Sri K.Prabhakara Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : GUDIVADA.

PRESENT: SRI K.PRABHAKARA RAO Prl. Senior Civil Judge. Monday, this the 17th day of April, 2017

O.S.No.612of 2014

Between :

Thamma Mohini,W/o.Chandra Sekhar, Hindu, aged 48 years, D.No.8/156­A, Gudivada, Krishna District.

...Plaintiff.

And

Tanguturi Satyanarayana, S/o.Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Business,

...Defendant.

R/o.D.No.8/147, Sriram Puram, Gudivada, Krishna District.

This ORIGINAL SUIT coming on 6.4.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.Y.S.Vara Prasad, Advocate for plaintiff, and

Sri.N.Prabhakara Rao, 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 :

JUDGMENT

1.The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,87,524/­ with costs and subsequent interest basing on a promissory note allegedly have been executed by the defendant.

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

on 28­7­2014 for the purpose of his business and family expenses the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day at 2

Gudivada agreeing to repay the above said amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or her order on demand.

3.Subsequently the plaintiff made several demands calling upon the defendant to discharge the above said suit debt, but the defendant postponed the same. Later the defendant is seriously trying to alienate his property to the others, as such the plaintiff is filed this suit.

4.The defendant appeared before the court and filed his written statement denying the allegation that he borrowed an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 28­7­2014 and the execution of the suit promissory note. He also denied the allegation that the plaintiff demanded him for discharge of the above said alleged promissory note debt. He further alleged that the suit promissory note is forged, fabricated and not supported by consideration. He further alleged that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend such huge amount of

Rs.8,00,000/­ and she must prove the same.

5.He further alleged that he along with his wife mortgaged their house property to one Sesham Sudhakara Babu to discharge housing loan and also for development of their business, later they have mortgaged the said property on 6­11­2004 at about 11 a.m. to one

Yelchuri Surendra Kumar, after completion of the registration of mortgage deed one Tokala Veera Venkateswara Rao and Adusumilli

Siva Rama Krishna high handedly, forcibly took him to the register office and got him made to execute another registered mortgage deed in their favour and also in favour of Ratna Prabha, W/o. Siva Rama

Krishna without paying any consideration under the said mortgage deeds. They also obtained 5 empty promissory notes from him.

6.He further alleged that the plaintiff, Chilamukurthi Srinivasa Rao and Chedella Naga Seshu brought proposal for sale of his house 3 property, for which he denied, as such they developed grudge against him and got filed several suits against him and his wife with false allegations by forging and fabricating the promissory notes through their kith and kin. He further alleged that there is no cause of action to file the present suit as such the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7.Basing on the above said pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

Issue1: whether the suit promissory note is forged, fabricated and not supported by consideration?

Issue2: whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the amounts from the plaintiff basing on the suit promissory note?

Issue3: to what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

8.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff she herself examined as

PW1. She also examined this scribe as PW2 and attestor of the suit promissory note as PW3 and got marked Ex.A1. Later the defendant himself examined as DW1, but no documents were marked.

9.Heard arguments on both sides

10.Issue Nos.1 and 2:

The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that in order to prove the execution of the Ex.A1 promissory note the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and also examined the scribe and attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note as PW2 and 3, thus the plaintiff discharged the initial burden of proving the execution of Ex.A1, but the defendant failed to disprove the case of the plaintiff, as such the suit is liable to be decreed with costs as prayed for.

11.The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend an amount of Rs.8,00,000/­ and during her cross examination she deposed that she is holding cash of 4

Rs.8,00,000/­ in her bank account and ready to file the pass book but she failed to produce the same, as such the adverse inference can be drawn against her regarding her financial capacity. She further argued that there are major variations in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and no corroboration on material aspects, as such the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

12.In the chief examination of PW1 she reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Ex.A1 promissory note. Supporting the version of PW1 the scribe and attestor in Ex.A1 examined as PW2 and 3 and they deposed in their chief examination supporting the case of the plaintiff.

13.In the cross examination of PW1 she deposed that PW2 is cousin to her husband, PW3 is her distant relative and first attestor in Ex.A1 is her husband. She further deposed in her cross examination that she is doing tailor work and get income of Rs.3500 to 4500 per month, apart from that she lend amount to 4 or 4 others, but she cannot say amounts lend to them, their names and also the dates. She further deposed in her cross examination that that she is having account with

Central Bank of India Gudivada Branch for the last 8 years and she is using such account regularly and also used to withdraw the amounts from the said account whenever the third party approaches her by asking money. She further deposed in her cross examination that she has no income generated immovable properties and as on the date of

Ex.A1 she is holding cash of Rs.8,00,000/­ in her bank account and she can file pass book of her bank account. 

14.The above said cross examination of PW1 clearly deposed that she is doing tailoring work and earning Rs.3500 to 4500 per month, except 5 that she is not having income generating immovable properties. She also stated in her cross examination that as on the date of Ex.A1 she is holding cash of Rs.8,00,000/­ in her bank account and she can file her bank pass book. But the plaintiff failed to file her bank pass book to prove that she is holding cash of Rs.8,00,000/­ in her account as on the date of Ex.A1. As such an adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff for non filing of her bank pass book without any justifiable reason.

15.She also stated in her cross examination that she is regularly using her bank account and used to withdraw the amounts from the account whenever a third party approaches her by asking money, apart from the defendant she also lend amount to 4 or 5 others. How an ordinary women will hold cash of Rs.8,00,000/­ when she is earning meager amount of Rs.3500 to 4500 per month on tailoring work without owning the income generating immovable properties and it is quite unimaginable 

16.In the written statement pleadings the defendant specifically pleaded for the strict proof of the financial capacity of the plaintiff to lend an amount of Rs.8,00,000/­ as on the date of Ex.A1 but the plaintiff failed to prove her financial capacity as on the date of Ex.A1 to lend an amount of Rs.8,00,000/­

17.In the chief examination of PW1 she failed to state that PW2,3 and other witnesses are present at the time of Ex.A1 transaction and the same was admitted in her cross examination. She further stated in her cross examination that she is not having any knowledge regarding the alienation of the house by the defendant as alleged in her chief examination affidavit so also in the plaint. The cause of action for filing this suit mentioned in the plaint and in the chief examination is that as 6 the defendant is trying to alienate his house property without discharging the debt of the plaintiff she constrained to file the present sit. But the plaintiff completely pleaded ignorance about the suit facts and cause of action. That itself clearly indicates she did not know the plaint averments and somebody are behind back to her. 

18.In the cross examination PW1 deposed that the defendant borrowed the amounts for the purpose of his business and child education. But the recitals are showing that the defendant borrowed the amount for the purpose of his business and family expenses, so there is variations regarding the purpose of the borrowing the amount by the defendant.

19.The PW1 further deposed in her cross examination that the defendant scribed the promissory note, which is incorrect, it was scribed by PW2 T.Ramesh.

20.In the cross examination of PW1 she stated that the present suit is filed 2 years after the lending the amount to the defendant. But the case record shows that the suit promissory note dated is 28­7­2014 and the present suit is filed on 17­11­2014 that is within 3 ½ months after the date of Ex.A1. That itself speaks volumes the plaintiff do not know the facts of the present case and she appears to be a name lender to the 3rd parties.

21.The above said evidence of PW1 is not inspiring the confidence of the court regarding her financial capacity and the execution of promissory note by the defendant in her favour.

22.In the cross examination of PW2 also deposed that PW1 is a tailor by profession. He further deposed in his cross examination that the husband of the PW1 provided his pen, by using the same he scribe his signature. He further stated in his cross examination that he do not 7 know when the others scribed to their signatures in Ex.A1. The said statement of PW2 clearly shows that the defendant, PW2 and other attestor not scribed their signatures in ex.A1 profession note in his presence.

23.PW3 deposed in is cross examination that to his remembrance himself, PW2, husband of the PW1 and the defendant used the same pen to scribe their signatures in Ex.A1. But as can be seen from the

Ex.A1 the alleged signature of the defendant with black ink pen.

24.So there are variations in the evidence of PW1 to 3 on material aspects as discussed above, as such this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove her financial capacity to lend an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/­ as on the date of Ex.A1 promissory note and also failed to prove the execution of the Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant in her favour.

25.It is well settled principle law that there is no necessity to defendant to adduce the evidence to rebut the case of the plaintiff and he can rely on the evidence of plaintiff witnesses to rebut the case of the plaintiff. In the present case during the cross examination of Pws.1 to 3 the defendant successfully established that the plaintiff is not having financial capacity to lend an amount of Rs.8,00,000/­ and also rebutted the case of the plaintiff by way of preponderance of probabilities as discussed above.

26.In the chief examination of DW1 he reiterated his written statement averments denying the case of the plaintiff

27.In the cross examination of DW1 he denied the suggestion that the signature in Ex.A1 promissory note is belonging to him, he borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 28­7­2014 on executing the Ex.A1 promissory note and to avoid his liability he set 8 up false defence.

28.In view of the above said discussions this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the

Ex.A1 promissory note and also failed to establish her financial capacity as on the date of Ex.A1 promissory note, as such the Ex.A1 promissory note is not true, valid and binding on the defendant, basing on it the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amounts from the defendant and the suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

29.To what relief?

In the result the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 17th day of April, 2017.

Sd/­ K.Prabhakara rao Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

Appendix of evidence witness examined For plaintiff :

PW1: T.Mohini Vijaya Bharathi PW2: T.Ramesh PW3: V.Venkata Siva Prasada Rao For defendant :

DW1: T.Satyanarayana

Documents marked

For plaintiff:

Ex.A128.7.2014Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.8,00,000/­ .

Sd/­ K.Prabhakara rao Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : GUDIVADA.

Present: Sri K.Prabhakara Rao 

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada 

Monday, the 17th day of April, 2017.

O.S. No.150/2015.

Between: 

Vempati Simon, S/o.Sundra Rao, Hindu, Aged 50 Years, private employee and properties, R/o.5th ward, Drivers Colony, Gudivada.

...Plaintiff.

And

Vemuri Veeranjaneyulu, S/o.Adiseshu, Hindu, Aged 34 Years,

R/o.Inampudi Village, Penjendra Mandal, Gudlavalleru Mandal.

...defendant.

This Original suit coming on 10.4.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.Ch.Ratna Sekhar, Advocate for plaintiff; and

Sri.K.V.Prakash, Advocate for defendant, and upon perusing the plaint and other connected papers on record and the matter having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,71,333/­ basing on a promissory note allegedly have been executed by the defendant in his favour

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

2

On 16­4­2012 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/­ for his family expenses and discharging sundry debts, after receiving the said amount the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Gudivada agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently the plaintiff made several demands calling the defendant to discharge the entire promissory note debt, but the defendant postponed, and finally issued a cheque for Rs.90,000/­ on 5­1­2013 towards part payment of the above said promissory note debt, but the said cheque was dishonoured, hence the plaintiff filed a private complaint against the defendant under the

Provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act, it was numbered as

CC.262/2013 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate

Gudivada. As the defendant failed to discharge the debt the plaintiff filed the present suit.

3.The defendant appeared before the court and filed his written statement and denied the allegation that he borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 16­4­2012, the execution of suit promissory note, issuing of cheque towards part payment.

4.The defendant submitted that he borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 24­9­2012 and given one blank promissory note and one blank cheque with his signatures, after 6 months he repaid an amount of Rs.56,000/­ on 23­3­2013, by then the plaintiff stated that the above said blank signed promissory note and cheque were mixed with other papers and promised to return back and as and when found the same. But the plaintiff fabricated the above said promissory note and filed this suit and also filed cheque bounce case basing on the cheque issued by him. He further averred that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

5.Basing on the above said pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

Issue1:Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated and not supported by consideration and brought into existence under the circumstances mentioned in para No.5 of the written statement?

Issue2: Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the amounts from the defendant basing on the suit promissory note?

Issue3: To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

6.In order to prove his case the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1,A2. The plaintiff also examined PW2 and 3 who are attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note. The defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his case.

7.Heard arguments on both sides

8.Issue Nos.1 and 2:

The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that in order to prove the Ex.A1 promissory note the attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note examined as PW2 and 3 who categorically deposed how the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/­ and executed the Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in their presence, but the defendant failed to produce any evidence in support of his case, as such the suit may be decreed with costs. 

9. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the suit promissory note is fabricated and not supported by consideration, in fact the defendant borrowed only Rs.50,000/­ by then the plaintiff obtained one blank signed promissory note and cheque form the 4 defendant, later the defendant discharged the said amount with interest, but the plaintiff failed to return back the blank signed promissory note and cheque given by the defendant, by using the same filed the present suit and private complaint, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

10.Coming to the chief examination of Pws.1 to 3 they reiterated the plaint averments and Ex.A1 promissory note A2 notice marked on behalf of the plaintiff in the evidence of PW1.

 11. In the cross examination of PW1 he deposed that he is working as Marketing Executive in Reliance Company since 10 years, he saved

Rs.1,00,000/­ out of his commission amount and his wife salary, the same was lent to the defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note on 16­4­ 2012 and the Ex.A1 transaction took place at his house in between 5 p.m. To 6 p.m. In the presence of PW2, PW3 and one J.N.Malleswara

Rao.

12.PW2,3 also deposed in their cross examination that they know the defendant for the last 5 years and he borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/­ form the plaintiff on 16­4­2012 in their presence and the said transaction took place at the house of the PW1 at about 5.30 p.m.

In the cross examination of Pws.1 to 3 they have not shaken and no worthwhile substance was derived in favour of the defendant to believe his version that the Ex.A1 promissory note is not supported by consideration. By examining Pws.2 and 3 the plaintiff discharged the initial burden of the proving the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant after receiving the consideration on 16­4­2012 at

Gudivada.

13.In fact in the present case the burden is on the shoulders of the defendant as he is admitting his signatures in Ex.A1 promissory note.

The contention of the defendant is that he borrowed only Rs.50,000/­ from the plaintiff, by that time he gave one promissory note one blank signed promissory note and cheque in favour of the plaintiff, later he discharged the same, but the plaintiff do not return the said promissory note and cheque. If really the plaintiff retained the blank signed promissory note and cheque the defendant ought to have issued a legal notice demanding him to return back the said documents, but the defendant do not move his little finger on that aspect. The defendant not even entered into witness box to canvas his case. The cross examination of Pws.1 to 3 is not sufficient to believe the version of the defendant as canvassed in his written statement. As such the defendant failed to prove the fact that the suit promissory note is true valid and binding on the defendant, basing on it the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from the defendant with costs and subsequent interest.

Accordingly the issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

14.To what relief?

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

Rs.1,71,333/­ with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit to date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

from the date of decree, till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/­.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 17th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- K.Prabhakara Rao

Prl.Senior Civil Judge,

Gudivada.

6

Appendix of evidence witness examined

For Plaintiff : For defendant :

PW1 :V.Simon Nil

PW2 : A.Salman Raju

Documents Marked on behalf of Plaintiff

Ex.A1: the original promissory note dated 16­04­2012 executed by the defendant in plaintiff favour for Rs.1,00,000/­

Ex.A2: the office copy registered legal notice dated 14­02­2013 issued to the defendant.

Documents Marked on behalf of defendant

Nil

Sd/- K.Prabhakara Rao

Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Gudivada.

IN THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE , GUDIVADA.

PRESENT: SRI K.PRABHAKARA RAO Prl.Senior Civil Judge. Wednesday, this the 26th day of April, 2017

O.S.No.372 of 2015

Between : Munagala Ramadevi …Plaintiff

And

1.Munagala Kasthuri bai 2.Dasari Lakshmi 3.Munagala Nagarani 4.Munagala Narendra Prasad …Defendants

This ORIGINAL SUIT coming on 26.4.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.V.Raju, Advocate for plaintiff, and Sri.P.Baji Sherif Khan, Advocate for D1, no steps taken to serve summons on D2 to D4, 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 

Suit for partition may be pleased to pass a preliminary decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants 

a) For a preliminary decree by allotting an extent of 1/5th share in plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and to the defendants each 

b) To pass a final decree in terms of preliminary decree on a separate application and for costs of the suit

Plaintiff called absent no representation. No steps taken to serve the summons to D2 to D4. Hence suit against D2 to D4 is dismissed for default. Since suit against D2 to D4 who are co­ sharers is dismissed continuation of suit against D1 is futile exercise, hence, suit is dismissed for default for non­prosecution.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined

Nil

Prl.Senior Civil Judge,

Gudivada

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUDIVADA.

PRESENT: Sri. K.Prabhakara Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

this the 27th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No.59/2014

Between :

Veeramallu Venkateswara Rao Hindu, aged 30 Years, R/o.D.No.10-154D-10, Gudivada-521 301, Krishna District. …Plaintiff

And

Veerla Mohan Rao Hindu, R/o. D.No.10-247-E-21, Nagavarapadu, Gudivada, Krishna District. …Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri G.Srinivas, Advocates for Plaintiff and Sri P.Easwara Rao, Advocate for defendant 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

This Suit is filed for recovery of amount for Rs.7,25,806/- due under a pronote dt.16-02-2012 executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff for

Rs.50,000/- and for costs.

Before Lok Adalat Both plaintiff and defendant along with their

respective counsel appeared before Lok Adalat and settled them at in terms of compromise accordingly an award is passed

Pronounced by me in the open court that this 27 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- K.Prabhakara Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge

Gudivada.