Smt. K. Sunitha

1 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Dated this the Thirteenth(13th) day of November, 2015.

Present:- Smt K.SUNITHA,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore

Original Suit No. 25/2009

Nagareddy Neeraja … Plaintiff //Vs.//

1.Koduru Venkatarami Reddy(Died)

2.Koduru Annamma

3.Koduru Sreenivasulu Reddy.

4.Koduru Suguna

5.Koduru Aasritha.

6.Koduru Sai Teja.

(D-5 and D-6 are being minors, represented by their mother and natural guardian Koduru Suguna D-4 herein).

(D-2 to D-6 are added as per orders in I.A.No.567/2010 dt.8-12-2010)

... Defendants.

This suit coming on 12-10-2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri O.Abbai Reddy and Sri M.Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and D-1 being died pendentelite and Sri T.Srihari and

Sri SVMKV Prasad Rao, Advocate for the defendants 2 to 6 , upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.5,15,700/- with costs and subsequent interest allegedly due under a promissory note.

2.(I)It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from her on 30-12-2005 for his necessities and 2 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015 executed a promissory note , agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand.

(ii)It is stated that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the debt and legal notice dated 21-11-2008 got issued to him was not yet returned. The defendant is not an agriculturist and he is not entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938 , Act

VII of 1977 and Act 45 of 1987. Hence the suit.

3.(I)The defendant filed his written statement, denying the material allegations of the plaint in specific , contending that he used to borrow money from his relative by name Duvvuru Ramalinga Reddy @

Rami Reddy of Kothapalem village of T.P.Gudur mandal by executing promissory notes and the signatures of the defendant were also used to be obtained on blank promissory notes.

(ii)It is further contended that the defendant discharged the entire debt due to the said Ramalinga Reddy by selling away the properties of his wife and also got return of the discharged promissory notes along with some blank promissory notes.

(iii)It is stated that after demise of said Ramalinga Reddy, the defendant obtained undated letter from his sons Satish Reddy and Murali

Krishna Reddy stating that no debts due by the defendant as the defendant also dischargd the debt by paying Rs.2,50,000/- to them after the death of their father.

(iv)It is pleaded by the defendant that the sons of late Ramalinga

Reddy fabricated the promissory note dated 30-12-2005 in the name of their sister , none other the plaintiff by forging the signature of the defendant. The defendant also got issued Reply notice to the legal notice 3 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015 requiring to send the Photostat copy of the promissory note. The defendant is an Agriculturist and entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938.

The suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.On the strength of aforementioned pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial by my predecessor:-

1.Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount with interest and costs as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

5.The defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives i.e., defendants 2 to 6 were brought on record and adopted the written statement of deceased 1st defendant.

6. In trial, the plaintiff examined Pws.1 to 3 and marked

Exs.A-1 to A-4. The 3rd defendant is examined as Dw.1 and Exs.B-1 to

B-7 were marked.

7.Heard the counsels for both sides.

8.The counsel for plaintiff filed written arguments submitting that as the defendant had taken plea that the suit promissory note is forged document , the onus lies upon the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A-1 and passing of consideration. It is submitted that the plaintiff examined

Pws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 in support of her case and also gave explanation for not sending Xerox copy of promissory note as required under Ex.A-4 Reply notice and discharged the burden of proving execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note.

9.It is further submitted that the defendants failed to discharge the burden on them by sending Ex.A-1 promissory note to handwriting Expert 4 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015 for examination and further more, the 3rd defendant examined as Dw.1 categorically admitted that Exs.B-1 to B-7 are no way connected to the suit transaction and they also derived house property from the deceased 1st defendant, as such, they are liable to pay the suit amount.

10.The counsel for defendants also filed written arguments contending that the suit promissory note is not true and genuine as it is elicited from the evidence of plaintiff that she has not paid the consideration amount which clearly shows that Ex.A-1 is benami transaction and hit by the provisions of the said Act. It is further argued that it is elicited from the cross-examination of plaintiff i.e., Pw.1 that they have no capacity to lend huge amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the evidence adduced by Pws.1 to 3 is contrary to the plaint averments as to the presence of 3rd defendant at the time of Ex.A-1 transaction.

11.It is also submitted that the plaintiff failed to send the Xerox copy of the promissory note as required by the defendants under Ex.A-4 reply notice and her contention that she received reply after filing of the suit is false as Ex.A-4 reply notice was sent on 11-12-2008 was received by the plaintiff on 13-12-2008 , but the suit was filed on 27-12-2008 and numbered on 17-1-2009.

12.It is also elicited from the evidence on record that the defendant and his family are depending on the agricultural income , as such, the defendants are entitled to benefit of Act IV of 1938.

13.It is argued that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of

Ex.A-1 and passing of consideration , as such, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the signature on Ex.A-1 belongs to the defendant having not denied the signatures on Exs.B-1 to B-6 and the suit is liable to be 5 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015 dismissed.

14.In support of the above said contentions, the counsel for the defendants relied on a decision in P.Venkatamma and another //vs.//

Dontham Sulochana reported in 2005(6) ALT 789, wherein it is held that

“the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the promissory note in all

respects . Evaluation of possibilities for defendant to borrow or his

necessities does not arise. Presumption as to consideration

U/Sec.118 can be drawn only when promissory note is proved or

admitted.

15.The counsel also relied on the decision in G.Vasu //vs.// Syed

Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri reported in 1987(1) ALT 1 , wherein, it is held

that “in a suit on promissory note , defendant adduced rebuttal

evidence that no consideration passed under a promissory note

executed by him, burden of proof lies on the plaintiff”.

16.ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 2 :-

In a suit on promissory note, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the document . As and when execution of promissory note is proved, the presumption U/Sec.118 (a) of Negotiable

Instruments Act arises that the instrument is drawn for consideration.

Then, the defendant has to rebut the said presumption either by adducing direct evidence or by eliciting circumstances from the evidence adduced by plaintiff so as to the non-existence of consideration.

17.It is held in P.Venkatamma and another //vs.// Dontham

Sulochana reported in 2005(6) ALT 789 that “Sec.118 presumption as to consideration . Plea of the defendants being that suit promissory notes are 6 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015 not supported by consideration . Defendants must prove that non- existence of consideration is so probable that a reasonable man would subscribe to that view. Proof need not be restricted to evidence of defendants. Information elicited by them in the cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses can also taken into account.

18.In G.Vasu //vs.// Syed Yaseen Sifuddian Quadri reported in 1987(1) ALT 1 it is held as follows:

“ Once the defendant shows either by direct

evidence or circumstantial evidence or by use of other

presumptions of law or fact that the promissory note is

not supported by consideration in the manner stated in

the promissory note or in the manner stated in the suit

notice or in the pleading the evidential burden shifts

to the plaintiff and the legal burden of the plaintiff is

revived, i.e., to prove that the promissory note is

supported by consideration and at that stage, the

presumption of law covered by S.118 “disappears” and

no longer subsists. This is because the presumption

under Sec.118 raised by the statute initially in favour

of the plaintiff steps, as it were into the witness box

and acts as a substitute for the plaintiff’s evidence.

Once such rebuttal evidence is given by the defendant

to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court acting on a

preponderance of probabilities and not requiring an

absolute proof of a negative i.e., absence of all

conceivable forms of consideration, the effect of the

presumption shifting the initial evidential burden to the

defendant “disappears”.

19.In case, the defendant pleads forgery, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to adduce evidence to the effect that the defendant subscribed his signature on the promissory note . It is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew the contents therein.

20.In the present case on hand, since the defendant pleaded forgery, the plaintiff has to adduce evidence to prove the execution. In discharge of the said onus, the plaintiff is examined as Pw.1 and filed her 7 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015 chief-affidavit . She reiterated the plaint averments stating that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from her for his necessities and executed a promissory note on 30-12-2005, agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% p.a., . It is further stated that the defendant failed to discharge the debt even after legal notice dated 21-11-2008 got issued by her.

21.In support of her oral testimony, she also marked Ex.A-1 promissory note dated30-12-2005 for Rs.3,00,000/- and also Ex.A-2 office copy of legal notice dated 21-11-2008 and Ex.A-3 postal receipt dated 21-11-2008 and Ex.A-4 reply notice got issued by the defendant.

22.She also examined Pw.2, scribe and Pw.3 1st attestor to

Ex.A-1 promissory note. They also corroborated the execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note by the defendant in the chief-affidavit filed by them stating that the deceased 1st defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 30-12-2005 in her house at Vedayapalem and executed Ex.A-1 promissory note in their presence besides the presence of 3rd defendant.

23.It is categorically deposed by Pw.3 that Pw.2 scribed Ex.A-1 promissory note in their presence and deceased 1st defendant signed on the promissory note after receiving the consideration amount from the plaintiff and himself signed as 1st attestor and one Enugu Mallikarjuna

Reddy signed as 2nd attestor.

24.The evidence adduced by Pws.1 to 3 coupled with

Exs.A-1 to A-3 is sufficient to hold that Ex.A-1 promissory note was executed by the defendant and Statutory presumption U/Sec.118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act arises as to the execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note followed by consideration .

8 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015

25. Now, it is for the defendants to rebut the said presumption and in the said course, the 3rd defendant is examined as Dw.1 and filed his chief-affidavit , repeating the averments of written statement of deceased 1st defendant adopted by them as to the plea of forgery and fabrication of

Ex.A-1 promissory note by the brothers of the plaintiff namely Satish

Reddy and Murali Krishna Reddy with the help of blank promissory notes in their custody having returned discharged promissory notes and some of the blank promissory notes executed by the deceased 1st defendant.

26.He also marked Ex.B1 promissory note dated 30-4-1992 for

Rs.10,000/- executed by deceased Ist defendant in favour of the father of plaintiff. Ex.B2 promissory note dated 20-10-1992 for Rs.10,000/- executed by deceased Ist defendant in favour of the father of plaintiff.

Ex.B3 promissory note dated 14-10-1991 for Rs.5,000/- executed by deceased Ist defendant in favour of the father of plaintiff. Ex.B4 promissory note dated 30-4-1991 for Rs.10,000/- executed by deceased

Ist defendant in favour of the father of plaintiff. Ex.B5 blank promissory note containing the signature of deceased Ist defendant with torn

Revenue stamp, Ex.B6 blank promissory note containing the signature of deceased Ist defendant with torn Revenue stamp and Ex.B7 Undated letter issued by D.Muralikrishna Reddy, brother of plaintiff to me for the clearance of the debts of deceased Ist defendant.

27.Having pleaded forgery, except his sole testimony , the defendants did not choose to refer Ex.A-1 promissory note to hand-writing expert for examination in comparison with the admitted signatures of the 1st defendant. However, the defendants are at liberty to elicit information from 9 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015 the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses in the absence of direct evidence adduced by them as per the proposition of law laid down in

P.Venkatamma //vs.// Dontham Sulochana reported in 2005(6) ALT 789.

28.While so, in cross-examination, the plaintiff i.e., Pw.1 deposes that she is a house wife and her husband was an agriculturist and he died in the year 2007. It is elicited from her evidence that the consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under Ex.A-1 promissory note was lent by her husband to the plaintiff. As regards Ex.A-1 transaction, she deposed that the said transaction was took place in their house at Vedayapalem and there is no mention of place of execution in Ex.A-1 promissory note, plaint and chief-affidavit.

29.According to her, the money lent under Ex.A-1 promissory note was sale proceeds of their landed property. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that they have no lending capacity to lend an amount of Rs.3 ,00,000/- to the deceased 1st defendant, so also, she denied the involvement of her brothers in Ex.A-1 transaction. On the other hand, she categorically deposes that the 3rd defendant himself brought the deceased 1st defendant who was able to walk with the help of a stick to their house at the time of Ex.A-1 transaction. She would state that her husband handed over the suit promissory note and revenue stamp to her on that date.

30.Her further evidence discloses that Pw.2 namely Janardhan , scribe was called by her husband , so also Pw.3 and one Mallikarjuna

Reddy came to their house on that day to meet her husband. She denied the knowledge about the promissory note transaction in between her father and deceased 1st defendant. She also denied the suggestion that she did 10 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015 not lend any amount to the deceased 1st defendant and suit promissory note is fabricated by forging the signature of the deceased 1st defendant on account of disputes with her brothers .

31.Pw.2 scribe namely Janardhan Reddy also corroborates with

Pw.1 in his cross-examination and categorically deposes that at the request of husband of plaintiff as well as deceased 1st defendant, he scribed Ex.A-1 promissory note. It is categorically deposed by him that the plaintiff brought the money from the inside of the house and handed over the same to her husband who in turn handed over the same to the deceased 1st defendant. He was consistent in respect of execution of Ex.A-1 by the deceased 1st defendant after receiving consideration amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff in the presence of himself and other attestors.

32.Pw.3, 1st attestor to Ex.A-1 promissory note consistently deposed about the presence of defendant at the time of Ex.A-1 transaction and passing of consideration amount. He also corroborates the version of the plaintiff deposes that he along with his friend Mallikarjuna Reddy went to the house of the plaintiff casually to meet her husband. His evidence also discloses that the consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/- paid to the defendant was in denomination of 500 rupee notes.

33.It is evident from the cross-examination of Pws.1 to 3 that they are consistent in their version in respect of execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note and the defendants could not elicit any probabilities to discredit their testimony.

34.The contention of the defendants that the plaintiff is a name lender of her husband is not tenable as it is not at all the plea taken by the 11 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015 deceased 1st defendant.

35.The self-serving testimony of 3rd defendant examined as Dw.1 also establish that Exs.B-1 to B-4 discharged promissory notes and

Exs.B-5 and B-6 blank promissory notes containing the signatures of the deceased 1st defendant with torn revenue stamps and Ex.B-7 undated letter issued by the brother of the plaintiff by name D.Murali Krishna Reddy are no way related to Ex.A-1 transaction. He also admits that Exs.B-1 to B-7 were not filed along with the written statement of his deceased father . He also admits that Exs.B-1 to B-4 are not in the name of the plaintiff and

Exs.B-5 and B6 blank promissory notes does not relate to suit transaction , so also Ex.B-7 has no reference of suit debt transaction.

36.In view of the evidence adduced by the 3rd defendant , Exs.B-1 to B7 marked by him are no way helpful to establish the plea taken by them. It is also his contention that the plaintiff did not send the Photostat copy of Ex.A-1 promissory note after receiving Ex.A-4 reply notice . But the said contention is not tenable in the absence of any evidence adduced by the defendants to show that Ex.A-1 is forged and fabricated .

37.It is also explicit from the evidence adduced on record that the defendants could not elicit any probabilities to show that their father got any disputes with the brothers of the plaintiff so as to fabricate Ex.A-1 promissory note by forging his signature having executed Ex.B-7 undated letter for clearance of debts. As such, in the absence of any cogent evidence adduced on record, the plea taken by the defendants cannot be accepted and leads to Adverse inference that to evade the payment of suit debt, a false plea was set up.

38.However, in all probabilities , it has been clinchingly established 12 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015 by the plaintiff that Ex.A-1 was executed by the deceased 1st defendant having received consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- from her and the defendants are liable to discharge the said debt from and out of the estate derived from the deceased 1st defendant.

39.It is also the plea taken by the defendants that the deceased 1st defendant is an agriculturist , as such, the interest claimed by the plaintiff is excessive. The agreed rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff is at 24% p.a., The plaintiff also admitted in her cross-examination that the deceased 1st defendant and his family is depending on the agricultural income which discloses that the deceased 1st defendant is an agriculturist . As such, the defendants are entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938 and rate of interest claimed at 24% p.a., is liable to be scaled down in the light of the proposition of law laid down in Yogendranath Rah (died0 //vs.// State

Bank of India, 1987(1) LT 316 (DB) on Section 3(3) of the Usurious

Lands (Madras Amendment) Act, 1936, wherein it is held that :

“A reading of the said provision shows that the

language of the Section is mandatory. It places an

obligation upon the Court to re-open the transaction,

where it has reasons to believe that the interest

charged is excessive, or the transaction between the

parties is substantially unfair. This obligation is there,

whether the defendant appears and raises the plea

based upon Section 3, or remains exparte. There may

be a case where the defendant appears but still may

not raise the plea under Section 3. In all such cases,

the Court is under an obligation to apply the said

provision. Though couched as a command to the

Court, it confers right upon the debtors. This right

accrues to the defendant on the date of suit at any rate

on the date of hearing of the suit”.

40.Since the deceased 1st defendant is an agriculturist as per the amended Madras Act (No.4 of 1938) , rate of interest provided thereunder 13 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015 is 12.5% p.a. simple. As such, claiming interest over 12.5% p.a. against agriculturist shall be excessive and usurious and accordingly , the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest at 24% p.a., and same is liable to be scaled down from 24% p.a, to 12.5% p.a.,

Accordingly, Issue Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant.

41.ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, suit is decreed against the estate of deceased 1st defendant namely Koduru Venkatarami Reddy, lying in the hands of D-2 to

D-6 , being his legal representatives for principal sum of Rs..3,00,000/- with costs and interest thereon at 12.5% p.a., from the date of execution of

Ex.A-1 promissory note dated 30-12-2005 till the date of filing of the suit and subsequent interest at 6% p.a.,on principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of decree till realisation ;

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 13th day of November,

2015.

Sd/- K.SUNITHA

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:-

PW.1: Nagareddy Neeraja

Pw.2: Nellore Janardhan

Pw.3: Kakuturu Venu Reddy

For Defendant:

DW.1: Koduru Sreenivasulu Reddy.

14 OS .25/2009 dt. 13-11-2015

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A-1: Promissory note dated 30-12-2005 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the deceased 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff .

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 21-11-2008 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant

Ex.A-3: Postal receipt dt.21-11-2008.

Ex.A-4: Reply notice dt. 11-12-2008 got issued by the defendant's counsel to the plaintiff's counsel.

For Defendants:

Ex.B-1: Promissory note dated 30-4-1992 for Rs.10,000/- executed by deceased Ist defendant in favour of the father of plaintiff.

Ex.B-2: Promissory note dated 20-10-1992 for Rs.10,000/- executed by deceased Ist defendant in favour of the father of plaintiff.

Ex.B-3: Promissory note dated 14-10-1991 for Rs.5,000/- executed by deceased Ist defendant in favour of the father of plaintiff.

Ex.B-4: Promissory note dated 30-4-1991 for Rs.10,000/- executed by deceased Ist defendant in favour of the father of plaintiff.

Ex.B-5: Blank promissory note containing the signature of deceased Ist defendant with torn Revenue stamp

Ex.B-6: Blank promissory note containing the signature of deceased Ist defendant with torn Revenue stamp

Ex.B-7: Undated letter issued by D.Muralikrishna Reddy, brother of plaintiff to me for the clearance of the debts of deceased Ist defendant.

Sd/- K.SUNITHA

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore.

1 O.S.No. 9/2012 dt. 17-11-2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE

Dated this the 17th day of November, 2015.

Present:- Smt K.SUNITHA,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore

Original Suit No. 9/2012

Sankam Chenchu Kotaiah @ Barnabas … Plaintiff

Vs.

Vanam Penchlaiah ... Defendant.

This suit coming on 27-10-2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.P.S.Vijaya Sradhi, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of

Sri V.Rameshu, Advocate for the defendant, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.2,46,766/- with costs and subsequent interest allegedly due under a promissory note.

2.(I)It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant working as

Attender in Punjab National bank, Trunk Road, Nellore borrowed

Rs.2,00,000/- from him for his necessities on 12-1-2011 and executed promissory note in his own hand writing, agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

(ii)It is stated that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the debt and did not give reply to the legal notice dated 14-12-2011 got issued by the plaintiff. The defendant is an employee and not an agriculturist, as such, he is not entitled to the benefits of Agricultural Debt Relief Act. Hence the suit.

2 O.S.No. 9/2012 dt. 17-11-2015

3.(I)The defendant filed his written statement, denying the material allegations of the plaint in specific, contending that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor executed the promissory note.

(ii) It is stated that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.23,000/- till 31-3-2012 which was sufficient for his family necessities and his financial status was very good, as such, he has no necessity to borrow any amount. The plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend huge amount nor the defendant had acquaintance with the plaintiff. The suit promissory note is forged and fabricated and not supported by consideration and suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the strength of aforementioned pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial by my predecessor:-

1.Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration and duly executed by the defendant?

2.Whether the plaintiff has no capacity to lend a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as on 12-1-2011 as contended by the defendant?

3.Whether the defendant has no necessity to borrow any amount?

4.Whether the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one?

5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendant for recovery of entire suit amount?

6.To what relief, plaintiff is entitled?

5. In trial, the plaintiff examined Pws.1 and 2 and marked

Exs.A-1 to A-4 and also marked Exs.X-1 to 4. The defendant is examined as Dw.1 and no documentary evidence is adduced on his side.

6.Heard the counsel for plaintiff and defendant.

3 O.S.No. 9/2012 dt. 17-11-2015

7.The counsel for plaintiff filed written arguments submitting that the plaintiff is examined as Pw.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and further got marked Exs.X-1 to X-4 through Pw.2 to show that the defendant was on leave on the date of execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note on 12-1-2011 . It is further submitted that the defendant executed Ex.A-1 promissory note in his own handwriting in the presence of the attestors , his close relatives and friends and taken false plea that the plaintiff is a stranger.

8.It is argued that the plea taken by the defendant is turned out to be false as the defendant admitted in his cross-examination that he introduced the plaintiff for opening S.B. Account in Punjab National Bank wherein, he was working. It is submitted that the defendant did not take any steps for sending Ex.A-1 promissory note for Expert’s opinion and even other wise the court is empowered to compare the signatures by invoking

Sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act .

9.It is argued that the plaintiff adduced probable evidence and discharged the initial burden in proving the execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note , but the defendant failed to establish his plea of forgery , as such, the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for.

10.The counsel for defendant argued that none of the attestors were examined by the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note and the plaintiff is a stranger to the defendant. It is also argued that the plaintiff did not produce his Bank account statement to show his capacity to lend huge amount and failed to prove the execution of Ex.A-1 and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4 O.S.No. 9/2012 dt. 17-11-2015

11.ISSUE Nos. 1 to 5 :-

In a suit on promissory note, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the document . As and when execution of promissory note is proved, the presumption U/Sec.118 (a) of Negotiable

Instruments Act arises that the instrument is drawn for consideration.

Then, the defendant has to rebut the said presumption either by adducing direct evidence or by eliciting circumstances from the evidence adduced by plaintiff so as to the non-existence of consideration.

12. Since the defendant denied the execution of suit promissory note and pleaded forgery , it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove execution.

It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant knew the contents of the promissory note and signed on it.

13. The plaintiff is examined as Pw.1 and testified in chief-affidavit that the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from him for his necessities and executed promissory note on 12-1-2011 , agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% p.a., It is stated that inspite of the repeated demands made by him and legal notice dated 14-12-2011 got issued by him, the defendant failed to discharge the debt.

14.Besides the aforesaid oral testimony, he also marked Ex.A-1 promissory note dated 12-1-2011, Ex.A-2 Office copy of legal notice dated 14-12-2011 along with postal receipts dated 15-12-2011 and Ex.A-3 Postal acknowledgement dated 16-12-2011 and Ex.A-4 Letter dated 9-11-2010 addressed by the plaintiff to the Manager, Punjab National Bank, Nellore.

15.The plaintiff also examined Pw.2, Senior Manager of the Punjab

National bank, Gandhi Nagar, Nellore , wherein , the defendant worked as

Attender. It is deposed by him that he produced original specimen 5 O.S.No. 9/2012 dt. 17-11-2015 signature of the defendant available with the Bank and also Attendance

Register showing that on 12-1-2011, the defendant was on leave. The plaintiff also got marked Ex.X-1 Relevant entry at Serial No.1 dated 12-1-2011 for the leave of the defendant on 12-1-2011 and Ex.X-2

Specimen signature of the defendant and his wife obtained an account opening form. Ex.X-3 Relevant entry of the leave extract along with covering letter dated 16-2-2015 and Ex.X-4 Pension payment Order contained the signatures of the defendant and thumb impression of his wife.

16.The plaintiff did not examine any of the attestors to Ex.A-1 promissory note which is said to be filled by the defendant in his own handwriting . However, the oral evidence adduced by plaintiff coupled with documentary evidence on Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Exs.X-1 to X-4 is sufficient to prove the execution of the instrument as Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act does not contemplate the examination of any of the attestors.

17.Now, it is the turn of the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff either by eliciting probabilities from the evidence adduced by him or by adducing direct evidence. He also attacked the case of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff had no capacity to lend Rs.2,00,000/- on 12-1- 2011 and further he has no necessity to borrow any amount besides the plea that Ex.A-1 promissory note is forged and fabricated.

18.The plaintiff i.e., Pw.1 in his cross-examination deposes that he worked as Grade-I Depot Store keeper in IFS furnishing Depot in railways and retired from his service in the year 1997.

19.His evidence discloses that he has withdrawn Rs.2,00,000/- from his bank account, but not filed the bank statement. He denied the 6 O.S.No. 9/2012 dt. 17-11-2015 suggestion that he had no capacity to lend huge amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

According to him, both the attestors to Ex.A-1 promissory note were brought by the defendant himself . His further evidence also discloses that he sold out his property and deposited sale proceeds of Rs.23,30,000/- in his account . He denies his knowledge about the defendant having land of

Rs.4-90 cents at Padamatinaidupalli village of Marripadu Mandal and getting income of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. However, he denied the suggestion that the defendant had no necessity to borrow any amount.

20.It is disclosed from the cross-examination of Pw.1 that he is a retired railway employee and got lending capacity to lend even huge amounts as it is also evident from his testimony that he sold out his property and got substantial money in his account by the date of Ex.A-1 promissory note.

21.It is also the case of the defendant that he had no necessity to borrow any amount from the plaintiff. But except his oral testimony, he did not adduce any documentary evidence in support of his contentions. He did not even mentioned about his properties in his chief-affidavit except giving suggestion to plaintiff and denied by him. His evidence in cross- examination discloses the fact that he got acquaintance with the plaintiff and he introduced the plaintiff to open account in Punjab National Bank , wherein, he worked on 21-1-2011 under Ex.A-4 letter dated 9-11-2010 scribed by him on behalf of the plaintiff addressed to the Manager, Punjab

National Bank .

22.His further evidence in cross-examination that he does not know that the plaintiff sold out his landed property at Chennai on 12-1- 2011 for a consideration of rs.60,00,000/- also lends support to the version 7 O.S.No. 9/2012 dt. 17-11-2015 of the plaintiff to have capacity to lend huge amounts. It is also the contention of the defendant and evidence adduced by him that he was on duty on 12-1-2011 having denied the suggestion that he was also at

Chennai on that date along with plaintiff for property transaction. But Ex.X-1 to Ex.X-4 got marked by the plaintiff through Pw.2 discloses that the defendant was on leave on 12-1-2011 and plea taken by him that he was on duty on that day is false and set up for his case.

23.In respect of the plea of forgery, except his bare testimony, the defendant could not elicit any probabilities from the evidence adduced by

Pws.1 and 2. On the other hand, it is clinchingly established by the plaintiff that on 12-1-2011 , the defendant was on leave and there is every probability of execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note on that day which could not be rebutted by the defendant. Except the bare plea of forgery, the defendant did not make any efforts to examine any of the attestors left unexamined by the plaintiff on the ground that they were brought by the defendant himself having executed Ex.A-1 promissory note in his own handwriting.

24. The defendant also did not prefer to send Ex.A-1 promissory note to handwriting Expert for comparison of writings and disputed signature on it in support of the plea taken by him. It is also settled legal position that the court is empowered to invoke Sec.73 of Indian Evidence

Act to compare the admitted signatures of the defendant with the disputed signatures on Ex.A-1 promissory note.

25.Ex.X-4 Pension Payment Order of the defendant containing his full name in bold letters and short signature are similar to the short signature on Ex.A-1 promissory note and also his name written in bold 8 O.S.No. 9/2012 dt. 17-11-2015 letters beneath the short signature. Therefore, having invoked the power conferred U/Sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act , it is held that the signature on

Ex.A-1 promissory note belongs to the defendant only and having filled the contents therein in his own handwriting, plea of forgery taken by him is not tenable and cannot be accepted. He also could not elicit any probabilities nor could adduce any direct evidence to show that the plaintiff had any necessity and enimity against the defendant to fabricate Ex.A-1 by forging his signature. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount due under Ex.A-1 promissory note from the defendant .

26.Having considered the aforesaid evidence, it is concluded that the plaintiff had sufficient lending capacity to lend huge amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- and the defendant borrowed the said amount for his necessities and Ex.A-1 promissory note is supported by consideration and the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim amount.

Accordingly, Issues 1 to 5 are decided in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant.

27.ISSUE NO.6:

In the result, suit is decreed for Rs.2,46,766/-(Rupees Two lakhs, forty six thousand, seven hundred and sixty six only) with costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., on principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 17th day of November,

2015.

Sd/- K.Sunitha

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NELLORE.

9 O.S.No. 9/2012 dt. 17-11-2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For defendant:

PW.1: Sankam Chenchu Kotiah. Dw.1: Vanam Penchalaiah

Pw.2: Indla Haribabu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A-1: Promissory note dated 12-1-2011 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 2,00,000/-.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 14-12-2011 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant along with postal receipts dated 15-11-2011.

Ex.A-3: Postal acknowledgement of the defendant dt.16-12-2011.

Ex.A-4: Letter dated 9-11-2010 addressed by the plaintiff to the Manager, Punjab National Bank, Nellore.

Ex.X-1: Relevant entry at Serial No.1 dated 12-1-2011 for the leave of the defendant on 12-1-2011.

Ex.X-2: Specimen signature of the defendant and his wife obtained an account opening form dated 24-9-1986.

Ex.X-3: Relevant entry of the leave abstract through H.R.M.S along with covering letter dated 16-2-2015 .

Ex.X-4: Pension payment Order contained the signatures of the defendant and thumb impression of his wife dated 10-3-2012.

For Defendant: - NIL-

Sd/- K.Sunitha

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore.

1 E.P.No.138/2014 in LAOP.28 of 2000

dt. 13-11--2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: NELLORE.

Dated, this the 13 th day of November,, 2015.

Present : Smt. K.SUNITHA,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore.

E.P.No. 138/2014

L.A.O.P.No. 28/2000

Bandi Venkata Subba Reddy … Petitioner/D.hr/Claimant //Vs. //

1. The Special Deputy Collector, T.G.P., Nellore. … Respondent/J.dr/Referring Officer.

This Execution Petition coming before me on 29-10-2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Ramesh Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/D.hr/Claimant and of Sri K. Raghunatha Reddy, Government Pleader for

Respondent/J.dr/Referring Officer and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is a Execution petition filed by the petitioner/Decree holder U/o 21

Rule 46 CPC seeking to attach the amount of Rs.2,38,78,767/- lying with the

Garnishee i.e., State Bank of India, Fathekhanpet Branch, Nellore for realization of decretal amount along with subsequent interest and costs.

2.It is the case of the petitioner/D.hr that he filed E.P for realization of decretal amount together with subsequent interest and costs and J.dr is having sufficient amount in the bank account of Sub-Registrar , Nellore bearing

No.10241716537 in State Bank of India, Fathekhanpet Branch, Nellore.

3.(i)Respondent/ J.dr filed counter submitting that aggrieved against the decree dated 9-10-2013 in LAAS.No.416/2005 one the file of

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the J.dr preferred an

2 E.P.No.138/2014 in LAOP.28 of 2000

dt. 13-11--2015

appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme court of India, New Delhi vide

S.L.P.No.4982/2015 and execution petition is not maintainable unless and until the said appeal is disposed off.

(ii)It is further contended that the amount claimed is not correct and claim for attachment amount from the current account of Registration office,

Nellore situated in State Bank of India, Fatherkhapenpet branch, Nellore is not maintainable and execution petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.During the course of enquiry, no oral and documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

5.Heard the counsels for both sides.

6. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the petitioner/D.hr is entitled to attachment of amount

belonged to Registration department in the custody of the Garnishee i.e.,

State Bank of India, Fathekhanpet Branch, Nellore for realization of E.P

amount?

7.POINT:-

It is not in dispute that as per the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of

A.P, Hyderabad in LAAS No.416/2005 dated 9-10-2013 preferred against the

Judgment and decree dated 14-2-2001 in LAOP 28/2000 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge, Nellore, the petitioner/D.hr is entitled to E.P amount claimed by him.

8.The contention of the J.dr is that S.L.P.No.4982/2015 is pending on the file of Hon’ble Supreme court of India, Ne Delhi against the Judgment and decree dated 9-10-2013 in LASS.No.416/2005 on the file of Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

9.It is his further contention that the amount of Registration

Department cannot be attached. But the said contention is not tenable in the absence of any stay Order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New

Delhi against the operation of Judgment and decree dated 9-10-2013 in 3 E.P.No.138/2014 in LAOP.28 of 2000

dt. 13-11--2015

LASS.No.416/2005 . Mere pendency of appeal is not an impediment to the petitioner/D.hr to proceed with the execution proceedings as an appeal does not operates as Stay of proceedings in Execution as can be seen from Order 41, rule 5 (1) CPC.

10.It is also held in Bhamidipati Annapoorna Bhavani //vs.// Land

Acquisition Officer, Yeluru reported in AIR 2005 A.P 365 that where there

is no Stay as regards payment of compensation, it is not open to the

respondents to excuse themselves from making payment on the pretext

that appeals are pending before the High Court. Placing reliance on the

decision of the Supreme Court in The Comptroller and Auditor General

//vs. K.S.Jagannathan and noticing that even after 12 years the legitimate

compensation to which the claimants were entitled, if denied would cause

injustice to the claimants, learned single Judge held that mere pendency

of appeals or availability of alternative remedy in execution proceedings

cannot be a ground for the respondents to excuse themselves in

discharging their obligation, which they are bound to discharge.

11.As per proposition of law laid down in Vemula Prabhakar //vs.//

Land Acquisition Officer R.D.O, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District reported in

2002(1) ALT 323(F.B), that the State is liable to pay the amount either from

its consolidated fund or from any other fund and for the said purpose

even coercive steps by way of attachment and sale of the Government

property can be vacant recourse to and such property need not be

confined only belonging to the office of the Collector under the provisions

of the Act. If so read, it cannot be said that no effect remedy cannot be

provided for.

12.Therefore, viewed from any angle, petitioner/D.,hr is entitled to attach the amount pertaining to the Government as no amount is deposited by 4 E.P.No.138/2014 in LAOP.28 of 2000

dt. 13-11--2015

the respondent so far on the ground of mere pendency of appeal before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. . As such, the petitioner/D,hr is

entitled to attach the amount lying in State Bank of India, Fathekhanpet Branch,

Nellore pertaining to the current account of Registration Department , Nellore vide Account No. 10241716537 for the E.P amount of Rs.2,38,78,767/-. .

Hence, point is answered accordingly.

13.IN THE RESULT, the Execution Petition is allowed. Issue attachment U/o 21 Rule 46 CPC on payment of batta. Call on 28-1-2016.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court , this the 13th day of November, 2015.

Sd/- K.SUNITHA

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner/D.hr: For Respondent/J.dr:

--None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner/D.hr: For Respondent/J.dr:

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/- K.SUNITHA

PSCJ, NLR.

1

E.P.No.75/2014 in O.S.80/2003

Dt.26-11-2015

dt. 14-8-2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: NELLORE.

Dated this the 26 th day of November, 2015.

Present : SRI T.V.SUBBA RAO,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore.

E.P.No. 75/2014

O.S.No.80/2003

Muduru Bhaskar… Petitioner/Decree-holder.

Vs.

Upakaram Gopal ... Respondent/J.Dr

This Execution Petition coming before me on 26-11-2015 in the presence of Smt G.Seshamma, advocate for the Petitioner/Decree-holder and of

Sri G.V.S.K.Kishore, Advocate for respondent/J.dr , upon hearing the counsel for D.hr and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This E.P is filed on behalf of Decree- holder and against the Judgment- debtor U/O 21 Rule 22, 37 and 38 CPC based on a decree dated 23-6-2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gudur for realization of E.P amount.

2.D.hr filed his affidavit along with E.P with the following averments:

After decree , the J.dr failed to pay the decree amount due to him inspite of his demands having sufficient means and capacity to discharge the decree amount and prayed to cause arrest of J.dr for realization of E.P amount.

3.On appearance, a counter is filed on behalf of the J.dr U/o 21 Rule 22 CPC stage with the following averments: J.dr sustained loss in his business and wind up his business , subsequently the J.dr faced several financial problems thereby he is in financial crisis , he was constrained to shift his residence from Naidupeta town to Nellore city and he is joined in M.R.F Tyres 2

E.P.No.75/2014 in O.S.80/2003

Dt.26-11-2015

dt. 14-8-2015

company at Vedayapalem, Nellore city to maintain his family members. But he is getting meager salary from the company and he is residing in a rented house .

His remaining income after deducting his family expenditure is not sufficient to cope his family requirements . Further , the J.dr has two children and at present, they also require the financial assistance from the J.dr for their studies and brought up. Further, he is having a ailing wife who requires regular medical attention and treatment, for which she required financial assistance from the

J.dr . Under the above said circumstances, he could not pay the E.P amount and prayed to dismiss the E.P.

4.Both sides did not let in any oral or documentary evidence U/o 21

Rule 22 CPC stage.

5.Heard the arguments of the D.hr counsel as J.dr called absent and no representation for J.dr.

6.Perused the record.

7.The points for determination are:

1. Whether the E.P filed by the D.hr against the J.dr U/o 21 Rule 22

CPC stage is liable to be allowed?

2. To what relief?

8.POINT NO.1:

D.hr counsel submitted to order for next step in the E.P. As the J.dr is preparing to arrange the amount for payment , but postponing on one pretext or other.

9.The counter of the J.dr shows as if he filed the counter U/o 21 Rule 37 CPC stage. The counter contents of the J.dr does not attract a proviso U/o 21 Rule 22 CPC . Hence the counter contents are not useful to the J.dr U/o 21

Rule 22 CPC stage. Hence the counter contents are overruled. Accordingly, the 3

E.P.No.75/2014 in O.S.80/2003

Dt.26-11-2015

dt. 14-8-2015

D.hr is entitled to proceed further in E.P is liable to be allowed U/o 21 Rule 22

CPC stage.

POINT NO.1 IS DECIDED ACCORDINGLY IN FAVOUR OF THE D.HR

AND AGAINST THE J.DR.

10. POINT NO.2:

In the result, E.P No.75/2014 in O.S.80/2003 U/o 21 Rule 22 CPC stage is allowed with costs . Issue notice to the J.dr U/o 21 Rule 37 CPC to correct address through court and Registered post. Call on 4-1-2016.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 26th day of November, 2015.

Sd/- T.V.SUBBA RAO

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Decree-holder: For Judgment-debtor:

-None--None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Decree-holder: For Judgment-debtor:

- NIL - - NIL -

Sd/- T.V.SUBBA RAO

PSCJ,

NLR.

1

E.P.No. 142/2015 in ARC 1447/2013

dt. 17-11-2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: NELLORE.

Dated this the 17th day of November, 2015.

Present : SMT K. SUNITHA,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore.

E.P.No. 142/2015

ARC.No.1447/2013

M/s Shri Ram City Union Finance Limited, Nellore – 3 Branch, Represented by its GPA holder K.Sudhakar. … Award holder/Decree-holder.

//Vs.//

1. Sathenapalli Padmaja,

2. Vivaram Ravikumar.

3. Manda Masthanaiah … Respondents/J.drs 2 and 3.

This Execution Petition coming before me on 2-11-2015 in the presence of

Sri Sk.Abdul Samath, Advocate for the Award-holder/Decree-holder and of

Sri Ch.Sri Hari Narayana Rao, Advocate for respondents/J.drs 2 and 3 , upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is a Execution petition filed by the petitioner/Decree- holder against J.dr No.2 and 3 U/o 21 Rule 48 CPC seeking to recover

Rs.7,50,510/- by way of attachment from their salaries.

2.(i)It is the case of the petitioner/Decree-holder that Award was obtained against the respondents/J.drs 2 and 3 on 24-7-2014 who are working as Assistant Project Manager and Industrial Coordinator in District Rural

Development Agency Office, Collectorate Compound, Nellore and getting monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- each. It is stated that after passing of the Award, the respondents/J.drs 2 and 3 have not paid any amount.

2

E.P.No. 142/2015 in ARC 1447/2013

dt. 17-11-2015

3.(I) The respondents/J.drs 2 and 3 filed Counter , denying the averments of the petition, contending that they are not permanent Government employees and were only appointed as outsourcing employees and their salary cannot be attached .

(ii) It is further stated that they preferred Appeal against Arbitration

Award dated 24-7-2014 U/Sec.34 of Arbitration Act vide A.O.P No.519/2014 on the file of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Nellore and the Arbitration Award was set aside vide Judgment dated 10-6-2015 , as such, E.P is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4.During the course of enquiry, no oral and documentary evidence is adduced on both sides.

5.Heard the counsels for both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the D.hr is entitled to attach the monthly salaries of J.drs 2

and 3 ?

7. Point:

It is evident from the record that the E.P filed by the petitioner/D.hr namely

Shri Ram City Union Finance Limited against J.drs 2 and 3 as per Award dated 24-7-2014 in A.R.C.No.1447/2013 for recovery of Rs.7,50,510/- contending that the J.drs 2 and 3 did not make any payment even after the Award.

8.It is contended by the J.drs 2 and 3 that they are outsourcing employees and further the Award dated 24-7-2014 in ARC.No.1447/2013 was set aside in Arbitration O.P.No.519/2014 on the file of Hon'ble District Judge,

Nellore vide Judgment dated 10-6-2015. They also filed Certified copy of the said Judgment from which, it is explicit that the Appeal preferred by the J.drs 2 and 3 along with other J.drs challenging the Award dated 24-7-2014 in 3

E.P.No. 142/2015 in ARC 1447/2013

dt. 17-11-2015

Arbitration Case No.1447/2013 was set aside with a finding that 1st respondent/claimant is at liberty to take steps for fresh arbitration again , after giving due notice in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As such, the

E.P filed by the petitioner/D.hr seeking attachment of the salaries of the J.drs 2 and 3 by invoking Order 21 rule 48 CPC is not maintainable and E.P is liable to be dismissed.

The point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, Execution petition is dismissed without costs and attachment effected is hereby raised.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 17th day of November, 2015.

Sd/- K. SUNITHA

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Award-holder/D.hr: For Judgment-debtors :

- None- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Award-holder/D.hr: For Judgment-debtors:

- NIL - - NIL -

Sd/- K. SUNITHA

PSCJ, NLR.