Sri K.Prabhakara Rao, Incharge

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ,FTC GUDIVADA.

PRESENT: SRI K.PRABHAKARA RAO Prl.Senior Civil Judge. Monday, this the 27th day of March, 2017

O.S.No.397of 2013

Between :

Kola Raja Babu,S/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 29 years, Old Gunny Bags Business, R/o.Patimeeda, Gudivada, Krishna District.

...Plaintiff.

And

Vangalapudi Ramana, S/o.Late Kondaiah, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Old Gunny Bags Business, R/o.Behind Mosque, Beside Surya Convent, Karmikanagaram, Gudivada, Krishna District.

...Defendant.

This ORIGINAL SUIT coming on 27.3.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for plaintiff, and

Sri.T.Srinivasulu, Advocate for defendant, and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T 

1.The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,10,333/­ basing on a promissory note allegedly have been executed by the defendant. 

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

On 27­10­2011 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ from the plaintiff for his business purpose and executed a demand promissory note infavour of the plaintiff at Gudivada promissing to repay the above said amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Later the defendant failed to discharge the above said debt, hence the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice dated 3­12­2013 demanding the defendant to discharge the 2 above said debt, though the defendant received the said notice kept quiet, as such the plaintiff filed this suit.

3.The defendant appeared before the court and field his written statement denying the allegations that he borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and the execution of said promissory note on 27­10­2011. He further alleged that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend such a huge amount of Rs.3,00,000/­. He further alleged that he is having business rivlary with the father of the plaintiff.

He further averred that he borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/­ from the father of the plaintiff on 20­7­2008 with interest at the rate of 60% p.a.

and executed a promissory note with his own hand writing, later he used to pay interest amount regularly later he discharged the entire debt in the month of October 2010, then he requested the father of the plaintiff to return the above said promissory note, but he do not returned the same and stated that it was missing and promised that he will handover whenever it was traced. Taking advantage of the possession of the above said promissory note his signature was forged on the suit promissory note and filed the suit in the name of plaintiff.

He further submitted that the suit promissory note is forged, fabricated and not supported by consideration hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.Basing on the above said pleadings the following issues are settled for trail issue Nos.1 to 3

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

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for in the plaint?

3.To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

5.In order to establish this case the plaintiff himself examined as

PW1 in chief Exs.A1 to A3 are marked. The plaintiff also chosen to examine PW2 who is the scribe on Ex.A1 promissory note. The cross examination of PW1 and 2 is differed at the request of the counsel for defendant. Finally on 22­2­2017 PW1 and 2 are present, defendant is absent and no representation on behalf of the defendant, as such the defendant is set exparte. The counsel for the plaintiff reported no further evidence.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff

7.Issue Nos.1 and 2

8.During his evidence PW1 reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. PW2 is the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note who deposed the evidence supporting the case of the plaintiff. The evidence of PW1 and 2 clearly establishes that on 27­10­2011 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed the Ex.A1 promissory note, later failed to discharge the same, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 legal notice, it was received by the defendant under Ex.A3 but there is no reply from the defendant. The above said evidence of PW1 and 2 is unchallenged. The evidence of PW1 and 2 clearly established the suit claim without any doubt. As such the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount from the defendant basing on the suit promissory note with costs and subsequent interest.

Accordingly the issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9.To what relief?

In the result the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.3,10,333/­ with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit to date of decree, future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of 4 decree to till the date of realization on principle amount of

Rs.2,00,000/­.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 27th day of March, 2017.

Sd/- K.Prabhakara Rao

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined For Plaintiff: PW1:K.Ravibabu

For respondent:

Nill

Documents marked

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1: 27.10.2011The original Promissory note executed by the defendant infavour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/­

Ex.A2:02-12-2013The Office copy of registered legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to defendant. Ex.A3:The postal acknowledgement.

For defendant:­ Nil

Sd/- K.Prabhakara Rao

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(F.T.C.), GUDIVADA

Present: I.SRINIVASAMURTY

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

FAC/Additional Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C.), Gudivada. 11th day of April , 2017.

O.S.No.351/2014.

Between:-

1) Pullavarthi Nirmala Dasu Address - Hindu, Aged 48 Years, Properties, Resident of Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District, Gudivada JCJC Advocate- Sri Y.Raveendranath

Plaintiff.

1) Madasi Atchaiah, alias Asheervadam Address - Hindu, Aged about 60 years, Mason mastry, Neelakantam Street, Chandraiah Kaluva Gattu, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District, Gudivada JCJC

2) Davuluri Baby Rani Hindu, Aged about 42 years, House Wife, Resident or Door No.11-112-3, Neelakantam Street, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District, Gudivada JCJC

...Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day before me in the presence of Y.Raveendranath Plaintiff and .B.Sarath BabuDefendant upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court has delivered the following:

Judgment

Notice is given. Judgment Pronounced (Vide

Separate Judgment) in the open Court. In the result the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants for a sum of

Rs.1,08,950/- and subsequent interest at the rate of 12 per cent p.a. from the date of suit to date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.75,000/-

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11 th day of April ,

2017.

Sd/-I.SRINIVASAMURTY

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

FAC/Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C.), Gudivada.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(F.T.C.), GUDIVADA

Present: Sri.Ch.Madhavarao

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

FAC/Additional Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C.), Gudivada. Thursday, this the 7th day of Nov, 2016.

O.S.No.455/2012.

Between:-

1) Loya Padmaja Address - Hindu, 46 years, Maintenance holder, Ro. gudivada. Advocate- Sri. S.V. Pandu Ranga Rao

Plaintiff.

1) Loya Veera Venkata Govinda Rajulu Address - Hindu, 49 years, Driver, APSRTC, Jaggaihpet Depot, jaggaiahpet. Advocate - Sri. N. Benzmen

...Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri S.V. Pandu Ranga Rao Plaintiff and . Sri. N. Benzmen Defendant upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court has delivered the following:

Judgment

Notice is given. Judgment pronounced in the open court. In the result the suit is decreed with costs in the following terms a) Granted a decree for an amount of

Rs.2,58,892/- against the defendant towards marriage expenses of the 2nd plaintiff payable to the 1st plaintiff. b)

The defendant is directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month towards past maintenance with effect from 01-10-2011 to 30-09-2012 i.e. Rs.60,000/- for year.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7 th day of Nov, 2016..

Sd/-Ch.Madhavarao

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. FAC/Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C.), Gudivada.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(F.T.C.), GUDIVADA

Present: Ch .Madhvarao

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

FAC/Additional Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C.), Gudivada. 6th day of March ,2017.

OS.450/2012

Between

1) Ravi Ramesh Address - Hindu, 48 years,Ro. Pamidimukkala Village and Mandal, Present Ro. Temporarily at Railway work shop road, Guntupalli. Advocate- Sri. Ch. Venkata Ramana

Plaintiff.

1) Ravi Baby Saronini Address - Hindu, 74 years, House wife and R.o.6-34, Pamidimukkala Vuyyuru JCJC. Advocate - Sri. G. Srinivas

2) Ravi Sivaramakrishna Prasad Hindu,54 years, Coolie, co.Kantamaneni Kasturi, Pamidimukkala Village, vuyyuru JCjC. Advocate-Sri. G.Srinivas

3) Rani Srihari Hindu,50 years, Travelling business,Kapileswarapuram, Pamidimukkala Village, vuyyuru JCjC. Advocate-Sri. G. Srinivas

...Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day before me in the

presence of Advocate- Sri. Ch. Venkata Ramana Plaintiff and

Advocate-Sri. G. Srinivas Defendant upon perusing the material

on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till

this day, and this Court has delivered

Judgment

In the result the suit is dismissed for default with costs..

6 th day of March ,2017.

Sd/- Ch .Madhvarao

Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Gudivada.

FAC/Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

(F.T.C.), Gudivada.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(F.T.C.), GUDIVADA

Present: Ch.Madhavarao

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

FAC/Additional Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C.), Gudivada. 29th day of April ,2017.

OS.142/2012

Between:

1) Chilamkurthi Venkayya Address - Hindu, 48 Yrs, Properties, Ro.OPP to Sitareddy Kalyanamandapam, Vijayawada road, Pamarru Advocate- Sri P.Kesava Babu

Plaintiff.

1) Chilamkurthi Bagyamma Address - Hindu, 68 Yrs, Properties,Ro. OPP. to Sitareddy Kalyanamandapam, Vijayawada road, Pamarru

...Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day before me in the presence of Advocate- Sri P.Kesava Babu Plaintiff and Defendant upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this Court has delivered

Judgment

Plaintiff present along with his counsel and filed a memo to dismiss the suit as settled out of court, upon being and his counsel the said memo is recorded, hence suit is dismissed as adjusted out of the court.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29 th day of April ,

2017.

Sd/- Ch.Madhavarao

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. FAC/Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C.), Gudivada.