Sri K.Ratna Prasad

1

::IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : Sri K. Ratna Prasad, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Wednesday, the day 18th of April, 2018.

M.C.82/2016

Between:63

Smt.Guthula (Anasuri) Devika Rani @ Devika, W/o.Janaki Ramudu, D/o. Late Anasuri Satyanarayna, Hindu, Aged 22 years, R/o.C/o. Surampudi Subbarao, D.No.2-38, Near Old Water Tank, Kadiyam Village, E.G.Dist. (within the limits of Kadiyma P.S.)…Petitioner

And

Guthula Janaki Ramudu, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Aged 26 years, Private employee, D.No.8-143, Rajamma Colony, Angara village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, East Godavari District..…Respondent

This petition having come on 09-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Satyanarayana Murhy, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P.Rama Raju, Advocate for the defendant and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, who is wife of respondent praying to grant separate monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner from the respondent on the ground of refusal and neglect to maintain the petitioner, despite having sufficient source of income.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the marriage of petitioner with the respondent was performed on 05-05-2015 as per Hindu rites and caste customs, at Angara Village, that at the time of their marriage the mother of petitioner presented an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry besides presenting 2 sovereigns of gold ornaments, 5 Tulas of silver besides Rs.10,000/-towards Adapaduchu Lanchanam as 2 demanded by the respondent and his family members and that the marriage was consummated. It is averred that after the marriage both the petitioner and respondent lived together happily for period of 5 months, then respondent started harassing the petitioner by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- on the evil advice of the respondent’s parents, that respondent addicted to bad vices used to suspect the petitioner and has been blaming the petitioner that she is having sexual illegal contacts with one Nagu and that respondent used to express his disinterest towards petitioner by comparing the petitioner with other girls and also insisting her to give divorce. It is further averred that the respondent proclaimed, that he will kill petitioner and he will get marry another woman for dowry, that on 06-10-2015 the respondent beat and necked out the petitioner from his house and since then the petitioner has been living on the mercy her grandfather, that now it is difficult to petitioner’s grandfather to look after the welfare of petitioner as he is an old man and the petitioner is unable to maintain herself, that the respondent got issued legal notice

dated 17.10.2016 with false allegations, the petitioner got issued reply

dated 22.10.2016, that the respondent is working as a supervisor in Milk

Diary firm at Kunduru and earning Rs.9,000/- per month besides having

A.c.1.00 agricultural land situated at Angara village and by doing real estate business. Submitting thus, prays to grant maintenance to the petitioner.

3.On receipt of notice, the respondent appeared before the court and filed counter. In the counter, the respondent admitted the relationship with the petitioner, but denied the remaining allegations. The respondent submitted that on 01-07-2015 i.e., within 2 months from the date of marriage the Ashadam intervened and the petitioner went to her parents 3 house and failed to return, that from that time onwards the respondent tried his level best to bring back the petitioner the matrimonial home, but petitioner refused to join with the respondent, that the petitioner demanded the respondent to be as illatum son-in-law at the petitioner’s grandfather’s house and as the elders failed to settle the matter the respondent issued notice dated 17.10.2016 and that after receipt of reply notice from petitioner, respondent got issued rejoinder dated 08.11.2016.

It is averred that as the petitioner avoided to join respondent, he filed

M.O.P.NO.159/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, that the respondent is a agricultural coolie and will get work seasonally, that the petitioner also doing agriculture coolie work and getting equal remuneration compared to the respondent, that the respondent has no such capacity to pay separate maintenance and he is ready to lead marital life with the respondent. Submitting thus, sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.In order to prove the respective contentions, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 and P2. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1 is marked.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the material on record.

6.Now the points that arose for consideration are :

(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim monthly maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., from the respondent on the ground of his refusal and neglect to maintain her?

(2)If so, what is quantum of maintenance that can be granted to petitioner?

(3)To what relief?

4

7.POINT NO.1 :-

In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to relationship of both parties. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner and respondent are living separately and no maintenance amount is paid to petitioners by the respondent from the date they got separated. With this understanding, the discussion proceeds further with the evidence adduced by both sides.

8.In order to prove the respective contentions, on behalf of the petitioner, petitioner herself examined as P.W.1 and she supported the pleadings of petition in her chief examination. Through this witness Ex.P1

Legal notice, dated 22.10.2016 Ex.P2. Legal notice dated 17.10.2016 are marked. P.W.1 deposed in her chief examination that after marriage she jointed with respondent, led marital life happily for a period of 5 months, that during Ashadamasam also they went to the house of grand father at

Kunduru Village and lived there for about one month, that thereafter after respondent started demanding her to bring Rs.2,00,000/- additional dowry but her parents expressed their inability to meet the demand of respondent. It is further evidence of P.W.1 that though they placed the matter before elders in Kadiyam High School, the respondent and his family members continued their demand of additional dowry, that since then petitioner has been residing at her parents house. In the cross examination P.W.1 deposed that she did not file any documentary proof to show that the respondent is working as supervisor in Milk dairy at

Pasalapudi and that she is ready to join respondent, but respondent used to beat and suspect her character. P.W.1 denied suggestion that she did not join with respondent after Ashadam during the year her marriage with respondent, that she voluntarily left the conjugal society of the respondent 5 as such she is not entitled for any maintenance from the respondent. In the cross examination, the learned counsel for the respondent could not elicit much substantial, except putting suggestions for which the answers were in negative.

9.P.W.2/L.Amaravathi who is mother of petitioner who wants to corroborate the evidence of PW.1 stated similarly as that of P.W.1 in her chief affidavit. In the cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that prior to marriage of petitioner and respondent, they presented dowry including gold ornaments and other gifts, that respondent working as Supervisor and earning Rs.9000/- per month. P.W.2 denied suggestion that petitioner failed to join with respondent after Ashadam, that respondent is not working as Supervisor and that he has no immovable properties. The learned counsel for respondent could not elicit any fact favouring the respondent's case. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborating the version of

P.W.1.

10.With the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it must be stated that the petitioner is able to prove that the petitioner is residing at her parents house. The fact that the petitioner is residing separately is not denied by respondent, but the respondent claims that after marriage during

Ashadam the petitioner went to her parents house and failed to return, that though the respondent tried to bring back, the petitioner, refused to join the respondent and demanded him to be as illatum son–in- law and that the respondent is ready to lead marital life with petitioner as such the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance. Thus, it needs to be seen as to how the respondent is able to prove his contention.

11.In order to prove his case respondent himself is examined as

R.W.1 and he reiterated the averments of counter in his chief examination.

6

Through R.W.1 Ex.R1 certified copy of petition in MOP.No.159/2016 is marked. In the cross examination of R.W.1, it is elicited that he and petitioner are living separtely for the last 2 years, that the petitioner got issued reply for his notice dated 17.10.16. Though R.W.1 denied suggestion that on 27.08.2017 elders convened panchayat and in that panchayat he agreed to pay Rs.1,79,000/- to petitioner, he voluntarily stated that elders obtained his signature on voppandam patram forcibly.

Bur R.W.1 failed to give reason for lodging any police complaint when elders obtained his signature forcibly on oppanda patram on 27.08.17.

R.W.1 denied suggestion that he owned a house D.No.8-143 and agricultural property at Angara village, that he got capacity to give maintenance to the petitioner and that he harassed the petitioner for

additional dowry and used to suspect the character of petitioner and

harassed her mentally.

12.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 states that respondent used to harass her for additional dowry, that though the petitioner got issued

Ex.P1 Notice respondent did not come forward to settle the matter before elders. It is observed from petition pleadings and evidence on record that

P.W.1 suffered untold miseries at the hands of R.W.1 for additional dowry, that respondent used to insist the petitioner to give divorce, used to suspect the character of petitioner and blaming the petitioner that she is having illegal contact with one Nagu. Though the averments of counter and evidence of respondent states that petitioner went to her parents house at the time of Ashadam and failed to return, refused to join with respondent and demanded the respondent to be as illetum son-in-law,

R.W.1 failed to prove the above said allegations.

7

13.On perusal of averments in the petition, counter and the evidence on record, it is ascertained that there are serious matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent which could be agitated in appropriate form. With the evidence on record, it needs to be observed that the petitioners is residing separately and respondent did not provide any maintenance to the petitioner since the date they got separated. This fact is also admitted by respondent. Therefore, considering the facts and evidence on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

against the respondent, who is having means, but failed to provide maintenance to the petitioner. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

14.Point No. 2 :

Now the question that needs to be answered is what is the quantum of maintenance that can be granted to petitioner. It is asserted in the petition averments as well as in the evidence of P.W.1 that respondent is earning Rs.9,000/- per month by working as Supervisor in

Milk Dairy Form at Kunduru besides earning money by doing real estate business and having Agricultural property A.c.1.00 cents at Angara village . Although petitioner contended that respondent is earning of

Rs.9,000/- per month and having properties at Angara village, petitioner failed to produce any documentary proof to show the earning of respondent. On the other hand, the respondent denied that he is working as supervisor in milk dairy firm and earning of Rs.9,000/- besides owning property at Angara village. However the suggestion put to P.W.1 during cross examination go to show that the respondent is getting Rs.200/- per day on Agricultural Daily labour work. Further, the contents of para No.7 8 of counter also reveals that the respondent is an agricultural coolie.

Therefore, this court presume that respondent earns Rs.400/- per day which is daily labour wage, that would come to an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month as such parting of Rs.3,500/- of the income of the respondent would not cause any inconvenience to the respondent. Hence granting of an amount of Rs.3,500/- to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered in favour of petitioner.

15.Point No. 3 :

In the result, the petition is partly allowed granting monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- to petitioner from the date of this order i.e., 18.04.18. The respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance amount on or before 10th of every calendar month. The petitioner is hereby directed to open the joint bank account in any nationalized bank on her behalf and communicate the same to respondent for compliance of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the day of 18th of April, 2018,

2018.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Petitioners :-

P.W.1 : G.Devika Rani P.W.2 : L. Amaravathi

For Respondent:-

R.W.1 : G. Janaki Ramudu 9

Documents marked

For Petitioner :-

Ex.P1: Office copy of the reply legal notice dt.22-1016 issued by the petitioner to the respondent

Ex.P2: Office copy of legal notice dt.17-10-16 got issued by the respondent

For Respondent:-

Ex.R1: Certified copy of petition in M.O.P.No.159/16

(FAC) IV A.J.C.J.

10

:: IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : Sri K. Ratna Prasad, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Tuesday, the 17th day of April, 2018.

O.S.No.737/2017

Between:

Kantheti Suryanarayana Murthy…Plaintiff

And

Gopisetti Srirama Krishna…Defendant

This suit having come on 10-04-18 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.S.Laxminarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant set 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

This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.77,467/- on the foot of promissory note.

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.08.2015 for the purpose of his family expenses and having agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed an on demand promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the suit debt, as such plaintiff got issued legal notice 28.08.2017. But the defendant did not discharge debt even after receipt of legal notice. Hence, the suit.

3. The suit summons of the defendant served, but the defendant called absent and is set exparte on 05-03-18.

11

4.The plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for?

7.POINT:-

In order to establish the facts mentioned in the plaint, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and his evidence clearly supporting the averments of the plaint that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,000/-on 01-08-2015 for the purpose of meeting his personal expenses and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and after repeated demands and issuance of legtal notice Ex.A2 dt, 28-08-2017, the defendant did not repay any amount either towards interest or principal to the plaintiff. On placing of sufficient evidence by the plaintiff and marking

Ex.A.1 promissory note stated that the defendant is received the entire consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- and then only executed Ex.A.1 on 01-08-2015. Therefore, the burden shifts on to the defendant to disprove the case of plaintiff, but the defendant having received the suit summons, did not appear before this court and remained exparte. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3 remained unchallenged.

Hence, this court felt that it is a fit case to pass judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

12

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.77,467/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on the principal amount of

Rs.50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 17th day of April, 2018.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff :

P.W.1 :K. Suryanarayana Murthy

For Defendant: None

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original promissory note dated 01-08-2015 Ex.A.2: Office copy of the Legal Notice, dated 28-08-2017 Ex.A.3: Acknowledgement

For Defendant: Nil

(FAC) IV AJCJ

13

:: IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : Sri K. Ratna Prasad, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Wednesday, the 28th day of March, 2018.

O.S.No.49/2018

Between:

Kavi Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Basava Raju, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Advocate, D.No.17-22-4, Gummiddalavari Street, Seethampeta, Rajamahendravaram.…Plaintiff

And

Valluri Rama Krishna Sastry, S/o.Late Ramchandra Murthy, Hindu, Aged 68 years, Occupation:Nil, R/o.302, 4-167, 168, Sai Krupa Elite, Maruthi Nagar, Opp: Raghavendra Theater, Malkajigiri, K.V.Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State – 500047.…Defendant

This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,55,066/- on the foot of promissory note.

Suit presented on 08-01-2018 and filed on 27-01-2018.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 21-09-2015 when the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and when the defendant executed an on demand promissary note in favour of the plaintiff and on all subsequent dates of demands the defendant failed to pay the debt and on 25-03-2017 when the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and the same was received on 31.03.2017 by the defendant through his wife and where the transaction took place which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

Value of the suit:-

Principal amount borrowed by defendant Rs.1,00,000-00

Add: Interest thereon from 21-09-2015 to 07-01-2018 at the rate of 24% P.A.Rs. 55,066-00 Total: Rs.1,55,066-00

On that a court fee of Rs.4,026/- is paid under Section 20 Sch.I,

Art.1(b and c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

14

TThis suit having come on 20.03.18 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Smt. M.Padma, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER

AND:-

DECREE

i) That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant; ii) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.2,00,600/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only); and iii) That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,528/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred and twenty eight only) towards institutional costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and seal of the court this the 3rd day of January, 2018.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff:For Defendants: 1.Stamp on vakalat 2-00 No costs memo is filed.

2.Stamp on plaint 4526-00 --------------- Institutional Costs : 4528-00 --------------- Since no costs memo is filed, institutional costs only allowed.

I A.J.C.J.

1 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.44/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: SRI K. RATNA PRASAD, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Friday, the 20th day of March, 2020.

O.S.No. 44 /2017

Between

1) Smt.Marthvampati Chamundeswari, W/o Prabhakararao, D.No.2-51-19, 1st Street, Shambhunagar, Rajamahendravaram.

2. Mr.Marthvampati Gopi Krishna, S/o Prabhakararao, D.No.2-51-19, 1st Street, Shambhunagar, Rajamahendravaram. … Plaintiffs

AND

1) M/s. Gayatri Engilish Medium Public School, Rajahmundry rep. by its Correspondent, Sri Doddi Ramaswamy Naidu, D.No.2-40-151, Opp. Railway Hospital, Behind Medplus, Main Road, A.C.Gardens, Rajamahendravaram, E.G.Dt., RJCJC.

2) Sri Doddi Ramaswamy Naidu, S/o Pydithallinaidu, Hindu, Age 50 Years, Correspondent of the school, D.No.2-40-151, Opp. Railway Hospital, Behind Medplus, Main Road, A.C.Gardens, Rajamahendravaram, E.G.Dt., RJCJC. … Defendants

This suit having come on 19-02-2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Vijay Kishore and Sri A.M.S.V.Prasad, Advocates for the plaintiffs and of Sri G.Srinivasulu Reddy and Sri K.V.Narasam Bhotlu, Advocates 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.The plaintiffs instituted the present suit for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.22,400/- due or damages for use and occupation in alternatively from the defendants towards rent payable for seven months with respect to the plaint schedule property, together with subsequent interest and costs.

2.The averments of plaint in brief are that the 1st plaintiff is mother of 2nd plaintiff and the plaintiffs got plaint schedule property by virtue of 2 registered settlement deed dt.26-02-2007 executed by the mother of 1st plaintiff in favour of plaintiffs, that 1st defendant is an educational institution represented by 2nd defendant and 2nd defendant is looking after the affairs of the 1st defendant’s school and he is sole incharge of 1st defendant-school. It is averred that the 2nd defendant is running 1st defendant-school under the name and style of M/s. Gayatri English Medium Public School in rented house portion bearing D.No.2-40-151 which is nearer to plaint schedule house and in view of request on 28-08-2007, the 1st plaintiff inducted the defendants as tenant into the plaint schedule property on the initial rent of Rs.2,800/- per month, that the tenancy is oral tenancy and thereafter on 01-09-2010 the said rent was enhanced from Rs.2,800/- to Rs.3,200/- per month. It is submitted that the defendants are not paying agreed rent to the plaintiffs regularly and committed willful default in payment of agreed rent, that the defendants have not paid the agreed rent for the months May to August, 2016 and though the defendants have agreed to vacate plaint schedule property by 10-10-2016 in the presence of elders namely D.Durgarao and others, the defendants did not vacate the plaint schedule house on 10-10- 2016 and did not pay arrears of rent amount to the plaintiffs as such the plaintiffs got issued quit notic e dt.22-10-2016 informing the defendants that the tenancy in respect of plaint schedule property stands terminated and demanded to vacate the plaint schedule premises within a month. It is averred that even after receipt of said notice the defendant did not vacate the plaint schedule house nor did they pay the arrears of the rent amount, that defendants send belated reply notice dt.24-11-2016 with false averments, that the defendants did not vacate the plaint schedule premises with a view to cause loss and damage to the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs obliged to file RCC against the defendants for eviction from the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3. On receipt of summons from the court, defendants appeared before this court and 1st Defendant adopted the written statement filed by 2nd 3 defendant by filing a memo. 2nd defendant filed written statement, denied the averments of plaint and contended that the averments in Para Nos.6 and 7 of the plaint are true to som extent only and the defendants never committed default in payment of rents in any manner and the present rent is Rs.3,200/- per month. It is averred that the 1st defendant took the plaint schedule two portioned house from 1st plaintiff on lease on a monthly rental basis, that the 1st defendant-school represented by its Secretary/ 2nd defendant, that by the time of entering into lease, the defendants paid

Rs.2,00,000/- as an advance to 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant paid the rent regularly to 1st plaintiff till the end of August, 2016. It is regular practice that 1st plaintiff came to 1st defendant’s school and collect monthly rent but in the month of October, 2016, the 1st defendant did not come to the plaint schedule property and did not collect the monthly rent, that the electricity charges are being paid by 1st defendant directly to APEPDCL. The plaintiffs send legal notice dt.22-10-2016 with false averments, then the 1st defendant issued suitable reply with correct facts and mentioned its ready and willingness to pay the arrears of rent and the 1st plaintiff evaded to receive.

It is submitted that the 2nd defendant approached the plaintiffs many times to pay the rent for the month of September 2016 and also continue to pay the rents every month, that the plaintiffs informed that the amount will be spend for necessary repairs of the plaint schedule property and believing the words of plaintiffs, the 2nd defendant kept the rent amount for all the months with him for the month of September, 2016 onwards but surpirsingly the defendants received suit summons in OS 44/2017 for arrears of rent and also from RCC 1/2017 for eviction on the ground of willful default. After receiving court summons, the defendants came to know that the plaintiffs with an evil motive to create ground for eviction of 1st defendant and with an ulterior motive for giving lease to 3rd parties for high rent. As such the 1st defendant got issued legal notice along with the demand draft dt.22-02- 2017 for a sum of Rs.19,200/- towards rent for the months of September 4 2016 to the end of February, 2017 i.e. for six months and also requested the 1st plaintiff to intimate her bank name and account number to enable him to remit the monthly rents into her bank account. The said notice was issued by 1st plaintiff but 1st plaintiff returned the said demand draft along with reply notice dt.17-03-2017 stating that in view of pendency of OS 44/2017 and RCC 1/2017 she did not receive the rents from 1st defendant herein.

Submitting thus, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit.

4.Based on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover suit amount as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5.In the course of trial, 1st plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and the husband of P.W.1 is examined as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 on behalf of the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant himself is examined as D.W.1 and

Exs.B.1 to B.3 are marked on his behalf.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record including citation relied on by counsel for defendant.

Now the issues are answered as under:

7. Issue No.1

The plaintiffs to substantiate their claim got examined the 1st plaintiff as P.W.1. She reiterated the averments of plaint in her chief affidavit filed in lieu of her examination in chief. Through P.W.1, true copy of notice dt.22-10-2016, true copy of postal acknowledgement, true copy of reply notice issued by defendants, true copy of notice 27-02-2017, true copy of reply notice dt.17-03-2017 and true copy of postal acknowledgement are marked as Exs.A.1 to A.6. There is no dispute in the version of P.W.1 as to filing of RCC 1/2017 on the file of Hon’ble Rent Controller cum Principal

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajahmundry for eviction of the defendants from 5 the plaint schedule property on the ground of willful default. Further, it is admitted fact that the defendants were inducted into plaint schedule property as tenants. With respect to quantum of monthly rent, in the cross examination evidence of P.W.1 deposed that in the year 2007 the rate of rent is Rs.2,800/- per month and the rent was enhanced to Rs.3,200/- per month in the year 2010. Further, it is evidence of P.W.1 that prior to issue of legal notice, they demanded defendants orally to pay arrears of rents. The suggestion that the defendants never committed default in payment of rents and only in order to evict defendants from the plaint schedule premises, she got filed the frivolous suit, was denied by P.W.1. One M.Prabhakar Rao who is husband of 1st plaintiff and father of 2nd plaintiff is examined as P.W.2. In his chief examination, he supported the case of plaintiffs by reiterating the averments of plaint. During cross examination, P.W.2 voluntarily deposed that they send back the demand drafts as the defendants failed to pay entire rents due by then and the 1st defendant has to send rents from May, 2016. P.W.2 denied suggestion that the 1st defendant-school has to pay rents from the month of September, 2016 but not from May, 2016.

8.The learned counsel for defendants referring Ex.B.1 i.e., red ink underlined portion in the cross examination evidence of P.W.1 in RCC 1/2017, submitted that when 1st plaintiff/ Marthvampati Chamundeswari has categorically admitted that defendant committed default in payment of rent from September, 2016 in total for a period of 11 months there remains nothing to defendants to disprove the case of plaintiffs. Per contra, the learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted that the defendants committed default in payment of rents from May, 2016 and the cross examination evidence of P.W.1 in RCC 1/2017 has to be read in its entirety and the defendants cannot rely some sentence in Ex.B.1 here and there in the evidence of P.W.1 in RCC 1/2017. He further submitted that since the defendants have to pay rent from May, 2016 and they committed default in 6 payment of rents from May, 2016, the plaintiffs did not receive demand draft send by the defendants.

9.Thus, the claim of the plaintiffs is consistent to their version in

RCC 1/2017 on the file of Hon’ble Rent Controller cum Principal Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Rajahmundry and the said RCC 1/2017 filed for eviction of

defendants from the plaint schedule shops for the alleged willful default in payment of rents at the rate of Rs.3,200/- per month and testimony of

P.Ws.1 and 2 remained unshattered despite thorough cross examination.

Thus, the plaintiffs by examining the 1st plaintiff as P.W.1 and the husband of

P.W.1 as P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.6 are able to prove that the defendants committed willful default in payment of rents from May, 2016 in respect of plaint schedule property.

10.Now the burden shifts on to the defendants to prove that the 1st defendant paid rents regularly to 1st plaintiff till the end of August, 2016 and 1st defendant did not collect monthly rents and further the defendants paid

Rs.2,00,000/- as an advance amount to 1st plaintiff. To prove the said contention of defendants, 2nd defendant/D.Ramaswamy Naidu is examined himself as D.W.1 and reiterated the averments of the written statement in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief. Through D.W.1 certified copy of partition in RCC 6/2017 and certified copy of counter in RCC 6/2017 are marked as Exs.B.2 and B.3. The elicitation in the cross examination evidence of D.W.1 states that present rent per month to 1st defendant-school is Rs.3,200/-, that he received Ex.A.1 notice under Ex.A.2 acknowledgment and issued Ex.A.3 reply notice and he agreed to deposit rents into the court and till today he did not deposit the said rent. The evidence of D.W.1 further shows that in the month of July he paid rents for April, May, June of 2013 by way of cheque, that in the year 2014 he paid rents for the months of March,

April, May of 2014 by way of cheque for Rs.9,000/- and the rents for the month of August, September and October of 2015 paid by way of cheque for

Rs.9,000/- in the month of November, 2015. The evidence of D.W.1 further 7 discloses that he paid rents for the months of January, February, March and

April of 2016 by way of cheque for Rs.12,800/- in the month of May, 2016.

Though D.W.1 denied suggestion that subsequent to the above said payments he committed default in payment of rents and he voluntarily stated that he paid rents by way of cash to plaintiffs, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced to prove that the defendants paid rents from

May, 2016 and then they did not commit willful default, except examining the 2nd defendant as D.W.1. Adding to it, although defendants in their written statement contended that they paid Rs.2,00,000/- as an advance amount to 1st plaintiff at the time of entering into lease and 1st defendant paid rent regularly to 1st plaintiff till the end of August, 2016 and in order to prove the same reilied on Exs.B.1 to B.3, the defendants are not able to prove their contention by producing any documentary evidence. Hence, the bald contentions of the defendants that they paid rents till the end of

August, 2016, that as per the advise of plaintiffs they spend the rent amount for necessary repairs of lease hold school building, failed to impress the court as believable and consistent. The testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.6 inspiring the confidence of court to conclude affirmatively, that the defendants fell in due in payment of arrears of monthly rents of Rs.3,200/- from month of May, 2016.

11.The learned counsel for plaintiffs drawn attention of this Court to

Exs.B.2 and B.3 certified copies of petition in RCC No.6/2017 and counter in

RCC No.6/2017 respectively and submitted that the pendency of RCC

No.6/2017 seeking permission to deposit the rents into the Court showing bonafides and the suit itself is not maintainable as the relief sought in the suit is pre-matured. He further submitted during arguments that the 2nd plaintiff has only vested reminder right and he has no right to sue the present suit as such the present suit has to be dismissed for mis-joinder of party. On the other hand, the learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted that mere filing of an application under Section 8 (5) of the Act would not by 8 itself be sufficient and the tenant must deposit the rent immediately on that application seeking permission of the court and Section 8 of the said Act provides an extra protection to the tenant so that in case of refusal on the part of landlord to accept the rent, he may not be a willful default. In support of the said submission, he relied on the following citations1 The submission made by learned counsel for defendants has no force. In the present case on hand D.W.1 categorically stated that till today he did not deposit the rents. Sub (5) of Section 8 of Rent Controller Act provides that if the tenant wants to take advantage of sub section (5), he has to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller and continue to deposit the rent when it becomes payable. If the tenant does not take advantage of sub(5) Section 8 of the Rent Controller Act, he will be liable for willful default.

12.Secondly, as to the claim of interest on the arrears of rent, indeed there may not be any understanding between the landlord and tenant for payment of interest on the arrears of rent the tenant would fell due for the reason no landlord who could anticipate that his prospective tenant would fell due in payment of arrears of rent, would accept such person as a tenant. Hence, the question of fore thought of interest on the arrears of rent is not anticipatory. However, although there may not be any understanding between the plaintiffs and the defendants as to payment of interest on the arrears of rent due, the court having regard to the nature of the activity conducted by the defendant in the plaint schedule property, admittedly, running school, and to inflation and decline of the value of rupee in the economy with the passage of time, finds it just and reasonable to award interest on the arrears of rents Rs.22,400/- pendente lite and future, at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. Thus the court is of the finding that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1(i) Bansilal Vs. Mohmood Ahmed 2001(3) L.S. 402

(ii) Madan Gopala Krishna & Anr. Vs. Narni Gnana Veerabhadraswamy & Ors. Andhra Pradesh LS 1994 (1)

(iii) D.Seshagiri Rao Vs. M.V.SastryAn.W.R. 348 1970(1) 9 suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

15.Issue No.2

In the result, the suit is decreed with proportionate costs in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants for Rs.22,400/- and the plaintiffs are entitled for interest on the sum of Rs.22,400/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plantiff:

P.W.1: Marthvampati Chamundeswari P.W.2: M.Prabhakar Rao

For Defendants:

D.W.1: D.Rama Swamy Naidu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: True copy of notice Ex.A2: True copy of postal acknowledgment Ex.A3: True copy of reply notice Ex.A4: True copy of notice Ex.A5: True copy of reply notice Ex.A6: True copy of postal acknowledgment

For Defendants:

Ex.B.1: Relevant portion in certified copy of RCC 1/2017 Ex.B.2: Certified copy of petition in RCC 6/2017 Ex.B.3: Certified copy of counter in RCC 6/2017

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

:: IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present : Sri K. Ratna Prasad, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Tuesday, the 17th day of April, 2018.

O.S.No. 311/2016

Between Kona Thirumala Devi …Plaintif

And

Turangi Tatarao …Defendant

This suit having come on 10-4-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Prasada Rao, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri K. Jagadeesh Kumar, Advocate for the defendant 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

The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,64,400/- on the foot of a promissory note.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif on 14-12-2014 for the purpose of his family expenses and in evidence thereof executed promissory note in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. It is averred that in spite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintif, the defendant failed to repay the debt. Then the plaintif got issued legal notice on 5-2-2016 calling upon the defendant to repay the debt due to the plaintif. But the defendant did not repay any amount. Hence, the suit.

3.On receipt of summons from the court, the defendant appeared before this court and filed written statement and contended that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated one, that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintif, that the suit promissory note was not supported by consideration and that the 2 plaintif has no capacity to lend such huge amount to the defendant.

Submitting thus, prays for dismissal of the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, my predecessor framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether there is creditor and debtor relationship between the plaintif and defendant?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for?

3)To what relief?

5.In order to prove the respective contentions, on behalf of the plaintif, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 is examined and no documents are marked.

6.Heard both parties and perused the material on record.

7.Now the issues are answered as follows :

Issue No. 1:

It is the case of the plaintif that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif on 14-12-2014 for the purpose of his family expenses and in evidence thereof executed promissory note in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and in spite of issuance of legal notice on 5-2-2016 calling upon the defendant to repay the debt due to the plaintif, the defendant failed to discharge the same. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated one, that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintif and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

8.The initial legal burden is always on the plaintif to prove the execution of the suit pronote by the defendant and passing of consideration there under to him. When once he discharges his initial burden, then the onus shifts on to the defendant to prove his case.

3

9.To discharge his initial burden, the plaintif examined himself as PW.1 and both attestors of Ex.A1 are examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. PW.1 in the affidavit in lieu of his chief examination reiterated the same facts stated by him in the plaint. Through P.W.1, Ex.A1 promissory note, Ex.A2 office copy of legal notice and Ex.A3 acknowledgment are marked. In the

Cross Examination of P.W.1, it is elicited that there is no documentary proof available with her showing the source of income which she lent the same to the defendant, that there were no corrections or alterations in the pronote. It is evidence of P.W.1 that the defendant has brought the attestor/Sagar of Ex.A1, who is private employee, that one month prior to Ex.A1 transaction the defendant asked her to arrange amount.

Further the evidence of P.W.1 states that her husband and defendant are working in Irrigation Department and since 10 years she got acquaintance with the defendant. P.W.1 denied suggestion that she has no financial capacity to lend Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant and in order to gain wrongfully the present suit was filed at the instance of her husband.

10.One Kona Lakshmana Rao is examined as PW.2. According to him, on 14-12-2014 the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from PW.1 and executed the suit pronote in her favour and at the time of execution of Ex.A1 pronote he signed as 2nd attestor in Ex.A1 in presence of 1st attestor and scribe of Ex.A1. The cross examination evidence of P.W.2 states that both he and defendant are employees in Irrigation

Department at Dowleswaram, that the defendant brought both Sagar and Kameswara Rao, who are attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 respectively to his house and that the transaction of Ex.A1 took place at his house i.e., Dowleswaram. P.W.2 denied suggestion that he, plaintif, 1st attestor and scribe colluded together and created Ex.A1 pronote for the purpose of this case, that the defendant never borrowed Ex.A1 amount from the 4 plaintif and that the plaintif has no capacity to lend Ex.A1 amount to the defendant.

11.One A. Sagar is examined as P.W.3. He deposed in his chief examination that on 14-12-2014 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from PW.1 and executed the suit pronote in her favour and at the time of execution of Ex.A1 pronote he, another attestor who is husband of plaintif and scribe were present. P.W.3 further deposed that he signed as 1st attestor in Ex.A1 pronote in the presence of

K.Lakshmana Rao and Scribe K. Kameswara Rao. In the Cross

Examination, P.W.3 deposed that he does not know disputes between the husband of the plaintif and the defendant, that whether the disputes placed before Employees’ Union and that he has no acquaintance with the plaintif. It is elicited during the cross examination of P.W.3 that at the request of P.W.3 he is deposing and that he cannot say the colour of ink used for preparation of columns of Ex.A1. P.W.3 denied suggestion that the defendant never borrowed Ex.A1 amount from the plaintif in his presence and that he is deposing false at the instance of P.W.2. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 corroborated the testimony of PW.1 with regard to passing of consideration to the defendant and the date, place of execution of the Ex.A1 suit pronote. Thus, the plaintif, by adducing direct evidence by adducing herself and both attestors of Ex.A1, is able to prove the execution of the suit pronote by the defendant and passing of consideration there under to her. Now the burden shifts on to the defendant to prove that the suit pronote came into existence in the circumstances stated by him in the written statement. To discharge his burden, he examined himself as D.W.1. In the affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, he reiterated the very same facts stated by him in the written statement. It is elicited in his cross examination that he is working as Attender in Irrigation Department since 9 years, that he 5 received Ex.A2 legal notice under Ex.A3 acknowledgment, that the signature shown to him on suit summons, Ex.A3 acknowledgment belongs to him and that he did not issue any reply notice to the Ex.A2 legal notice. D.W.1 denied suggestion that the signature shown to him on Ex.A3 and Ex.A1 are appears similar, that in order to avoid payment of Ex.A1 suit pronote amount he falsely pleaded in his written statement.

It is noted that D.W.1 categorically admitted to have received the Ex.A2 notice issued by the plaintif prior to the filing of the suit. But he did not give any reply to Ex.A2. Thus, except his self-serving testimony as to how the suit pronote came into existence, he did not adduce any independent evidence to prove the said contention. Further, the circumstance that he did not give any reply to the legal notice got issued by the plaintif prior to the filing of the suit is a circumstance which goes against him. Because, no man of ordinary prudence would keep quiet if he gets a legal notice in respect of a pronote which he claims that the alleged pronote is forged one and that it is not supported by any consideration.

12.According to the defendant Ex.A1 is forged document and that the signature on Ex.A1 does not belongs to him. But the defendant did not take any steps to send the Ex.A1 pronote to Handing Writing

Expert with those of his admitted signatures for comparison, which would have clinched the issue. For the best reasons known to the defendant, he did not resort to the said remedy. It is well settled that mere putting suggestions to the plaintif and plaintif’s witnesses would not suffice and something more is required. The defendant has to bring on record such material that would probablise his defense. Suffice it to state that the defendant failed to bring any such material on record.

Thus, the defendant has failed to prove that the suit pronote came into existence in the circumstances stated by him in the written statement. I, 6 therefore, hold on this Issue that the suit pronote is fully supported by consideration and that there is creditor and debtor relationship between the plaintif and the defendant.

13.Issue No.2:

In view of my finding on Issue No.1, I hold on this Issue that the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant.

14.Issue No. 3 :

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.2,64,400/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on the principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 17th day of April, 2018.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif:- P.W.1 :K. Thirumala Devi P.W.2 :K. Lakshmana Rao P.W.3 :A. Sagar

For Defendant:- D.W.1 :T. Tatarao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif:- Ex.A.1:Promissory note dt.14-12-2015 Ex.A.2 :Office copy of legal notice dt.5-2-2016. Ex.A.3: Postal acknowledgement

For Defendant :- Nil

IV A.J.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present : Sri K. Ratna Prasad, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Tuesday, the 10th day of April, 2018.

O.S.No. 392/2015

Between Kommula Satyanarayana, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, Hindu, aged 47 years, Business, Pedapatnam Lanka, Razole Taluq, Mamidikuduru Mandal. …Plaintif

And

Mungara Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Aadinarayana, Hindu, aged 25 years, D.No.3-1/2, Pidimgoyya, Rajahmundry.…Defendant

The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,77,525/- on the foot of a promissory note, from the defendant and out of the estate of deceased Mungara Leelavathi, lying in the hands of defendant.

Suit presented on 23-6-2015 and filed on 23-6-2015

Cause of action for the suit arose on 15-6-2014 when the defendant's mother borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintif and executed an on demand promissory note in favour of plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest and on all subsequent dates of demand made by the plaintif to pay the amount, the said mother of defendant failed to repay the amount during her life time and in the month of February, 2015 she died leaving behind the defendant as her only legal heir leaving behind all her properties in the hands of defendant and on subsequent dates when the plaintif demanded the defendant who promised to clear the amount, but failed to do so and finally when the plaintif got issued a registered legal notice dt.15-6-2015 demanding the defendant to repay the amount due under the pronote and at Rajahmundry where the defendant is residing within the jurisdiction of this court.

Value of the suit:-

Principal amount borrowedRs.1,50,000-00

Add: Interest from 15-6-2014 to 22-6-2015 @ 18% p.a. on the principal sumRs. 27,525-00 --------------------- Total : Rs.1,77,525-00 --------------------- 8

A court fee of Rs.4,226/- is paid under Sec.20, Sch.I, Art.1(c) of A.P. Court Fee and S.V. Act.

This suit coming on 2-4-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.V.K. Ramesh, Advocate for the plaintif and

Sri V.J.K.S. Rao, Advocate for the defendant and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND:-

DECREE

1)That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of plaintif and against the estate of mother of defendant Mungara Leelavathi, which is lying in the hands of defendant;

2)That the defendant do pay to the plaintif an amount of Rs.1,77,525/- (Rupees one lakh seventy seven thousand five hundred and twenty five only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only); and

2)That the defendant do also pay to the plaintif an amount of Rs._______ towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 10th day of April, 2018.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Rajamahendravaram

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintif:For Defendants:

1. Stamp on vakalat 2-001. Stamp on vakalat 2-00

2. Stamp on plaint 5,426-002. Advocate fee 10,015-00

--------------- ---------------

Institutional Costs Taxed 5,428-00Costs Taxed : 10,017-00

--------------- ----------------

I A.J.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : Sri K. Ratna Prasad, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Tuesday, the 17th day of April, 2018.

M.C.76/2016

Between: Smt. Thorati Aruna, W/o. Thorati Suresh, D/o. Telagamsetti Rambabu, House wife, Age 25 years, Kapavaram village, Korukonda Mandal. …Petitioner

And

Thorati Suresh, S/o. Thorati Sathibabu, Line man, APEPDCL working at Mulastanam Agraharam, D.No.2-301, Choperla village, Alamuru Mandal. …Respondent

This petition having come on 9-4-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.N. Murthy, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri K. Baburao, Advocate for the respondent and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner

Thorati Aruna, who is wife of respondent, praying to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- besides costs of Rs.5,000/- from the respondent on the ground of refusal and neglect to maintain the petitioner, despite having sufficient source of income.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that

Hence, the petition.

3.On receipt of notice, the respondent appeared before the court and filed counter. In the counter, the respondent

Submitting thus, prays to dismiss the petition.

4.In order to prove the respective contentions, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 are marked, on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 are marked.

2

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the material on record.

6.Now the points that arose for consideration are :

(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim monthly maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., from the respondent on the ground of his refusal and neglect to maintain her?

(2)If so, what is quantum of maintenance that can be granted to petitioner?

(3)To what relief?

7.POINT NO.1 :-

In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to relationship of both parties. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner and respondent are living separately and no maintenance amount is paid to petitioner by the respondent from the date they got separated. With this understanding, the discussion proceeds further with the evidence adduced by both sides.

8.The petitioner herself examined as P.W.1 and she supported her pleadings in her chief examination. It is evidence of P.W.1 that after marriage, P.W.1, respondent resided at Rajahmundry, Machilipatnam for some period, later they resided at Chateesgud till 2012. P.W.1 deposed that she came to know that respondent was suffering from HIV disease and later she came to know that she was also effected with HIV during pregnancy test and then started treatment at Bhavya Hospital,

Rajahmundry and as such, she requires an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month for medical expenses. In the cross examination, P.W.1 denied suggestion that respondent got registered one vacant site of an extent of 128 square yards in her name on 25-8-2010 and there was a building in it, that after filing of this case, she transferred the same in favour of her brother Ch. Rajkumar on 9-6-2016. P.W.1 further denied suggestion that 3 respondent has been providing household articles in the house at

Rajahmundry.

9.P.W.2 Ch. Ratnakumari, who is mother of P.W.1 supported the case of petitioner by deposing that they brought P.W.1 to Rajahmundry as she became pregnant and they came to know during pregnancy of P.W.1 that P.W.1 was effected with HIV from the respondent and respondent did not provide any treatment to P.W.1 while staying at Chattishgad. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that her son is spending money for the treatment of

P.W.1 at Rs.3,000/- per month and that the respondent is getting

Rs.1,00,000/- per month by doing contract works, besides owning properties at Visakahpatnam, Rajanagaram and also at Machilipatnam and that the respondent is used to threaten P.W.1 with dire consequences through phone. In the cross examination, P.W.2 denied suggestion that respondent has no properties or assets and that the contents of her chief examination are all false.

10.P.W.3, G. Naresh, who is cousin of P.W.1 supported the case of petitioner by deposing that the petitioner has been residing depending upon her mother and brother at their house since 4 or 5 years, as the respondent is not providing any amount for the medical treatment of P.W.1 and that brother of P.W.1 spending Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- towards medical expenses of P.W.1. In the cross examination of P.W.3, it is elicited that since 4 years, P.W.1 has been residing in the building situated in the site purchased in the year 2010. P.W.3 denied suggestion that with the amounts sent by the respondent, the building in which P.W.1 has been residing was got constructed and that he was speaking falsehood to help

P.W.1.

11.With the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is stated that the petitioner is residing along with her brother and mother. The fact that the petitioner is residing separately is not denied by respondent, but the 4 respondent claims that petitioner's brother Rajkumar demanded to transfer the land standing in the name of respondent's parents to P.W.1 for joining into conjugal society and that there is no negligence or refusal on his part in maintaining P.W.1. As such it needs to be seen as to how the respondent is able to prove his contention.

12.In order to prove his case respondent himself is examined as

R.W.1. In his chief examination, R.W.1 deposed the contents of the counter.

He further deposed in his chief examination that with his earnings he purchased a site at Rajanagaram jointly in the name of himself and P.W.1 in the year 2010, besides purchasing house bearing D.No.2-511, LIG II- 186, phase II, Lalacheruvu House board colony, Rajahmundry in the name of P.W.1 and later P.W.1 got transferred that house in favour of her brother in the year 2016, after their separation. It is evidence of R.W.1 that till 2014 they lead marital life in Chatisghad. In the cross examination of

R.W.1, it is elicited that since five years, P.W.1 has been residing along with her mother, brother in the house bearing D.No.2-511, LIG II-186, phase II,

Lalacheruvu House board colony, Rajahmundry. As such, the chief examination of R.W.1 that till 2014 both P.W.1 and R.W.1 lead marital life at

Chatisghad is far from truth. It is observed that no documentary evidence is adduced by R.W.1 to show that he purchased site at Rajanaram in the year 2010 besides purchasing house D.No.2-511, LIG II-186, phase II,

Lalacheruvu House board colony, Rajahmundry. Though R.W.1 deposing in the chief examination that he made efforts to bring back P.W.1 to lead marital life with the help of elders, that he is ready and willing to take back

P.W.1 to lead marital life, no elder got examined to prove the contention of

R.W.1. It is relevant to state that in the cross examination of R.W.1, it is elicited that he has not filed O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights for taking back P.W.1. It is observed that R.W.1 not even tried to issue notice to petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that 5 respondent used to threaten her to kill by making phone calls, as such she reported the matter to police and further she also filed O.P. seeking divorce and same is pending. The evidence of R.W.1 states that after filing this maintenance petition, respondent filed the suit against P.W.1 and her brother praying to declare that the house belongs to him. R.W.1 denied suggestion that as a counter blast to maintenance case, he filed declaration suit against P.W.1 and her brother. It is averred in the counter and in the evidence of R.W.1 that in the year 2015 P.W.1 got filed maintenance case against R.W.1 and the same was dismissed. On this aspect no documentary evidence adduced in order to cross examine P.W.1.

Hence, R.W.1 failed to prove the said allegation.

13.On perusal of averments in the petition, counter and the evidence on record, it is ascertained that there are serious matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent which could be agitated in appropriate form. With the evidence on record, it needs to be observed that the petitioner is residing separately and respondent did not provide any maintenance to the petitioner since the date they got separated. This fact is also admitted by respondent. Therefore, considering the facts and evidence on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

against the respondent, who is having means, but failed to provide maintenance to the petitioner. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

14.Point No. 2 :

Now the question needs to be answered is what is the quantum of maintenance that can be granted to petitioner. Although the petitioner contended that the respondent is earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month as a Civil engineer, besides owning properties at Rajanagaram of

East Godavari, Machilipatnam of Krishna District and Polipalli of 6

Vijayanagaram District, the petitioner failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence showing the income proof of respondent.

However, the respondent in his chief examination admitted that his monthly income is Rs.10,000/- and he has to spend the entire amount for his medical treatment. Considering the fact that the respondent is also effected with HIV and incurring expenses towards treatment, this court is of the opinion that the respondent can spend Rs.7,500/- towards his medical expenses out of his earnings of Rs.10,000/- and could provide remaining Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner. Thus, petitioner is entitled to get monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/-. Accordingly, point No. 2 is answered in favour of petitioner.

15.Point No. 3 :

In the result, the petition is partly allowed granting monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner from the date of petition i.e.

from 4-2-2016. The respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance amount on or before 10th of every calendar month. The arrears of monthly maintenance shall be paid by the respondent in six equal monthly instalments commencing from November, 2017. The petitioner is hereby directed to open the joint bank account in any nationalized bank on her behalf and communicate the same to respondent for compliance of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 17th day of April, 2018.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:-

P.W.1 : T. Aruna P.W.2 : K.V. Siva Prasad

For Respondent:-

7

R.W.1 : T. Suresh R.W.2 : T. Sathibabu

Documents marked

For Petitioner:-

Ex.P.1 : Wedding card Ex.P.2 : Pay slip of respondent for the month of August, 2016 Exs.P.3 and P.4 : Extract of 1(b) namuna Exs.P.5 and P.6 : Extracts of Adangal and 1(b) namuna

For Respondent :

Ex.R.1 :Attested copy of pay slip belongs to respondent Ex.R.2 :Adangal extract pertaining to R.S.No.322/5A Ex.R.3 :Adangal extract pertaining to R.S.No.355/1.

(FAC) IV A.J.C.J.

1 Fair Judgment in O.S.No.453/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: SRI K. RATNA PRASAD, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Friday, the 20th day of March, 2020.

O.S.No. 453 /2019

Between:

Gatti Bhaskara Rao, S/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, Aged about 55 Years, Cultivation, D.No.3-123, Kolamuru village, Rajamahendravaram. East Godavari District. RJCJC. …Plaintiff

And

Pinnamreddy Raju Babu, S/o Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, Aged 55 Years, Behind Vinayakudi Temple Street, Rayudupakalu Road, Kolamuru village, Rajamahendravaram. East Godavari District. …Defendant

This suit having come on 11-03-2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Jagadeesh Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.R.Satya Sai, Advocate for the defendant 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 E M E N T

1.The present suit is instituted by the plaintiff/Gatti Bhaskara Rao for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,57,901/- on the foot of three promissory notes

dated 22.05.2016.

2.The averments in the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 22-05-2016 for the purpose of family expenses and in evidence thereof executed three promissory notes for Rs.50,000/- each therefor in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Inspite of requests and issuance of legal notice dt.14-05- 2 2019, the defendant did not choose to pay either principal amount or interest. Hence, the suit.

3.On receipt of summons from the court, defendant entered his appearance and filed written statement. In the written statement, defendant denied the averments of the plaint and contended that the defendant never borrowed any amount from plaintiff much less the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 22-05-2016 and he never executed promissory notes in favour of plaintiff and that suit promissory notes are rank forged documents and they do not contain the signatures of the defendant. It is submitted that there is no creditor and debtor relationship in between plaintiff and defendant, that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount and the plaintiff in collusion with the rivals of defendant and got fabricated the promissory notes by forging the signatures of the defendant. Submitting thus, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.Based on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed for trial of the suit

01) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

02) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the amount as prayed for ?

03) To what relief?

5.In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 are marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

6.While it is the case of plaintiff that the defendant for the purpose of his family expenses borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff and executed Exs.A.1 to A.3 three promissory notes for Rs.50,000/- each in favour of plaintiff and inspite of requests and issuance of legal notice, the defendant failed to pay the amount due, it is the case of defendant that he 3 never borrowed any amount from plaintiff munch less the amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- on 22-05-2016 and never executed promissory notes in favour of plaintiff and the said Exs.A.1 to A.3 suit promissory notes are rank forged documents.

7.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

8.Now the Issues are answered as under:

9.Issue No.1:

Since the case of defendant is of total denial, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove the suit promissory notes in all respects i.e. its execution and passing of consideration thereunder to the defendant. Until the plaintiff discharges his initial burden, the onus will not shift to the defendant to prove his case. To discharge initial burden, the plaintiff/Gatti

Bhaskara Rao examined himself as P.W.1 and the 1st attester of Ex.A.1 as

P.W.2. The contents of chief examination affidavit of P.W.1 is reiteration of averments made by him in the plaint. Through P.W.1 three promissory notes dt.22-05-2016, office copy of legal notice and returned postal cover are marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5. In the cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that the defendant borrowed money for the purpose of his business, that Exs.A.1 to

A.3 transaction took place in his house and the scribe of Exs.A.1 to A.3 is one Sri B.Aravaraju. P.W.1 denied suggestion that he forged signatures of defendant on Exs.A.1 to A.3 to gain unlawfully and defendant never borrowed money under Exs.A.1 to A.3. All the other suggestions favouring the case of defendant are denied by P.W.1.

10.1st Attester of Exs.A.1 to A.3/M.Venkata Hare Rama Krishna himself examined as P.W.2. In his chief examination P.W.2 supported the case of plaintiff by stating that defendant borrowed sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff under three promissory notes for Rs.50,000/- each in the presence of himself, another attester and scribe and he acted as 1st attester in Exs.A.1 to A.3. In the cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that transaction 4 of Ex.A.1 took place at the house of plaintiff in between 10.30 AM and 11.00

AM on 22-05-2016, that the denomination of Ex.A.1 amount is all Rs.500/- rupee notes and at the time of Ex.A.1 transaction, he, plaintiff, defendant, 2nd attester and scribe were present and with blue ink colour pen he signed on Ex.A.1. P.W.2 denied suggestion that the defendant never borrowed any amount from plaintiff and deposing false at the instance of plaintiff.

11.Nothing is elicited from the cross examination evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 so as to disbelieve the chief examination evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Thus, the plaintiff by examining himself as P.W.1 and one of the attesters of Exs.A.1 to A.3 as P.W.2 is able to prove the execution of suit promissory notes i.e. Exs.A.1 to A.3 by defendant and passing of consideration thereunder to plaintiff. Now the burden shifts on to the defendant to prove that Exs.A.1 to A.3 suit promissory notes are forged or fabricated documents or that they came into existence in the circumstances stated in the written statement.

12.In order to prove the contention of defendant/Pinnamreddy Raju

Babu, he himself examined as D.W.1 reiterating the averments of written statement in his affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief. The elicitation in the cross examination evidence of D.W.1 states that no disputes exists in between him and plaintiff, that he got issued reply notice to the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff and he did not try to send Ex.A.1 to hand writing expert for comparison of the disputed signatures in Ex.A.1 with that of his admitted signatures. On perusal of the averments of written statement, it is observed that it is not the case of defendant that he got issued reply notice to Ex.A.4. The suggestion put to P.W.1 that the defendant is belongs to YSR

Congress Party and TDP party people got filed the present suit against defendant through him due to political rivalry were denied by P.W.1 categorically. Except putting suggestions to P.W.1 that due to political rivalry the present suit was got filed by TDP party people through plaintiff, nothing 5 is elicited specifically as to against whom the defendant has got enmity or disputes in TDP party. Further it is not even elicited whether there are any previous signatures of the defendant were available with the plaintiff to forge the alleged signatures of defendant on Exs.A.1 to A.3. Nothing is pleaded in the written statement about the motive for P.W.1 to forge Exs.A.1 to A.3 against defendant and no evidence is adduced in that regard. During cross examination, D.W.1 deposed that he got issued reply notice to the legal notice got issued by plaintiff. But the alleged reply notice was not produced before this court. Though the non-issuance of legal notice is not fatal to the case of defendant but the conduct on the part of the defendant is highly improbable and unnatural in view of the defence taken by him in the suit, because if the contention of defendant that Exs.A.1 to A.3 suit promissory notes are rank forged documents were to be true, defendant would not have kept quiet without issuing any reply therefor to the plaintiff setting forth the circumstances under which the suit promissory notes

Exs.A.1 to A.3 came into existence because no man of ordinary prudence in such circumstances would keep quite. There is another important aspect which needs to be noted is that the defendant failed to take any steps to send Exs.A.1 to A.3 to hand writing expert for comparison of the alleged disputed signatures in Exs.A.1 to A.3 with that of his admitted signatures.

13.Thus, from the totality of the circumstances, the preponderance of probabilities and on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the suit promissory notes Exs.A.1 to A.3 are true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

14.Issue No.2:

In view of my findings on issue No.1, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

6

15.Issue No.3:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,57,901/- with subse- quent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in Open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Plaintiff : P.W.1 : Gatti Bhaskara Rao P.W.2 : M.Venkata Hare Rama Krishna For Defendant: D.W.1 : Pinnamreddy Raju Babu

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Promissory note dt.22-05-2016 Ex.A2 : Promissory note dt.22-05-2016 Ex.A3 : Promissory note dt.22-05-2016 Ex.A4 : Office copy of legal notice dt.14-05-2019 Ex.A5 : Returned postal cover

For Defendant:

- Nil -

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge , Rajamahendravaram.