhara Reddy forged the defendant’s signature and her left thumb impression on the alleged suit promissory note and got filled up the suit promissory note in the name of the plaintiff and got filed this suit through the plaintiff against the defendant with intent to get unlawful gain and also with intent to satisfy his grudge against the defendant. Hence, this suit is liable to dismissal.

6. On the strength of rival contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt. 03.08.2014 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the suit promissory note dt. 03.08.2014 is forged, and crated for the purpose of this case?

4 Fair Judgment

3. Whether the suit promissory note dt. 03.08.2014 is not supported by consideration?

4. To what relief?

7. In the trial court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. To support the evidence of plaintiff, he examined one of the attester of Ex.A.1 as PW2. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant. Accordingly, Ex.A1 to A3 marked. Ex.A.1 is the Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dt. 03.08.2014, Ex.A.2 is the office copy of the legal notice,

dt. 19.09.2016 and Ex.A.3 is the acknowledgment, dt. 26.09.2016.

8. On appreciation of the above referred oral and documentary evidence, the trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the above said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred the present appeal questioning the correctness, legality, validity and maintainability on the following grounds:-

The Lower court went wrong in decreeing the suit, ignoring of mis-leading the written statement of appellant/defendant, that the contents of written statement that the defendant did not know the respondent/plaintiff and never borrowed and never executed any promissory note and the husband of appellant by name Gottimukkala Nagesh Babu addicted to bad vices and indebted and to several persons and the 2 nd attester on the promissory note by name S.Raja Sekhara Reddy is one of the creditor of said Nagesh babu and the appellant’s husband was suspended from his service, and in view of suspension, the said S.Raja Sekhara Reddy in any way to recover his debt amount and to take 5 Fair Judgment vengeance against him, the plaintiff forged the signature and thumb impression of the appellant and got filed the suit through the plaintiff, who is his arranged person.

The lower court failed to consider the facts mentioned in the chief examination of appellant filed as DW1, and the Lower Court ought not have eschewed the evidence of

DW1 and also ought not have treated as nil on 25.06.2016.

Further, the lower court without giving any opportunity or time to the appellant, on the same day i.e, on 25.06.2018 heard the arguments of the plaintiff and posted the matter for Judgment on 26.06.2018 and delivered the Judgment on one side and the lower court ought to have observed about IA No. 354/2017 is pending which was filed by the appellant for recalling of Pws for their cross-examination and pronounced the Judgment and the Lower Court ought to have give ample time to the appellant to attend the Hon’ble

Court and also to adduce further evidence on her behalf. The Lower court ought not to come to a conclusion that if the appellant failed to appear before this court, she does not have any further evidence on her behalf and the lower court failed to take into consideration, whether the consideration was passed or not in between the parties and the lower court went wrong in observing that the plaintiff is having capacity to lend the alleged suit pronote amount to the defendant and the execution of suit pronote and did not take into consideration that the plaintiff did not prove that he has acquaintance with the appellant/defendant and the lower court ought to have observe that the appellant is a

Government Employee and having capacity to maintain her family and she has no necessity to borrow amounts from others and due to non cross-examination of Pws, the real facts are not came out and the lower Court ought to have observe that the respondent/plaintiff given up an amount of Rs.7,000/- in the plaint and the reasons were not mentioned by him in the suit and the lower Court should have dismissed the suit by considering the oral and documentary evidence of the defendant and by disbelieving the evidence of plaintiff.

6 Fair Judgment

For the above grounds the appellants filed this appeal to set aside the Decree and Judgment

dated 26.06.2018 in O.S.242/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthi and allow this

appeal.

9. Perused the pleadings, issues, oral and documentary evidence adduced and the case law and heard from arguments of Plaintiff.

10. Upon hearing the learned counsel and on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial court, in the light of the grounds of appeal, findings of the trial court and the law governing the subject, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the Judgment of trial court is an erroneous one and liable to be set aside or not?

2) To what relief?

11. POINT No.1 :

Whether the Judgment of trial court is an erroneous one and liable to be set aside or not?

12. During the course of trial the plaintiff is examined himself as P.W.1 and the 1 st attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note is examined as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3. Ex.A1 is promissory note executed by defendant inf avour of plaintiff, dated 03.08.2014, Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice, dated 19.09.2016 and Ex.A.3 is the Acknowledgment, dated 26.09.2016.

13. In support of the case of the plaintiff, he examined himself as PW.1 and got marked

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. The plaintiff reiterated the contentions of the plaint in his chief examination and also got marked original promissory note dated 08.08.2014 in his favour executed by the 7 Fair Judgment defendants jointly. During cross examination PW.1 deposed that the defendant is working as teacher at Tenali which is at a distance of 200 km from Anaparthi. He is native of Anaparthi.

14. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined 1 st attester of Ex.A.1 as

PW.2. During cross examination, PW.2 deposed that at the request of PW1 he came to depose in this case and he admitted that he had no acquaintance with the defendant by name Naga Raja

Kumari. The house of PW1 is situated in a colony opposite to GBR College. He admitted that he know PW1 since 5 years. He admitted that except as on the date of Ex.A.1 transaction, he never found defendant subsequently.

15. On perusal of the record in the lower court the suit is posted for defendant side evidence on 19.07.2017 and again on 27.07.2017 , on 04.08.2017 and 16.08.2017 posted as last chance for

Defendant side evidence but the defendant taken time till 16.08.2017 and on that day filed Chief

Affidavit of DW1 and also filed petition to recall PW1 as such IA No. 354/2017 and IA No.

355/2017 are allowed on 08.12.2017 and from that day to till 19.06.2018 the lower court given adjournments but the defendant not ready as such the recall of evidence of PW1 was closed on 19.06.2018 and for evidence of DW1 posted on condition to 25.06.2018 but the defendant/DW1 not appeared as such the lower court eschewed the evidence of DW1 and closed the Defendant’s side evidence.

It shows the attitude of the defendant that she filed petitions in the lower court but she has not shown any interest to proceed with the suit. In the appeal also the petitioner/defendant never attended and not shown interest to proceed with the appeal by submitting arguments even in 8 Fair Judgment the IA No.2061/2018 even though conditional orders given in both the IA and main Appeal.

Hence this court treated as ‘heard’ appellant’s side.

16. According to Sec.101 of Indian Evidence Act the burden is on the person who will fail if no evidence is adduced. So the initial burden is on the plaintiff to say that the Ex.A1 promissory note is executed by the defendants. By examining the PW2/1 st attestor of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3, the plaintiff proved his version with regard to execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration there under. Since the plaintiff produced sufficient and cogent evidence of PW2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 to prove the proper execution of the Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendants then the burden shifted to the defendant to disprove the case of plaintiff.

17. In the written statement the defendant contended that the defendant does not know the plaintiff even till today and there is no privily between the plaintiff and defendant the husband of the defendant Nagesh Babu was suspended from service from 2012 to 2014 and he was on leave from the end of 2015 to the end of 2016. In view of the defendant’s husband’s suspension, the long leave and indebtedness to several persons, the said S.Rajasekhara Reddy might have through that it was not better to proceed against the defendant’s husband for recovery of his debt,the plaintiff might have forged the defendant’s signature and her left thumb impression on the alleged suit promissory note and got filled up the suit promissory note in the name of the plaintiff and got filed this suit through the plaintiff against the defendant with intent to get unlawful gain and also with intent to satisfy his grudge against the defendant.

9 Fair Judgment

18. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got produced the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 to prove his case. Therefore the provisions under Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act comes into play and the burden get shifted to the defendants to rebut the presumption.

19. Further this Court relied on the decision reported in 2003 (4) ALT 414 in between G.

Venkata Rama Subbaiah versus D. Rasool Naik wherein the Hon’ble Court held that the presumption of law that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration is not all rebutted by the defendant. Unless he rebuts such presumption by adducing convincing evidence, the evidential value would not shift back to the plaintiff who has the legal burden, only after the defendant adduces convincing rebuttal evidence, it can be held that thereafter the presumption under Section 118 does not come to the rescue of the plaintiff. As the defendant failed to discharge his initial burden of rebutting the presumption of law envisaged under Section 118 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed.

19. This Court relied on another decision reported in Ponugupati Subba Rao versus

Sikhakollu Pulla Rao in 1999 (3) ALT 144 wherein it is held that

Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 Section 118 (g) suit on promissory note of burden of proof, the initial burden lies on the holder of the promissory note to prove its execution once execution is proved, burden shifts to defendant to disprove it. The plaintiff proved the execution of suit promissory note burden, the burden shifted to the defendant to prove his plea that the document was forged. The defendant having failed to discharge his burden decree of suit passed by lower Court sustainable.

20. The above decisions are applicable to the present case fact. When the defendant failed to prove that the defendant has not executed the Ex.A1 promissory note and Ex.A.1 was 10 Fair Judgment fabricated by the plaintiff a presumption under Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act arises that consideration was passed there under and the Ex.A1 is properly executed.

21. The defendant can rebut the said presumption by adducing a proper and cogent evidence and by proving her pleadings.

22. In a judgment reported in Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 1441, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.

23. In the present case also the Defendant filed her chief affidavit and even though given sufficient time and several adjournments to attend for evidence of the defendant but did not attend before the Court, as such the evidence of Dw1 is eschewed. Even though the contentions of written statement is that the the suit pronote is forged one, the plaintiff might have forged the defendant’s signature and her left thumb impression on the alleged suit promissory note and got filled up the suit promissory note in the name of the plaintiff and got filed this suit. If the defendant examined herself as witnesses and faced the cross examination, then the pleadings of defendants can be considered. But the defendant did not attend before the Court, as such a presumption would arise that the case setup by them, is not correct.

24. Thus, from the above discussion, this Court came to conclusion that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff proved and established his case and he is entitled for the relief. Accordingly issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

11 Fair Judgment

25. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of opinion that the findings given by the trial Court is not required for any interference and for the re-appreciation of the evidence of parties and the judgment is not with any infirmities. As such the judgment of trial Court is not an erroneous and as such not liable to be set aside.

26. POINT NO.2:- To what relief?

As per the reasons and findings given for the point No.1 the appeal is devoid of merits.

27. In the result, appeal is dismissed without costs. The Judgment and decree of the Court of

Junior Civil Judge, anaparthi in OS No. 242/2016 dt. 26.08.2018 is confirmed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her in Computer system directly, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court, this the 17 th day of November, 2023.

S D /- K.M ADHAVI D EVI

S ENIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

Ramachandrapuram.

Appendix of Evidence No additional oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- K.Madhavi Devi

S ENIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

Ramachandrapuram.

Copy to the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Anaparthi.

12 Fair Judgment

1 Fair Judgment

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAMACHANDRAPURAM

PRESENT: - SMT. K.MADHAVI DEVI

Senior Civil Judge,

Thursday, this the 16 th day of November, 2023

O.S.NO.388/2018

Between:- Konala Venkata Reddy, S/o Sathi Reddy, Age 55 years, Employee, Resident of Balabhadrapuram, Biccavole Mandal.

...Plaintiff.

And

1. Smt.Ryali Bala Tripura Sundari W/o Late Venkata Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman, Age 48 years, Resident of Door No. 3-166, Gandredu, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. … Defendant.

2. Ryali Pratyusha D/o Late Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman, Age 25 years, R/o Door No. 3-166,Gandredu, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District.

This suit is coming on 15.11.2023 before me for defendant arguments in the presence of Sri T.Subba Rao and Sri R.V.G.Subba Rao, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri N.Rama Krishna and Sri D.Malleswara Rao, Advocates, Kakinada for the defendants, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed to pass a) decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the estate of deceased borrower/Ryali Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman which was in the hands of the defendants on the death of the said Ryali Venkata Satya Surya Viswam Sundar

Hanuman for the suit amount of Rs.10,18,733/- for costs of the suit; b) for subsequent interest on

Rs.7,00,000/- at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization; c) together with such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The case of the plaintiffs it that the 1 st Defendant is wife and 2 nd defendant is daughter of the deceased Ryali Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman. During the life of deceased Ryali

Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 11.12.2016 for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts etc., and the said Hanuman executed a demand promissory note on the same day i.e, on 11.12.2016 in favour of 2 Fair Judgment

Plaintiff at Balabhadrapuram Village, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, as and when demanded either to plaintiff or to his order. Subsequently on 10.10.2018 the

Ryali Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman died intestate leaving behind the defendants

Nos. 1 and 2 only his legal heirs and the deceased died without discharging the above said debt to the plaintiff.

It is further case of the plaintiff that after death of Ryali Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar

Hanuman the plaintiff demanded the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 several times personally for payment of the above said debt, but the defendants have not paid the said debt till so far and postponing the same on some pretext or the other. Thereafter on 01.11.2018 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to pray the above said promissory note debt amount and the defendant received the said legal notice on 01.11.2018, but kept quiet. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit.

3. The 1 st defendant filed written statement and 2 nd defendant filed adoption memo to adopt the written statement of 1 st defendant and by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and submitted that the defendant died due to accidental drawing in canal, taking advantage of the sudden demise of the husband of the 1 st defendant, the plaintiff filed the above suit and some others were filed another four suits in various courts namely (1) OS No. 561/2018 on the file of I Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Kakinada 2) OS No. 562/2018 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada 3)

OS No. 635/2018 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada 4) OS No. 607/2018 on the

file of Hon’ble III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and also some others issued notices with false allegations for illegal gains.

The defendants further contended in their counter that the husband of 1 st defendant was government employee as a Teacher with a designation of School Assistant in Mathematics and during his life time he did not possess any movable or immovable properties. Being a Government Employee, the deceased has no necessity of borrowing such a huge amount as alleged from the plaintiff or from any others. Further, till date the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not receive any amount towards the 3 Fair Judgment service benefits or even the family pension for the death of 1 st defendant’s husband. The plaintiff filed petition for the attachment of the house property and the Hon’ble Court attached the house property.

The defendants further contended in their counter that during the life time or after demise of

Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman, the defendants never saw the plaintiff at any point of time as such demanding the defendants for the recovery of said debt is a concocted story to grab the death benefits of Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman from the defendants illegally and the deceased Ryali Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and the siganture on the alleged suit promissory note is not belongs to the deceased and the alleged promissory note is forged document. The defendants further contended that on 07.11.2018 the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 issued reply notice to the legal notice dt. 01.11.2018 with facats and to furnish the alleged promissory note, but the plaintiff did not respond to the reply notice and filed the present suit with fabricated documents for the illegal gains a such the suit is liable for dismissal.

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

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

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial the plaintiff is examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined the 1 st attestor of Ex.A1 suit promissory note as PW.2 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. Ex.A.1 is suit promissory note dated 11.12.2016, Ex.A.2 is Office copy of registered legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants dated 01.11.2018 and Ex.A.3 is Postal Registration Slips two in number,

dt. 01.11.2018.

6. Heard the arguments from the counsel for the plaintiff and on behalf of the defendant treated as heard.

7. Issue No.1 :-

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and 4 Fair Judgment binding on the defendant?

In support of the case of the plaintiff, he examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A.3. Ex.A.1 to A.3. The plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination.

During cross examination PW.1 deposed the husband of the 1 st defendant borrowed the amount and prior to filing of this suit he issued notice to the 1 st defendant who is the wife of the deceased borrower in the month of November, 2018. By the time of issuance of notice, the original borrower is died who worked as Teacher at Gollala Mamidada and due to their Profession he had acquaintance with the deceased/borrower. He lent amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on 11.12.2016 at his residence in the presence of attesters and scribe and he arranged the said amount by selling paddy and he had not shown the said

Rs.7,00,000/- in his income tax returns.

8. To prove the execution of Ex.A.1 Promissory note, the plaintiff also got examined PW.2 who is 1 st attestor of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note, he supported the version of PW.1. During cross- examination, PW.2 deposed that he know the defendant who is doing brick business and the defendant asked him to sign on Ex.A.1 prior to one day of Ex.A.1 dt. 11.12.2016 and asked him to come on the next day morning and as per him the defendant lent an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the 1 st defendant and one Dwarampudi Madhusudan Reddy drafted Ex.A.1 and the contents of Ex.A.1 were instructed by the 1 st defendant and the plaintiff gave amount to the 1 st defendant.

9. On other hand, the 1 st defendant examined herself as DW1. During cross-examination, she deposed that during life time of her husband, her husband worked as a Teacher and DW1 admitted that there is a house in the name of her husband during his life and also admitted that she received death benefits of her husband and also received his properties. Dw1 admitted that prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiff got issued the notice to her. She admitted that either in her chief affidavit or in her written statement she did not mention that the signature on Ex.A.1 Promissory note does not belongs to her husband.

10. To prove the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note dt. 11.12.2016 the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and to support his evidence he also got examined PW2. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 are 5 Fair Judgment corroborated and supported with Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. The plaintiff issued Ex.A.2 to the 1 st defendant by demanding the amount under Ex.A.1. In the evidence of PW1 he deposed that after the death of husband of the 1 st defendant, he issued a notice under Ex.A. 2 to the 1 st defendant and the same was received by the 1 st defendant and in the evidence of DW1 she admitted that the plaintiff issued a notice under Ex.A.2. The plaintiff filed receipt under Ex.A3. The defendants did not give reply for the notice of the plaintiff prior to filing of the suit. In the evidence of DW1 she admitted that after filing of the suit she issued reply to the plaintiff, but the same was not filed before this court. To prove the contention of the written statement except the evidence of DW1 no material evidence adduced by the defendants before this court and also no evidence placed before this court with regard to filing of several suits mentioned in her chief affidavit.

11. According to Sec.101 of Indian Evidence Act the burden is on the person who will fail if no evidence is adduced. So the initial burden is on the plaintiff to say that the Ex.A1 promissory note is executed by the defendant. By examining the PW2, who is the 1 st attestor of Ex.A1, the plaintiff proved her version with regard to execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration there under. Since the plaintiff produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the proper execution of the Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant the burden shifted to the defendant to disprove the case of plaintiff.

12. In the written statement and the evidence of DW1 contended that the signature on the

Ex.A.1 does not belongs to her husband but the defendants did not take any steps to prove that the signature on the Ex.A.1 does not belongs to her husband and did not file any documents to prove her contentions.

13. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and also examined the 1 st attestor of Ex.A.1 promissory note dated 18.10.2015 and got produced the documentary evidence under

Ex.A.1 to prove his case. Therefore the provisions under Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act comes into play and the burden get shifted to the defendant to rebut the presumptions.

6 Fair Judgment

14. Further this Court relied on the decision reported in 2003 (4) ALT 414 in between G.

Venkata Rama Subbaiah versus D. Rasool Naik wherein the Hon’ble Court held that the presumption of law that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration is not all rebutted by the defendant.

Unless he rebuts such presumption by adducing convincing evidence, the evidential value would not shift back to the plaintiff who has the legal burden, only after the defendant adduces convincing rebuttal evidence, it can be held that thereafter the presumption under Section 118 does not come to the rescue of the plaintiff. As the defendant failed to discharge his initial burden of rebutting the presumption of law envisaged under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed.

15. This Court relied on another decision reported in Ponugupati Subba Rao versus Sikhakollu

Pulla Rao in 1999 (3) ALT 144 wherein it is held that “Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 Section 118 (g) suit on promissory note of burden of proof, the initial burden lies on the holder of the promissory note to prove its execution once execution is proved, burden shifts to defendant to disprove it. The plaintiff proved the execution of suit promissory note burden, the burden shifted to the defendant to prove his plea that the document was forged. The defendant having failed to discharge his burden, decree of suit passed by lower Court sustainable.”

16. The above decisions are applicable to the present case fact. When the defendants failed to prove that the deceased Ryali Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman who is husband of 1 st defendant, father of the 2 nd defendant has not executed the Ex.A1 promissory note during his life time and Ex.A1 was fabricated by the plaintiff as such presumption under Sec.118 of Negotiable

Instrument Act arises that consideration was passed there under and the Ex.A1 is properly executed.

17. In the present ase, the plaintiff/PW1 establishes the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note by adducing the evidence of 1 st attester/PW2. The defendants except denied the execution of Ex.A.1 by her husband Ryali Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman and taken a plea that the signatures on the Ex.A.1 does not belongs to deceased Ryali Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar

Hanuman they have not taken any steps to prove that the deceased Ryali Venkata Satya Surya 7 Fair Judgment

Viswa Sundar Hanuman during his life time has not executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff and the same was fabricated by the plaintiff.

18. Thus, from the above discussion and the evidence adduced by the both sides and documentary evidence under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3, this Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff proved and established his case and he is entitled for the relief. As preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the plaintiff. Hence the issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

19. ISSUE NO2:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

In view of the reasons and findings given above for issue No.1 the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

20. ISSUE NO.3:- “To what relief?”

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.10,18,733/- (rupees Ten lakhs Eighteen

Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Three only) with subsequent interest on the principal amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- (rupees Seven lakhs only) at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization against the assets and estate of the deceased Ryali

Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman now which are lying in the hands of the defendants

No.1 and 2.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her in Computer system directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court, on this the 16 th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- K.Madhavi Devi

S ENIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

Ramachandrapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:- FOR DEFENDANT:- P.W.1: Konala Venkata Reddy DW1: Ryali Bala Tripura Sundari

P.W.2: Manda Adi Reddy 8 Fair Judgment

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:- Ex.A.1/11.12.2016: Suit Promissory note executed by the Ryali Venkata Satya Surya Viswa Sundar Hanuman in favour of Plaintiff

Ex.A.2/01.11.2018: Office copy Registered legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants dated

Ex.A.3/01.11.2018: Postal Registration slips two in number,

FOR DEFENDANT:- --Nil--

S D /- K.M ADHAVI D EVI

S ENIOR C IVIL J UDGE

R AMACHANDRAPURAM .

1 Fair Judgment

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAMACHANDRAPURAM

PRESENT: - SMT. K.MADHAVI DEVI

Senior Civil Judge,

Friday, this the 10 th day of November, 2023

O.S.No.180/2018

Between:-

Palivela Veerabhadra Rao S/o Satyanarayana, Aged 35 years, Plaintiff Hindu, Business, R/o Sheik Badey Bibi’s house, Ankamvari street, Ramachandrapuram Village and Mandal.

And

Kandavalli Syamala Rao, S/o Venkata Swamy, Age 47 years, … Defendant Compounder, government Unani Hospital, Kovvali Village, Denduluru Mandal, R/o Near Chennakesava Swamy temple, Denduluru , West Godavari District.

This suit is coming before me on 09.11.2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri P.S.Ravi Shankar, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendant remained exparte, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to pass a decree against the defendant and his assets for recovery of money of Rs.3,98,333/- with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., on the foot of promissory note and for costs.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.12.2015 for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharge his sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter in spite of the repeated demands and also issuance of legal notice dated 21.04.2018 to the defendant under acknowledgment dated 24.04.2018 and the defendant failed to repay the promissory notes debt.

Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3. Summons was served on defendant, and the defendant engaged counsel and filed his written statement. Subsequently this Court framed issues and matter posted for trial and on behalf of the plaintiff, chief affidavits of PWs 1 and 2 and examined in chief filed and matter posted for cross examination of PWs 1 and 2. He did not come forward to cross examine PWs 1 and 2.

2 Fair Judgment

4. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW2 and Ex.A.1 to A.3 are got marked. On the other hand, the defendant remained exparte as the defendant did not ready for cross of PW1 and PW2 from 21.08.2019 to till 09.11.2023.

5. Heard Plaintiff counsel. The defendant called absent. No representation even given sufficient time, the defendant not appeared and not ready for cross examine of PW1 and PW2.

Hence, the defendant set exparte. On behalf of the defendant side treated as “heard”.

6. Now the points for consideration are :-

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

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

2.To what relief?

7. POINT No.1:

The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff shows that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.12.2015 for the purpose of family expenses and to discharge his sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., the defendant executed under Ex.A.1 promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff dated 13.12.2015. Thereafter in spite of demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not repay the same, as such the plaintiff issued registered legal notice dated 21.04.2018 to the defendant under Ex.A.2 and the said notice was received by the defendant under Ex.A.3 postal acknowledgment card dt.24.04.2018. On the other the defendant was set exparte.

On perusal of the record, on 18.04.2019 the plaintiff filed his chief affidavit examined in chief and on 30.07.2019 the plaintiff filed chief affidavit of PW2. Thereafter the matter posted for cross examination of PW1 and PW2 from 21.08.2019. At the request of counsel for defendant the matter posted from time to time for cross examination of PW1 and PW2 till 09.11.2023, even though, the defendant did not turn up to cross examine PW1 and PW2, after lapse of four years, as such this

Court treated the defendant as set exparte on 09.11.2023. The above evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum of Rs.3,98,333/- with 3 Fair Judgment costs and the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff. The oral testimony of P.W.1 and Pw2 are proved by the Ex.A1 to A.3. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim and this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9. Point No.2 :- “To what relief?”

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for sum of Rs.3,98,333/- (Rupees three Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Three Hundred and thirty three only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and fifty Thousand only) from the date of filing of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a.

till realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her in Computer system directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 10 th day of November, 2023.

S D /- K.M ADHAVI D EVI

S ENIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

R AMACHANDRAPURAM .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff:- For Defendant:- P.W.1: Palivela Veerabhadra Rao None

P.W.2: Bikkina Sekhar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff:-

Ex.A-1: Promissory note dt.13.12.2015

Ex.A-2: Office copy of registered Legal notice dated 21.04.2018.

Ex.A-3 : Postal acknowledgment card from the defendant, dated 24.04.2018

For Defendant:- Nil

Sd/- K.Madhavi Devi

S ENIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

Ramachandrapuram.

1 Fair Judgment

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAMACHANDRAPURAM

PRESENT: - SMT. K.MADHAVI DEVI

Senior Civil Judge,

Wednesday, this the 15 th day of November, 2023

O.S.NO.No. 7/2018

Between:- Nallamilli Subba Reddy S/o Rama Reddy, Age 36 years, Hindu, Business, R/o D.No. 8-16, Narayya well street, Anaparthi Village and Mandal, East Godavari District.

...Plaintiff.

And

Ballem Venkanna Dora S/o Bulli Dora, Aged 34 years, Employee, Police head Constable, HC 650, 15 th Battalion, Sattupalli Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

This suit is coming on 14.11.2023 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri K.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and the Defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.4,29,333/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum and for costs.

2. The case of the plaint is that: The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of family expenses and to discharge sundry debts etc., and executed the

Promissory note on 29.12.2014 in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff made repeated demands to the defendant orally to pay the promissory note amount along with interest, but the defendant did not pay any amount to the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of amount.

3. Summons were issued several times, but the defendant not received as such, the plaintiff filed a petition for steps and summons was served on defendant through Paper Publication, inspite of the same defendant is called absent, and defendant not appeared, as such this Court set him as exparte on 30.10.2023.

4. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and Ex.A1 was marked. On the other hand, the defendant remained exparte.

5. heard the arguments from the learned counsel for Plaintiff.

2 Fair Judgment

6. Now the point for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim ?

2. To what relief?

7. POINT No.1:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?”

The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff shows the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of family expenses and to discharge sundry debts etc., and executed the Promissory note on 29.12.2014 in favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant was remained ex parte, the above evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted. The oral testimony of P.W.1 is proved by the documentary evidence under Ex.A.1. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim and this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8. POINT No.2:-To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for sum of Rs. 4,29,333/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) from the date of filing of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her in Computer system directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15 th day of November, 2023.

S ENIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

Ramachandrapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:- P.W.1: Nallamilli Subba Reddy None

EXHIBITS MARKED

3 Fair Judgment

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

Ex.A.1/29.12.2014: Promissory note executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant.

S ENIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

Ramachandrapuram.

1 SCJC RCPM

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAMACHANDRAPURAM

PRESENT: - SMT. K.MADHAVI DEVI

Senior Civil Judge,

Wednesday, this the 15 th day of November, 2023

Original Suit No. 225/2017 Between Vytla Venkta Rama Lakshmi W/o Venakta Rao, Age 55 years, Hindu, Dandlady, R/o Door No. 4-20, Pedatapudi Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal,

East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. .. Plaintiff

And

1. Edara Venkata Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Age 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o D.No.3-19, Opposite: Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Chintaluru Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Mupparaju madhavi Latha W/o Subba Rao, Age 40 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Rangareddy buildings, Venkateswara Nagar, Malkajagiri, Hyderabad, Telangana state. … Defendants. This Suit is coming before me on 06.11.2023 in the presence of Sri A.Satyanarayanacharyulu, Advocate for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

: O R D E R :

plaintiff called absent. No representation. PW1 not appeared for cross examination since 03.04.2023.

Even though given sufficient time and several adjournments for cross examination of PW1, but Pw1 did not turn up from last several adjournments to proceed further Hence, suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15 th day of November, 2023.

S ENIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

R AMACHANDRAPURAM .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:- FOR DEFENDANTS :- --- No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side--

S ENIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

Ramachandrapuram.