Kum K. Vanisree

1OS No.103/2016 [18.10.2019] PSCJ/KVR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

at KOVVUR.

Present : Kum. K.Vanisree

Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem

FAC. Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur.

Friday, this the 18th day of October 2019.

O.S No.103/2016

Between:-

Sri Lingamapalli Veera Venkata Satya Seetaram, S/o.Pattabhi Rama Rao, Hindu, aged 43 years, D.No.5-4-30/2, Business, Kovvur, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

…. ...Plaintiff.

And:

Smt. Bandi Nagamani, W/o.Kannipamula Syam Babu, Hindu, 60 years, Staff Nurse, E.S.I Dispensary, Kadiyam, Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District.

… . Defendant.

This suit came up on 18.10.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.V.V.Satyanarayana, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri M.Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate for the defendant; and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration and on perusal of entire case material on record, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,43,600/- basing on promissory note dated 08.06.2013 with subsequent interest and costs.

2. Brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 08.06.2013 for the purpose of meeting her family expenses and discharging sundry debts and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant postponing the same on one pretext or the other and failed to discharge the debt. The plaintiff issued legal notice on 25.05.2016 to the defendant, but defendant did not repay the debt amount. The defendant is working as Staff Nurse in ESI

Dispensary at Kadiyam of East Godavari District and is going to retire from service by

June 2016 and with an ulterior motive, the defendant has already transferred her immovable properties in the name of her close relatives in order to avoid and evade the debts and to defraud her creditors. The defendant is not an agriculturist and is an 2OS No.103/2016 [18.10.2019] PSCJ/KVR.

employee, therefore she is not entitled for the benefits under any agricultural relief Acts.

Hence, the suit.

3. Defendant filed written statement denying the material averments in the plaint and further submitted that the suit promissory note is one of rank forgery and fabricated document. Defendant submitted that she did not see the plaintiff and there is no acquaintance with the plaintiff and that as she is an employee and getting salary she has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff or from any others. She submitted that there is no creditor and debtor relationship between plaintiff and herself and the plaintiff suppressed the real facts and filed the false suit and plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed and to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for tail by my

Predecessor.

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 08.06.2013 is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim based on the promissory note dated 08.06.2013?

3. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked. On behalf of defendant, D.W.1 is examined and no documents marked.

6. Issue No.1: It is an established principal that in a suit based on promissory notes, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove execution of promissory note and once execution is proved the onus shifts on the defendant to disprove the same. In this instant case, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint which goes to show that on 08.06.2013 defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for family expenses and discharging sundry debts and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of at 24% per annum on demand to the plaintiff or to his order. P.W.1 stated that

Ex.A1 promissory note was scribed by Ambati Murali Krishna and attested by

Lingampalli Doraiah and Kothamasu Ramanaiah and defendant received consideration from him in the presence of scribe and attestors and executed promissory note in his favour. He stated that the defendant put signatures as well as thumb impression on the promissory note. He further stated that subsequently, he demanded personally and through elders for repayment of the debt amount but defendant is postponing the same on some pretext or other, then he issued Ex.A2 legal notice on 25.05.2016 demanding to repay the debt due to him and defendant received the notice and kept quite. Apart from 3OS No.103/2016 [18.10.2019] PSCJ/KVR.

his evidence, plaintiff examined P.W.2 one of the attestor and P.W.3 the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note and they corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 that defendant received consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- on 08.06.2013 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in their presence and in the presence of one Kothamasu Ramanaiah.

7. The plaintiff by examining P.W.2 and P.W.3 the attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note discharged his initial burden that defendant received consideration and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour. On the other hand, defendant denied

Ex.A1 promissory note transaction. According to the defendant Ex.A1 promissory note is rank forged and fabricated document. Defendant who was examined as D.W.1 stated that she has no facial acquaintance with the plaintiff and being employee she has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from plaintiff or any other person and there is no creditor and debtor relationship in between herself and plaintiff.

8. Except the bare statement of D.W.1 that Ex.A1 promissory note is rank forged document, defendant did not state any reason as to why plaintiff forged Ex.A1 promissory note. It is not the case of defendant that there is enmity between herself and plaintiff or with the attestors and scribe. In the absence of any evidence basing on the sole testimony of D.W.1 it cannot be said that Ex.A1 is forged and fabricated document.

On the other hand the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent that defendant received consideration and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintiff. All the witnesses categorically sated that Ex.A1 promissory note transaction took place at the house of P.W.1 between 6.00 PM to 7.00 PM. Though P.Ws.1 to 3 were cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination to show that Ex.A1 is rank forged document. Of course it is suggested to P.Ws.1 to 3 that defendant is working in E.S.I hospital, Kadiyam and at about 6.00 PM defendant is working in the hospital but they categorically denied the same and further P.W.1 stated that 08.06.2013 is a Saturday and holiday to the hospital. Further it is pertinent to note that defendant pleaded in the written statement and stated in chief examination that the suit promissory note is rank forged document but in cross-examination she stated that the signature on

Ex.A1 promissory note belongs to her. This piece of evidence of D.W.1 in her cross- examination falsifies her evidence in chief examination that Ex.A1 is forged and fabricated document.

In view of the discussion supra, I hold plaintiff is able to establish that defendant received consideration and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintiff.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

4OS No.103/2016 [18.10.2019] PSCJ/KVR.

9. Issue No.2: In view of the findings in issue No.1, I hold the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue No.3 and Result ::

10. In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.3,43,600/- with subsequent interest on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to Stenographer-Grade-II on laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, this the 18th day of October 2019.

Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

FAC/Principal Senior Civil Judge Kovvur.

Appendix of Evidence

Oral Evidence

For Plaintiff For Defendant P.W.1: L.V.S Seetharam D.W.1: Bandi Ngamani P.W.2: L.Doraiah P.W.3: A.Murali Krishna

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff Ex.A1: Promissory note dated 08.06.2013 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 25.05.2016 issued to the defendant Ex.A3: Postal receipt dated 25.05.2016

For Defendant - Nil.

SCJ/TPG. FAC/PSCJ/KVR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KOVVUR

Present: Kum.K.Vanisree,

Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

FAC:Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur

Thursday, the 25th day of October, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.29/2017. Between:

1. Sri Kantamani Rama Krishna. Plaintiff.

And

Sri Parimi Venkata subba Rao. Defendant.

This suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 14-09-2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for sale of the schedule property to direct the defendant to receive the balance of the sale consideration of Rs.22,800/- from, the Plaintiff and execute a regular Regd. Sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of agreement of sale and to put the Plaintiff in possession of the schedule property. Or in the alternative For refund of advance of the sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a., from the date of suit till realization creating Charge over the schedule property and for costs. This suit is coming on this day for 89 CPC before me in the presence of Sri A.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri Y.Prkasa Rao, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

Counsel for Plaintiff filed memo stating that the matter is com,promised out of Court before elders and to dismiss the suit without costs.

Heard.

Memo recorded.

Suit is dismissed as settled out of Court.

Pronounced by me in open court, this 25th day of October, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

FAC:PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOVVUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined)

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT:

(No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side).

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

FAC:PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOVVUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: KOVVUR

Present: Kum.K.Vanisree,

Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

FAC:Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur

Friday, the 18th day of October, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.241/2018. Between:

Andhra Bank, Koyyalagudem Branch, Represented by its Manager. Plaintiff.

And

Smt.Didde Suseela. 1.

Sri Konakalla Srinivasa Rao. 2.

Sri Garre Veerabhadra Rao. 3.

Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,24,878/- with subsequent interest @ 14% and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on this day for 89 CPC before me in the presence of

Sri B.Nagendra Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri V.V.Sagar,

Advocate for the Defendant No.1 to No.3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

Counsel for Plaintiff filed memo stating that the matter is settled out of Court and to dismiss the suit.

Heard.

Memo recorded.

Suit is dismissed as settled out of Court.

Pronounced by me in open court, this 18th day of October, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

FAC:PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOVVUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined) FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: (No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side).

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

FAC:PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOVVUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: ELURU ::

Present: Kum. S. Sree Vani, I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru.

E.P. No. 158/2013

Between: MS Shriram City Union Finance Company Limited, Eluru. …DHR

And

Koyyagarla Sajjana Raju. ...JDR

This E.P is coming on 4.4.2014 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri

K.V.S.N.R. Gopal, Advocate for DHR and this day this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

As per the proceedings of Hon’ble District Judge, West Godavari

District, Eluru in Dis. No 2319 dt.28.3.14. The E.P is withdrawn from the file of this court and transferred to the court of Junior Civil Judges court,

Bhimadole

Pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 4 th day of April, 2014.

Sd/- S. Sree Vani

I Addl., Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

-Nil-

Id/- S.S.V.

I AJCJ, ELURU

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: ELURU ::

Present: Kum. S. Sree Vani, I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru.

E.P. No. 86/2014

Between: Gumpula Venkata Rao …DHR

And

Uppalapati Veera Raghavulu. ...JDR

This E.P is coming on 4.4.2014 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri

K. Subba Rao, Advocate for DHR and this day this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

As per the proceedings of Hon’ble District Judge, West Godavari

District, Eluru in Dis. No 2319 dt.28.3.14. The E.P is withdrawn from the file of this court and transferred to the court of Junior Civil Judges court,

Bhimadole

Pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 4 th day of April, 2014.

Sd/- S. Sree Vani

I Addl., Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

-Nil-

Id/- S.S.V.

I AJCJ, ELURU