Sri K. Syam Babu, B.a., Ll.m.,

1 Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present:-Sri K.SYAM BABU,

Senior Civil Judge.

Friday, the 23rd day of April, 2021

:: A.S.No.23 of 2018 ::

Between:-

Dommeti Nagendra, S/o.China Venkata rao, age 29 years, Business & Cultivation, R/o.D.No.7-3-21, Gubbalavari Peta, Ramachandrapuram, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, E.G.Dt., … Appellant/ plaintiff in RCPM PJCJ. O.S.No.109/2017.

And

Vanum Venkata Appa Rao, S/o.late Samudram, age 46 years, Attender LIC office, Opposite 7 Star Hotel,… Respondent/ defendant in Main Road, Kakinada, KKD PJCJ.O.S.No.109/2017.

On appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the

Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram,

dt.16.03.2018 in O.S.No.109/2017.

O.S.No.109/2017

Between:-

Dommeti Nagendra… Plaintiff.

And

Vanum Venkata Appa Rao… Defendant.

This appeal is coming on 08.03.2021 for hearing and arguments through videoconferencing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, judgment and decree of the trial court and other connected papers on record and of Sri S. Satyanarayana, Advocate for appellant/ plaintiff in

O.S.No.109/2017, and respondent/defendant in O.S.No.109/2017 called

absent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

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

Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram dated 16.03.2018 in

O.S.109/2017.

2 Fair

2.The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.109/2017 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The Hon’ble Court after

appearing both parties through their counsels conducted trial and dismissed the suit. Hence the appellant/ plaintiff preferred this appeal by aggrieving the decree and judgment of the suit in O.S.No.109/2017 on the file of trial Court.

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

plaintiff and defendant.

4.The averments mentioned in the plaint in brief are as follows:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- from him on 25.12.2015 for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., and after receipt of consideration, the defendant executed a demand promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff at Ramachandrapuram. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay any amount and further he issued a registered legal notice dt.25.05.2017 and the defendant received the same on 27.05.2017, but did not choose to pay any amount nor gave any reply. Since the defendant is not an agriculturist, he is not entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Laws.

Hence, the suit

5. The defendant filed written statement by denying all the allegations made in the plaint and contended that the suit promissory note is not supported by any consideration and he never visited the plaintiff’s village and never executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and he has no knowledge about the plaintiff, attesters and scribe. He further submitted that there is no creditor and debtor relationship between the plaintiff and 3 Fair him and the Telugu signature does not belong to him and the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

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

1.Whether the suit pronote dt.25.12.15 for an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- is true, valid, binding on the defendant and supported by consideration and or was it a forged or fabricated one as alleged?

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

3.To what relief?

7.In the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and also examined one of the attestors by name Kodi Trinadh as P.W.2. The defendant not produced any oral or documentary evidence.

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

1. The decree and judgment of the lower court is against law weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. The lower court should have decreed the suit as prayed for in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.

3. The lower court failed to see the entire contents of cross examination of defendants counsel and failed to see evidence of plaintiff.

4. The finding of lower court that the plaintiff failed to settle issues properly and issue No.1 straight away settled in favour of the defendant by made fining that the passing of consideration is a doubtful one.

4 Fair

5. The lower Court simply gave adverse inference by giving favorable findings in favor of the defendant with regarding to the consideration and capacity of the plaintiff.

6. The lower court failed to draw presumption under 118(a) of

Negotiable instruments Act as the suit filed by the plaintiff basing on the promissory note executed by the defendant. The lower Court failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.2 who is the attestor, has categorically proved and reiterated the evidence about the execution of promissory note and passing of consideration in his presence. In view of the evidence of P.W.2 placed before the lower Court ought not to made finding for non-examination of scribe on behalf of the plaintiff/Appellant for proving execution of suit promissory note. The lower Court ought to be considered the evidence of P.W.2 for execution of promissory note and the lower Court ought not to made finding in its judgment at page No.7 para 7.8, about the non examination of scribe is a fatal to the case of plaintiff.

7. The lower Court failed to consider basic points for consideration in favour of the plaintiff as the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money basing on the promissory note executed by the defendant which is not a compulsory attestable document.

8. The lower court failed to look into the evidence and cross examination done by the defendant counsel the evidence of plaintiff witnesses considerate by the lower Court it certainly no doubt that defendant nothing was elicited from the mouth of plaintiff/ appellant witnesses with regarding to the non-execution of promissory note.

9. The lower Court failed to draw considerable points in favour of the appellant with regarding to the capacity, acquaintance, accessibility, and possibility of lending amount to the respondent by the appellant.

To that effect the lower court wrongly gave findings in its judgment at para No.7.5 in page No.5.

10. Since the plaintiff got examined P.W.2 to prove the execution of promissory note, the lower Court ought to be considered the same if the lower Court consider the same the plaintiff certainly proved execution of promissory note then the burden could be shift to the defendant for non-passing of consideration under suit promissory note.

But the lower court erroneously made findings in its judgment at para

No.7.9 in page 7 as the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of 5 Fair promissory note as such there is a doubt in passing of consideration as mentioned in promissory note Ex.A1. 1

11. The lower court grossly failed to gave favourable consideration in favour of the appellant without applying its mind with regarding burden of proof with regarding to the execution of promissory note and passing of consideration.

13. When the defendant denying his signature by taking a plea of forgery the burden always lies upon the defendant, the defendant has to prove they never signed on the promissory note by sending the signatures to the expert opinion. The lower court erroneously made finding about the denial of signature and denial of execution of document in its judgment at Para No.7.2 in page 3. Proof of execution of document is different from denial of signature on a document.

For the above grounds and other grounds that may be urged at the time of arguments, the appellant humbly pray that the

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the decree and judgment in

O.S.109/2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Ramachandrapuram dt.16.03.2018 and to decree the suit with costs and grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deemed to fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

9.Perused the pleadings, issues, oral and documentary evidence adduced and the case law.

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

1)Whether the appellant/Plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?

2)Whether the Judgment of trial court is an erroneous one and liable to be set aside?

3)To what relief?

11.POINT No.1 : Whether the appellant /plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?

6 Fair

The version of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.12.2015, after executing the

Ex.A.1 promissory note and received consideration there under.

12.The contention of the defendant in the trial Court is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the Telugu signature on Ex.A.1 is not that of the defendant and further contended that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated document.

13.It is to be noted that the defendant failed to adduce any evidence either orally or documentary to substantiate his contention. The learned counsel for the defendant relied on the facts elicited through the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2. As seen from the Judgment of the Trial

Court, it reveals that several opportunities were given to the defendant to adduce evidence but the defendant failed to enter into the witness box and not came forward to depose anything.

14.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the Trial

Court gave a Judgment in favour of the defendant without any supporting evidence and it is only with the assumptions and presumptions. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted in the trial Court that the plaintiff is a total stranger to the defendant and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such a huge amount of Rs.2,20,000/- and the plaintiff has to prove strictly that

Ex.A.1 is supported by consideration. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that since the plaintiff and the 1st attestor of Ex.A.1 are examined as PWs.1 and 2, the initial burden on the plaintiff was discharged and the defendant failed to enter into the witness box and as such a presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act is available to the plaintiff, but the trial Court erroneously gave a finding that when the defendant is denying the execution of Ex.A.1, it is the duty of the plaintiff to 7 Fair examine the scribe, but the plaintiff failed to examine the scribe of Ex.A.1 to prove the execution of Ex.A.1 and as such the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be invoked in favour of the plaintiff.

15.The Trial Court clearly gave a finding that to substantiate the case of plaintiff, he examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.3 and to corroborate the case of plaintiff, the 1st attestor of Ex.A.1 is examined as PW.2 and the evidence of PW.2 is corroborated the testimony of PW.1 on all material aspects i.e., borrowing of amount by the defendant and execution of Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff. It is clearly opined by the trial

Court that the evidence of PW.1 corroborated with the evidence of PW.2 on all the material aspects of borrowing amount and execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant. It is to be noted that the burden of proof is different from that of onus of proof. There is no doubt that the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant executed Ex.A.1 promissory note after receipt of consideration there under. The said fact is to be proved by the plaintiff and when the evidence of PW.1 and the documents of Ex.A.1 to A.3 are came on record, the onus of proof shifted to the defendant.

16.The version of defendant in his pleadings is that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one and further it is also averred in the written statement that the Telugu signature on suit promissory note is not that of the defendant. The trial Court opined in its Judgment that the defendant has taken two contrary pleas of forgery and fabrication and even though the initial burden is on the plaintiff and if the plaintiff is failed to discharge his burden of proof of execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note then the plaintiff is not entitled for the presumption under Sec.118 (a) of Negotiable

Instrument Act. It is also opined by the trial Court that the defendant may also dislodge the statutory presumption and to dislodge the legal presumption either by direct evidence or circumstances or the 8 Fair preponderance of probabilities elicited during the cross-examination of plaintiff side witnesses. The trial Court gave a finding that the defendant counsel mainly relied on the material elicited through the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 to disprove the case of plaintiff.

17.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the trial

Court gave a finding with regard to the financial incapacity of plaintiff and when there is no such pleadings from the defendant, trial Court gave findings only on assumptions and presumptions.

18.On perusal of the record, the defendant failed to enter into the witness box and in his pleadings also there is no whisper with regard to the financial incapacity of plaintiff. Though the facts elicited through the cross- examination of PW.1 discloses that the name of plaintiff is in White Ration

Card and it is also stated by the PW.1 that the White Ration Card will be given to below poverty people, it cannot be a sole basis to decide that the

Ex.A.1 is not supported by consideration.

19.As seen from the pleadings of defendant, his contention is that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated one. There is no opportunity for the plaintiff to elicit from the defendant whether the suit promissory note is forged or fabricated one. If the defendant has adduced evidence, then the plaintiff will get an opportunity of cross-examining the defendant and hence the fact with regard to forgery or fabrication of Ex.A.1 will be decided. But there is no such scope for the plaintiff to elicit that fact.

In Para No.8 of its Judgment, the trial Court relied on a Judgment reported in

AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1008 in Bharat Barrel and Drum

Manufacturing Company vs. Amin Chand Payrelal. The ratio in this

Judgment is also clearly speaks that the bare denial of the passing of the consideration is not sufficient to disprove the case of plaintiff.

9 Fair

20.In the present case, even the pleadings of defendant also not disclosed about the financial incapacity of plaintiff and non-passing of consideration under Ex.A.1 promissory note.

21.The defendant has to prove his case either from the facts elicited through the cross-examination of plaintiff side witnesses or from the direct evidence. In the present case, the defendant has not taken such plea of financial incapacity of plaintiff and as such the cross-examination of PW.1 with regard to the financial incapacity is beyond the scope of contention of defendant. If it is considered that the bare denial of execution of Ex.A.1 is sufficient to permit the defendant to rely on the facts elicited through the cross-examination of PW.1 with regard to the financial incapacity, then it should be considered only after adducing a prima facie evidence by the defendant with regard to the denial of execution of Ex.A.1. The pleadings without evidence cannot be a basis to disbelieve the entire case of plaintiff.

22.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that when the defendant failed to enter into a witness box and not offer himself to be cross-examined by the opposite party, the plea set up by the defendant cannot be a believable version and as such the the observation of the trial

Court that the plaintiff is not having financial capacity since the plaintiff admitted that his name is reflected in the white ration card of his family, cannot be a basis to brush aside the entire evidence of PWs.1 and 2.

23. When there is contrary contentions from the defendant with regard to the signature on Ex.A.1 promissory note, this Court is of opinion that the onus shifted to the defendant to establish that the signature on

Ex.A.1 is not belongs to the defendant and it is not proved by adducing any evidence. Nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2 to prove that the signature in Ex.A.1 is not that of defendant.

10 Fair

24.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the trial

Court gave a finding merely basing on the assumptions and presumptions.

The trial Court gave a finding that when the PW.1 failed to produce any evidence to show that he was having amount with him as on the date of

Ex.A.1 and it was also observed by the trial Court that no prudent man will keep such amount in his hands without depositing in his bank account. One cannot assume that everybody will deposit the amount into the bank without keeping the money with them. Hence the said presumption is not basing on any supporting evidence.

25.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that when the defendant himself not come forward to depose evidence and not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act is available to the plaintiff and relied on a

Judgment reported in in Vidhyadhar v. Mainkrao and another in 1993(3)ALT 1 (SC). The ratio in this Judgment is squarely applicable to the present case.

26.The trial Court gave a finding that the non-examination of scribe of Ex.A.1 is disproved the case of plaintiff. If the defendant is coming forward to depose evidence and enter into witness box and offer himself for cross-examination, then the said observation may assume to be supported by the testimony of defendant. But in the present case, the defendant failed to enter into witness box and as such the mere suggestion made to the PW.1 will not be considered as a valid evidence and such observation of the trial court is with out the support of any evidence.

27.In the present case the PW.1 and PW.2 adduced evidence to prove the contents of Ex.A.1 and the defendant failed to adduce any evidence and as such the onus of proof which is lying on the defendant is not discharged.

11 Fair

28.It is to be noted the burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff, but the onus of proof shifted to the defendant whenever the plaintiff adduced primary evidence to prove his contention. Though the defendant cannot adduce any evidence to prove the negative act of non- existence of consideration, it can be through the cross-examination of plaintiff side witnesses. . When the defendant counsel made a suggestion to the PW.1 that the Ex.A.1 is a fabricated document and the non-examination of defendant himself as a witness is strengthening the case of plaintiff.

29.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that a presumption under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act is available to the plaintiff since the defendant is not coming forward to adduce evidence. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the Judgment relied on by the trial Court in Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing

Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal reported in AIR 1999 Supreme

Court 1008 is not applicable to the present case because the facts are completely not similar.

30.The ratio in this Judgment is that the burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118 (a) in his favour.

31.The ratio laid down in this Judgment is appears to be favourable to the plaintiff because the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by entering into the witness box. Hence this Court is of opinion that the onus of proof which is on the defendant, is not discharged by the 12 Fair defendant and as such the evidence adduced by PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.A.1 to

A.3 clearly establish the case of plaintiff.

32.It is to be noted that if the defendant intentionally and wantonly not produced any evidence by contending that the facts elicited through the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 are sufficient, then it can be considered otherwise. But in the present cased, the trial Court clearly gave a finding that the defendant failed to examine himself nor examine any other witness on his behalf in spite of sufficient opportunities given to him. Hence it clearly shows that intentionally he evaded to come into witness box and to offer himself for cross-examination by other side. Hence this Court is of opinion that the case set up by the defendant cannot be a conclusive proof and the pleadings of defendant are not proved by any evidence.

33.Under the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of opinion that by adducing the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and by marking the documents Ex.A.1 to A.3, the plaintiff clearly established his case and the defendant failed to adduce any evidence to disprove the case of plaintiff and as such the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. Hence the point No.1 is answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.

34.POINT NO.2:

The findings of trial Court are completely appears to be basing on assumptions and presumptions and without support of pleadings or evidence from the defendant with regard to the financial incapacity of the plaintiff and the non-examination of scribe of Ex.A.1. Hence this Court is of opinion that the findings of trial Court are erroneous and not supported any substantive evidence and as such it is liable to be set aside.

35. POINT NO.3:-

As per the reasons and findings given for the point No.1 and 2 the appeal is to be allowed.

13 Fair

36. In the result, appeal is allowed with costs and the Judgment and decree of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram in

O.S.No.109/2017 dated 16.03.2018 is set aside by decreeing the suit with

costs for Rs.2,95,680/- (rupees two lakh ninety five thousand six hundred and eighty only) with subsequent interest at 6% p.a., on the principal sum of

Rs.2,20,000/- (rupees two lakh twenty thousand only) from the date of this appeal till date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 23rd day of April, 2021.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

S ENIOR C IVIL J UDGE

Ramachandrapuram.

Appendix of Evidence

No additional oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

S.C.J. // True Copy //

Senior Civil Judge,

Ramachandrapuram 

Copy to the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ramachandrapuram

1 Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present:-Sri K.SYAM BABU,

Senior Civil Judge.

Friday, the 23rd day of April, 2021

:: A.S.No.20 of 2017 ::

Between:-

Beera Parvathi @ Uma, D/o.Venkanna, 59 years, C/SC, Diploma, Medical Practitioner, R/o.D.No.103, Paningapalli,… Appellant/ plaintiff K.Gangavaram Mandal. E.G.Dt. RCPM PJCJ.

And

1)Alluri Satyanarayana, S/o.Venkatarao, 46 years, Hindu, C/Chowdary, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.2-20, R/o.Paningapalli Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal. E.G.Dt. RCPM PJCJ.

2)Vytla Ramarao, S/o.Surya Veereswararao, 53 years, D.No.2-112, Hindu, C/Chowdary, MPTC, R/o.Paningapalli Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal. E.G.Dt. RCPM PJCJ.

3)Kothapalli Gandhi, S/o.Venkatarao, 58 years, R/o.D.No.2-109/a, Hindu, C/Chowdary, Cultivation, R/o.Paningapalli Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal. E.G.Dt. RCPM PJCJ.

4)Vytla Atchutaramayya, S/o.Venkata Satyanarayana, 41 years, Hindu, C/Chowdary, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.2-60, R/o.Paningapalli Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal. E.G.Dt. RCPM PJCJ.

5)Prathipati Haribabu, S/o Subbarao, 55 years, Hindu, C/Chowdary, R/o D.No.2-2, Cultivation, r/o Paninigipalli Village. K.Gangavaram Mandal. E.G.Dt. RCPM PJCJ.

6)Vytla Ramakrishna, S/o.Subbarao, 48 years, Hindu, C/Chowdary, R/o.D.No.1-65, Cultivation, R/o.Paningapalli Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal. E.G.Dt. RCPM PJCJ.

7)AlluriRamarao,S/o.ButchiVenkata Krishnarao, 59 years, Hindu, C/Chowdary, R/o.D.No.2-104, Cultivation, R/o.Paningapalli Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal. E.G.Dt. RCPM PJCJ.

8)Balusu Paddaraju, S/o.Kittayya, 50 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.1-75, R/o.Paningapalli Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal. E.G.Dt. RCPM PJCJ.

9)Alluri Krishnayya, S/o Subbanna, 50 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.2-74, R/o.Paningapalli Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal. E.G.Dt. RCPM PJCJ.

2 Fair

10) Godavarthi Rambabu, S/o.Pullayya, 47 years, Hindu, C/Chowdary, Cultivation, R/o.Paningapalli Village,… Respondents/ K.Gangavaram Mandal. E.G.Dt. RCPM PJCJ.defendants.

On appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the

Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram,

dt.07.02.2017 in O.S.No.126/2014.

O.S.No.126 of 2014

Between:-

Beera Parvathi @ Uma… Plaintiff

And

1)Alluri Satyanarayana.

2)Vytla Ramarao.

3)Kothapalli Gandhi.

4)Vytla Atchutaramayya.

5)Prathipati Haribabu.

6)Vytla Ramakrishna.

7)Alluri Ramarao.

8)Balusu Paddaraju.

9)Alluri Krishnayya

10) Godavarthi Rambabu… Defendants.

This appeal is coming on 08.03.2021 before me through video- conferencing for arguments upon perusing the grounds of appeal, judgment and decree of the trial court and other connected papers on record and of Sri K.Bharath Kumar, Advocate for appellant, and of Smt. L.P.Kamala Kumari, Advocate for respondents, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

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

Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram dated 07.02.2017 in

O.S.126/2014.

2.The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.126/2014 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The Hon’ble Court after

appearing both parties through their counsels conducted trial and partly decreed the suit. Hence the appellant/ plaintiff preferred this appeal by 3 Fair aggrieving the decree and judgment of the suit in O.S.No.126/2014 on the file of trial court.

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

plaintiff and defendant.

3.The averments mentioned in the plaint in brief are as follows:-

The item No.1 of the plaint schedule property i.e., an extent of

Ac.0.05 cents shown as ‘ABCD’ marked portion of plaint plan, was allotted by

Mandal Revenue Officer, Pamarru to the plaintiff in R.S.No.143 in Paningipalli village of Pamarru under D-Form Patta Ref.No.B/564/86, dt.07.05.1986 and also granted license for Item No.2 of the schedule property marked as ‘EFGH’ portion of plaint plan for planting trees in B.S.No.19-B i.e., an extent of

Ac.0.30 cents in R.S.No.143/1 and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying taxes. While so, on 26.06.2014 the defendants high handedly and illegally entered into the schedule property with tractors and proclainer from the southern side of the plaint schedule property and dug ditches and bodis and took away the earth along with six coconut trees and four palm trees with an intention to grab the plaint schedule property and when the plaintiff tried to obstruct their acts, the defendants abused the plaintiff and threatened her with dire consequences. Then the plaintiff lodged a report with Pamarru Police and

Revenue Officials and the Pamarru Police registered a case in Cr.No.79/2014 against the defendants. The defendants are proclaiming that they would enter into the plaint schedule property and collapse the coconut garden of the plaintiff and for burial ground with drains and roads. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendants filed written statement. The averments of the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:

4 Fair

The defendants denied the allegations in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff was not issued D-Form patta for an extent of

Ac.0-30 cents and as such she has no right and possession over the ‘EFGH’ marked portion of the plaint plan and the chettu patta and D-Form patta are fabricated documents. The plaintiff is not at all a landless lady and she has

Ac.1-08 cents of land in R.S.No.533/2 of Ramachandrapuram, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dt.01.01.1979 and she also has a three portioned house property in Kammavari Savaram,

Ramachandrapuram. The documents and tax receipts filed by the plaintiff are not at all genuine. The schedule land is a poramboke land and the Gram

Panchayat, Paningipalli passed a resolution that the land in S.No.143/2 is to be used for burial ground by cleaning it with the contribution of the villagers and if the plaintiff is allowed by granting injunction, it causes inconvenience and loss to the public in Paningipalli village. As the land in-question admittedly belongs to the Government, the plaintiff has no right to ask permanent injunction without adding the concerned Government. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and filed the present suit for harassing the defendants. There is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. The boundaries and extent mentioned in the plaint schedule are not true and correct. There is no cause of action to file the suit and as such prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost.

5.On the strength of rival contentions, the following issues were framed for final determination.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. To what relief?

6.In the trial court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the defendants,

DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked.

5 Fair

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

1) The decree and judgment of the lower court is against law weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2) The lower Court ought to have decreed the suit in favour the plaintiff. The lower Court failed to see the cross examination of plaintiff counsel with eye of law.

3) There is no specific finding of lower Court that the plaintiff failed to established his case to prove the relief so sought with regarding to

Item No.2 of plaint schedule property but the lower Court simply made issue in favour of respondents as the plaintiff failed to prove her case with regard to the Item No.2 of plaint schedule property.

4) The lower Court nothing is find and absolutely made contra against the plaintiff in its Judgment. The lower Court failed to apply its mind that the Item No.2 of plaint schedule property is a vacant site as such the plaintiff failed to prove her possession. The lower Court failed to observe the contention of plaintiff as it is a vacant site she raised coconut trees therein and while the respondents are making illicit act she approached the Court. The Hon'ble court miserably kept aside the oral evidence placed by the appellant/plaintiff by totally left and failed to look into the matter.

5) The Hon'ble Court failed to look into the evidence placed by the plaintiff and wrongly made findings with regarding to Ex.A3 and B.1 which is not at a subject matter. With regarding to the said aspect it is not a conclusive one to decide genuinenity of a document but the lower court wrongly made finding as Ex.A3 is not a genuine one.

6 Fair

6) The findings made by the lower Court certainly made impact on the subsequent events and it is a chance to defendants to made illegal acts and made wrongful complaints against the appellant. Accordingly findings made by lower court are contrary to law and wait and certainly injustice to the appellant.

7) The lower court failed to look into the entire evidence by giving finding one side by partly decreeing the suit. The lower court failed to appreciate arguments and explanations advanced by the plaintiff counsel. The lower court failed to make findings as per the issues so settled in the suit. The lower court failed see the evidence on record in respect of the findings giving in its judgment simply draw such a wrong inference without appreciating evidence and circumstances since the suit filed by the appellant is for granting injunction but not for declaration of documents. The lower court failed to look into the said fact but simply draw adverse inference against the plaintiff/appellant.

8) The lower court failed to consider the total evidence and report submitted by advocate commissioner and evidence clearly shows that the item No.2 of plaint schedule property adjacent to Item No.1, which is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff as per Ex.A.2 which issued by concerned MRO and it was not disputed by defendants at any where they are no way concerned to plaintiff land Item No.1 and 2.

For the above grounds and other grounds that may be urged at the time of arguments, the appellant humbly pray that the Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to set aside the decree and judgment in

O.S.126/2014 dt.07.02.2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Ramachandrapuram with regard to Item No.2 of plant schedule property and grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deemed to fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

7 Fair

9. Perused the pleadings, issues, oral and documentary evidence adduced and the case law.

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

1)Whether the Judgment of trial court is an erroneous one and liable to be set aside?

2)To what relief?

11.POINT No.1 :

“Whether the Judgment of trial court is an erroneous one and liable to be set aside?”

The plaintiff/appellant filed a petition under order 41 Rule 27 of CPC with a prayer to receive additional evidence by receiving documents. The plaintiff/appellant filed the certified copy of calendar and Judgment in

C.C.No.321/2017 on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ramachandrapuram dated 30.04.2019 and permit to receive the document to prove the contention of appellant. The petitioner contention is that the calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.321/2017 which is filed along with the petition in I.A.No.10/2021 in A.S.No.20/2017 is very essential to prove the case of petitioner and it is very useful and require for the Court to pronounce

Judgment and to assess the case of both parties.

12.The learned counsel for appellant contended that the present document is not filed in the trial Court and the petitioner fulfilled the conditions as envisaged under Rule 27 of Order 41 of CPC. The learned counsel for appellant further submitted that the petitioner failed to file calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.321/2017 relating to the plaint schedule property and the receipt of calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.321/2017 which is connected with the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property relating to 8 Fair document No.3 (Ex.A.3), is very essential to decide the lis completely. It is further contended by the learned counsel for appellant/petitioner that the suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, privies and employees etc., from ever interfering with the plaint schedule property i.e., ABGH marked property in any manner whatsoever and the learned Trial Court gave a finding and opined the plaintiff is not in

possession and enjoyment of Item No.2 of plaint schedule property

and Ex.A.3 is also a created and forged one as there is a case

pending against the plaintiff as admitted by her and that in such

circumstances, plaintiff failed to prove that item No.2 is also in her

possession and further that for grating permanent injunction

plaintiff has to prove that she has been in possession and

enjoyment of the of the plaint schedule property and in the present

suit the plaintiff proved that she is in possession of Item No.1 of

the schedule property which is Ac.0.05 cents only and she failed to

prove that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the of

Item No.2 of the schedule property, but the Trial Court not discussed any evidential value. By contending all these facts the learned counsel for plaintiff/appellant submitted that the receipt of calendar and Judgment in

C.C.No.321/2017 by way of additional evidence is very essential to prove the case of plaintiff and to decide the matter on merits. The trial Court exclusively depended on the criminal case, but the said case is disposed and hence this Court is of the opinion that in view of the acquittal of plaintiff herein in that case, it is appropriate to give an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence with regard to the said criminal case.

13.In view of receiving of above document as an additional evidence, it is just and proper to allow the appeal and set aside the Judgment and decree of the lower Court with a direction to the trial Court to permit the plaintiff to adduce evidence in respect of the item No.2 of plaint schedule 9 Fair property which is an extent of Ac.0.35 cents in RS No.143/1 and to give opportunity to the both parties to prosecute their case and to dispose of the suit afresh on merits.

14.In the result, the appeal is allowed and Judgment and decree of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram in O.S.126/2014

dated 07.02.2017 is set asided with regard to the claim of the plaintiff

relating to item No.2 of plaint schedule property and the suit is restored to file with a direction to the trial Court to re-admit the suit in its original number and to give an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence in respect of document received as an additional evidence in IA No.10/2021. In view of the prevailing circumstances, both parties shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 23rd day of April, 2021.

Sd/­ K.Syam Babu 

S ENIOR C IVIL J UDGE

Ramachandrapuram.

Appendix of Evidence

No additional oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- K.Syam Babu

S.C.J. // True Copy //

Senior Civil Judge,

Ramachandrapuram 

Copy to the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ramachandrapuram

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAMACHANDRAPURAM

PRESENT: - Sri Y.Gopala Krishna

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada

FAC- Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram

THURSDAY, THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

:: O.S.No.53 of 2020 ::

Between:-

Koppisetti Manga Devi, w/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 52 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.2-228, Bhaskara Theatre Center, Kadiyapusavaram Road, Kadiyam village & Mandal RJY JCJ.… Plaintif

And

1.Vallu Nagamani, W/o. Suryanarayana, age 50 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.7-2-22, Gubbalavaripeta, Ramachandrapuram town and mandal East Godavari District, RCPM JCJ

2.Guthula Durga, W/o.Krishna (late), age 51 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.42-13-42, Mangalavarapupeta, Rajahmundry Urban Mandal, East Godavari District, RCPM JCJ

3.Mattaparthi Chandrakala, W/o.Mohana Rao, age 47 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.82-15-5, 4th street, Burma colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry Urban Mandal, East Godavari District, RCPM JCJ

4.Chinthapalli Satynarayana, S/o.Paddayya, age 64 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.46-11-16, Bachu Satyanandam street, Danvaipeta, Rajahmundry Urban Mandal, East Godavari District, RCPM JCJ.

5.Chinthapalli Santosh Babu, S/o.Paddayya, age 32 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.46-11-16, Bachu Satyanandam street, Danvaipeta, Rajahmundry Urban Mandal, East Godavari District, RCPM JCJ.

6.Juthuka pravalika, W/o.Hareram, age 37 years, Hindu, R/o.Sangampuntha, Mandapeta Town and Mandal, East Godavari District, Alamuru JCJ.

7.Tirumalla sirisha, W/o.Umamaheswararao, age 35 years, Hindu, R/o.Sithapahalamandi, Secunderabad, Telangana State, Secunderabad JCJ

8.Pampana Sudha Rani, W/o.Bhargavaram, age 31years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.4-1-4, Jattavari street, Near Kovela, Narasapuram, West Godavari District, Narasapuram JCJ

9.Padala Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Paparao, age 54 years, Hindu, R/o.D.No.4-1-83/1, P.P.R. Complex, Main Road, Mandapeta Town and Mandal, 2

East Godavari District, Alamuru JCJ.… Defendants

This suit coming on 08.01.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Neelam Madhu Sudhana Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.Ammiraju, Advocate for 1st defendant and Sri Surampudi Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendants 2, 3 and 9, Sri Peddireddy Srinivasarao, Advocate for defendants 4 to 8, 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 by the plaintiff against the defendants (a) For partition of plaint schedule property into Five equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such share to the plaintiff and one share to 1st defendant, 1 share to 2nd defendant, one share to 3rd defendant, and one share to 4th defendant to 8th defendants; (b) To cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 30.07.2020 vide Doc.No.2724/2020 executed by the 1st defendant in favor of 9th defendant;

(c) To direct the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ramachandrapuram. East Godavari District to make relevant entries in the record effecting the cancellation of registered sale deed dated 30.07.2020 vide doc.No.2724 /2020 on its file consequently as per orders of the Hon’ble Court as an ancillary relief; (d) for a consequential permanent injunction against defendants. their men and agents and privies either from interfering and obstructing with the Plaint 'A' and ‘B' Schedule

Properties; and for awarding costs of suit.

Memo is filed on behalf of plaintiff to not press the suit. Counsel for plaintiff submitted in virtual mode that suit may be dismissed. Memo is recorded. Submission of learned counsel for plaintiff is recorded.

Hence, suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Directly typed to dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 2nd day of September, 2021.

Sd/- Y.Gopala Krishna

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada FAC- Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

No additional oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- Y.Gopala Krishna

I A.S.C.J., KKD

(FAC) S.C.J., RCPM

// True Copy //

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada FAC- Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAMACHANDRAPURAM

PRESENT: - Sri Y.Gopala Krishna

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada

FAC- Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram

FRIDAY, THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

:: A.S.No.17 of 2017 ::

Between:-

Undamatla Venkatarao, S/o.Pattabhi Ramayya, Aged 70 years, Coolie, R/o.Moolastanam, Alamuru Mandal, E.G.Dt., Alamuru PJCJ.… Appellant/ defendant

And

Gurijala Chandra Rao, S/o.Narayanamurthy, Aged 70 years, Cultivation, R/o.Moolastanam, Alamuru Mandal, E.G.Dt., Alamuru PJCJ.… Respondent/ plaintiff.

On appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the

Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru, dt.03.11.2016 in

O.S.No.150/2009.

O.S.No.150 of 2009

Between:-

Gurijala Chandra Rao… Plaintiff

And

Undamatla Venkatarao… Defendant.

This appeal is coming on 13.08.2021 for arguments upon perusing the grounds of appeal, judgment and decree of the trial court and other connected papers on record and of Sri Sri T.S.S.S.N.Chalapathi Kumar, Advocate for appellant/ defendant in O.S.No.150/2009, and of Sri A.Satyanarayanacharyulu, Advocate for Respondent/ plaintiff in O.S.No.150/2009, and both parties and their counsels submitted that case matter is settled out of the Court, hence this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is an appeal filed by the appellant/ defendant in O.S.No.150/2009 under Order 41 Rule 1 and under Sec.96 of CPC against the decree and

Judgment passed by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru, in

O.S.No.150/2009 dt.03.11.2016.

2

Sri TSSSNChalapathi Kumar, Advocate for appellant and Sri C.V.N.Srihari,

Advocate are present in virtual mode through Blue Jeans APP.

Appellant and respondent are also present in virtual mode through Blue

Jeans APP.

Sri C.V.N.Srihari, Advocate is representing Sri A. Satyanarayana Charyulu, advocate for respondent.

Both parties and their counsels submitted that case matter is settled out of the Court. In that regard, earlier appellant filed a memo to not press the present appeal. In view of the circumstances, memo is recorded.

Hence appeal is dismissed as not pressed without costs.

Directly typed to dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of August, 2021.

Sd/- Y.Gopala Krishna

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada FAC- Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

No additional oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- Y.Gopala Krishna

I A.S.C.J., KKD

(FAC) S.C.J., RCPM

// True Copy //

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada FAC- Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

Copy to the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Alamuru

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :RAMACHANDRAPURAM:

PRESENT: - Sri Y.Gopala Krishna

I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KAKINADA

FAC- ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Wednesday, 25 th day of August, 2021.

SESSIONS CASE NO.96/2020.

(PRC No.4/2018 of Judl. First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi in

Crime No.91/2014 of Rayavaram Police Station)

B ETWEEN :

State:Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayavaram police station … Complainant

And

A.1 Karri Bharath Reddy, S/o.Atchyutha Ramareddy, Age 26 yrs, Anaparthi Village, and Madanl now at Srinagar, Kakinada.

A.2 Karri Atchyutha Ramareddy, S/o.Bullireddy, Age 55 yrs, Reddy, D.No.13-99, Anaparthi Kothuru(v), Anaparthi Mandal.

A.3 Karri Krishna @ Sandhya, W/o.Atchyutha Ramareddy, Age:50 yrs, D.No.13-99, Anaparthi Kothuru(v), Anaparthi Mandal

A.4 Karri Sudeepthi, D/o.Atchyutha Ramareddy, Age 23 yrs, Reddy, Door No.13-99, … Accused. Anaparthi Kothuru Village, Anaparthi Mandal.

This sessions case is coming on 25.08.2021 for summons to A.4 before me in the presence of Sri Rahul Kalakurcha, Advocate for accused and Memo is filed with CC or order in Crl.P.3497/2021 and another memo is also filed with web copy of order in Crl.P.2848/2021, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayavaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.91/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506, 307 r/w.34 IPC, and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 67’A’ of IT Act-2000 r/w.511 IPC and Section 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956.

A.1 is called present. A2 and A3 are called absent. Petition filed and allowed. Memo is filed CC or order in Crl.P.3497/2021. Another memo is 2 also filed with web copy of order in Crl.P.2848/2021. Perused copier of order.

They reveal that the Honourable High Court quashed this SC. In view of

Orders in Crl.P.2848/2021 and Crl.P.3497/2021, this SC is closed.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of August, 2021

Sd/- Y.Gopala Krishna

I Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada FAC/ Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

- NIL -

Sd/- Y.Gopala Krishna

I A.A.S.J., KKD

FAC/ A.S.J., RCPM // True Copy //

I A.A.S.J., KKD

FAC/ A.S.J., Ramachandrapuram