M. Asha Priya

1 OS.No.356/2022

APKD020011242022

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KADAPA.

Present : Kum. M. Asha Priya,

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of December, 2025.

Original Suit No.356 of 2022

Between:

P.S. Vara Prasad, S/o. Late Zakaraiah, aged 61 years, Rtd. Employee,

R/o. D.No.3/53-1, Sionpuram, Kadapa City, YSR Kadapa District. …. Plaintiff.

And

Palle Larence, S/o. P. Bhushanamaiah, aged 67 years, Christian, Rtd.

Employee, R/at D.No.41/235, Sumitra Nagar, Badvel Town & Mandal, YSR

Kadapa District. …. Defendant.

This suit came on 08.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Naga Raju, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri V. Venkata

Charayalu Advocate for defendant, upon perusing the records and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,40,264/- being the

principal and interest on suit promissory note, dt.09.3.2017 for Rs.65,000/-,

said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

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

It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendant had borrowed 2 OS.No.356/2022 an amount of Rs.65,000/- on 09.3.2017 from the plaintiff for his necessities and executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order to anybody. Later on repeated demands made by the plaintiff to discharge the suit promissory note amount, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.1,500/- on 01.3.2020 and the same was endorsed on the back side of promissory note. Thereafter the plaintiff issued legal notice, dt.15.2.2022, the same was returned and he did not pay any amount either principal or interest. Then, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the above said promissory note amount but he postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Therefore, the plaintiff is compelled to file this suit against the defendant. Hence, this suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement stating that he is a retired employee and is getting pension of Rs.15,000/- per month and that he is residing in rented house, his wife is diabetic patient and heart patient and his pension is not sufficient for his necessities. The defendant further submitted in his written statement that the defendant had paid total suit amount and that defendant has no means to pay the suit amount. Further averred that the suit is barred by limitation and the defendant did not make any endorsement on the back side of promissory note. Thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the pleadings of the both parties following issues are framed for trial as follows:

1.Whether the endorsement, dt.01.3.2020 on the backside of suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant? If not, whether the suit is barred by limitation?

3 OS.No.356/2022

2.Whether the suit pronote, dt.09.3.2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for ?

4.To what relief ?

5.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and got Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked.

6. Arguments of of both sides is treated as nil and perused the material on record.

7. Issue Nos.1 & 2 :

It is the contention of the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount with subsequent interest under the promissory note, whereas the defendant contend that he has no means to pay the amount and that he had already paid the suit amount. The defendant had taken mutually inconsistent pleas in his written statement. On one hand the defendant submits that he had already paid the suit amount and on the other hand he avers that he does not have any means to pay the suit amount. The defendant had not explicitly denied the execution of suit promissory note.

There is simply a general statement in the written statement that the plaintiff is put to strict proof of allegations which are not explicitly admitted. Apart from this there is no specific denial of execution of promissory note by the defendant. In a suit for recovery of amount based on promissory note, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of promissory note by the defendant in circumstances pleaded by him. In order to discharge her burden, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and got Ex.A1 marked on his behalf. The evidence of

PW.1 coupled with promissory note Ex.A1 goes to show that the defendant 4 OS.No.356/2022 borrowed an amount of Rs.65,000/- under Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and the defendant did not repay the said debt despite repeated demands by plaintiff. More over, absence of specific denial in the written statement of the defendant, makes this court to draw an adverse inference against the defendant and this court deems that defendant had admitted the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the plaintiff. Order 8 Rule 5(1) of CPC, every allegation of the plaint, if not specifically denied shall be taken to be admitted, except as against the person under disability. Hence, adverse inference is drawn against the defendant that he admitted the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note.

8.PW.1 was examined on behalf of plaintiff and the defendant failed to cross examine PW.1. Hence, the evidence of PW.1 also remains unchallenged. On perusal of the Ex.A1 promissory note, there is one visible alteration or over writings with respect to the date column and there was an endorsement on the rear side of promissory note that the said alteration was made by the defendant himself. The defendant had filed the written statement and he did not allege that the alteration was not made by the defendant or that it was made by the plaintiff. No plea of material alteration was taken in written statement and no issue in that regard was framed by this court. Hence, this court does not consider such alteration as material so as to render the Ex.A1 promissory note void. Not only there is no denial with respect to the alteration, but also there is no cross examination of PW.1 by the defendant. Thus, this court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has substantially established his case 5 OS.No.356/2022 that defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour.

9.Whenever the execution of negotiable instrument is admitted or proved, Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play which enables the court to presume that such negotiable instrument was supported by consideration and such presumption is a rebuttable presumption. The defendant can rebut such presumption either by adducing evidence or by eliciting untruthfulness in the evidence adduced by plaintiff by way of cross examination of plaintiff witnesses.

10.The defendant in his written statement has not specifically denied the execution of the Ex.A1 promissory note, has failed to adduce any evidence to support his case. In the present case, the defendant has neither stepped into the witness box by himself nor produced any other witnesses to support his case. More over, the defendant had taken inconsistent pleas in his written statement regarding the payment of amount at one instance and pleading no means to pay at another instance.

Hence, the defendant had failed to make a clear case and failed to prove his case.

11.As adverted above the evidence of PW.1 supported by documentary evidence of Ex.A1 establishes that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.65,000/- under Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same.

12.For the aforementioned reasons, this court is of the considered view that defendant failed to rebut the evidence adduced by plaintiff and plaintiff can avail the presumption U/Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act in her favour. Therefore this court holds that plaintiff has established that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.65,000/- under Ex.A1 6 OS.No.356/2022 promissory note from the defendant and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintiff. Hence, this court holds that Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid and binding upon the defendant. Accordingly Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

13.ISSUE No.3 & 4:

Since these two issues are interconnected, to avoid repetition and appreciation of evidence, these two issues are taken up together.

In view of the discussion and findings in issue No.1 and 2 this court holds that, the plaintiff established that the defendant is liable to discharge the debt covered under Ex.A1 promissory note. Suit is filed within the period of limitation. Hence, this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly Issue Nos.3 and 4 are answered in favour of plaintiff.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,40,264/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.65,000/-.

Typed by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 10th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- M. Asha Priya

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

7 OS.No.356/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :-For Defendant :-

P.W.1 : P.S. Vara Prasad None

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A.1 – Original Promissory Note, Dt.09.03.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.65,000/-.

Ex.A.2 – Legal notice, dt.26.02.2020 along with postal receipt.

Ex.A.3 – Legal notice, dt.15.02.2022.

Ex.A.4 – Returned Registered Postal Envelop Cover.

For Defendant :- - Nil -.

Sd/- M. Asha Priya

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kadapa.

1

O.S.683 of ‘21

APKD020017602021

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION), KADAPA.

Present : Kum. M. Asha Priya, IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

Thursday, the 11th day of December, 2025.

Original Suit No.683 of 2021

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Nistala Kameswara Rao and his successor in office, Jayanagar Colony Branch, Kadapa District. … Plaintif

Vs.

1) Shaik Ansar Basha, S/o. Shaik Abdul Jabbar, Aged 49 years, Muslim, Business, R/at D.No.16/449, Ghouse Nagar, Kadapa City.

2) Shaik Nayeem Basha, S/o. Shaik Ibrahim, Aged 50 years, Business, R/at D.No.19/78, Gurram Chennaiah Street, Kadapa City.

… Defendants

This suit came before me on 05.12.2025 for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri B. Syam Sunder, Advocate for the plaintif and the defendants having remained Ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Suit filed for recovery a sum of Rs.56,550/- being the principal and interest due on a loan agreement dt.20.4.2012 said to have been executed by the 1st defendant as principal borrower and the 2nd defendant as surety to D.1 in favour of the Plaintif’s Bank and for costs of the suit.

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

The defendant No.1 approached the plaintif’s Bank to avail loan for Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of vegetable business and executed a

2 O.S.364 of ‘23

loan agreement, dt.20.4.2012 and defendant No.2 is the guarantor. The plaintif’s bank sanctioned loan subject to terms and conditions and the same was agreed by the defendants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum above R.B.I., rate subject to minimum of 13% per annum with quarterly rests. The defendant No.2 for surety agreed to be personally liable to loan amount if the defendant No.1 commits default to repaying the loan amount in favour of plaintif’s bank. Thereafter, the defendant

No.1 made first payment of Rs.10,000/- on 27.8.2012 and last payment was made on 29.5.2017 for Rs.1,000/- and the total payments of

Rs.37,560/- as shown in the plaintif ledger extract. But the defendants failed to repay the installments as agreed by them and committed default.

However, the 1stdefendant executed acknowledgment of debt, dt.02.6.2015 and again executed another acknowledgment of debt on 30.5.2018 by the 1st defendant. Later, the defendants failed to discharge the debt amount inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif bank.

Finally the plaintif got issued legal notice on 15.4.2021, but the defendants failed to repay the amount. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants remained ex-parte.

4.On behalf of the plaintif’s Bank the Chief Manager of the plaintif’s Bank is examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.10 are marked.

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

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintif is entitled for suit amount as prayed for ?

7.POINT : To prove the case of plaintif’s bank, P.W.1 who is said 3

O.S.683 of ‘21

to be the Chief Manager examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the contents of the plaint and he deposed that the defendant No.1 approached their

Bank to avail loan for Rs.50,000/- and executed a loan agreement, dt.20.4.2012 and defendant No.2 is the surety and accordingly their bank sanctioned loan subject to terms and conditions and the same was agreed by the defendants at the rate of 6% per annum above R.B.I., rate subject to minimum of 13% per annum with quarterly rests. P.W.1 further deposed that The defendant No.2 for surety agreed to be personally liable to loan amount if the defendant No.1 commits default to repaying the loan amount in favour of plaintif’s bank. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 made first payment of Rs.10,000/- on 27.8.2012 and last payment was made on 29.5.2017 for Rs.1,000/- and the total payments of Rs.37,560/- as shown in the plaintif ledger extract. Later the defendants failed to repay the installments as agreed by them and committed default. However, the 1st defendant executed acknowledgment of debt, dt.02.6.2015 and again executed another acknowledgment of debt on 30.5.2018 by the 1st defendant. Later, the defendants failed to discharge the debt amount inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif bank. Finally the plaintif got issued legal notice on 15.4.2021, but the defendants failed to repay the amount.

8.To prove the same, the plaintif’s Bank relied upon Exs.A.1 to

A.10. Ex.A1 is the Composite Hypothecation Loan Agreement, dt.20.4.2012 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of plaintif’s bank, Ex.A2 is the

Guarantee Loan Agreement deed, dt.20.4.2012 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintif’s bank, Ex.A3 is the Acknowledgment of debt, dt.02.6.2015 executed by the defendant No.1, Ex.A4 is the

4 O.S.364 of ‘23

Acknowledgment of debt, dt.30.5.2018 executed by the defendant No.1,

Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice, dt.15.4.2021, Ex.A6 is the two postal receipts, Ex.A7 is the unserved returned postal cover against the 1st defendant, Ex.A8 is the unserved returned postal cover against the 2nd defendant, Ex.A9 is the Plaintif’s ledger extract, dt.03.6.2021 (Statement of Account No.91008154751), Ex.A.10 is the attested copy of Power of

Attorney.

9.The recitals of Exs.A.1 to A.10 clearly proves that, the defendant No.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintif’s Bank and executed the Exs.A.1 and A.2. Thereafter, they did not pay the debt amount under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2. As already stated supra, the defendants remained ex-prate. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged.

As per Exs.A.1 to A.10 plaintif clearly proves that 1st defendant approached the plaintif’s bank and availed loan of Rs.50,000/- and he committed default and as 2nd defendant is the guarantor to the 1st defendant, both are liable to pay a sum of Rs.56,550/- from the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to

A.9 proves the claim of the plaintif. Hence, the plaintif is entitled for recovery of money as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the

Plaintif's Bank, directing the defendant Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay to the plaintif's Bank a sum of Rs.56,550/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the outstanding 5

O.S.683 of ‘21

balance amount of Rs.56,550/-.

T yped by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- M. Asha Priya

IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KADAPA. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff’s side Defendants’ side

P.W.1 : P. Thejas - Ex-parte -

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:

Ex.A. 1. : Composite Hypothecation Loan Agreement, dt.20.4.2012 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of plaintif’s bank.

Ex.A. 2. : Guarantee Loan Agreement deed, dt.20.4.2012 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintif’s bank.

Ex.A. 3. : Acknowledgment of debt, dt.02.6.2015 executed by the defendant No.1.

Ex.A. 4. : Acknowledgment of debt, dt.30.5.2018 executed by the defendant No.1.

Ex.A. 5. : Office copy of legal notice, dt.15.4.2021.

Ex.A. 6. : Two postal receipts.

Ex.A. 7. : Unserved returned postal cover against the 1st defendant.

Ex.A. 8. : Unserved returned postal cover against the 2nd defendant.

Ex.A. 9. : Plaintif’s ledger extract, dt.03.6.2021 (Statement of Account No.91008154751).

Ex.A. 10.: Attested copy of Power of Attorney.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants: ­Nil­

Sd/- M. Asha Priya

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

1O.S.No.870/2020

APKD020021152020

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KADAPA.

Present: Kum. Munnangi Asha Priya, IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

Thursday, this the 11th day of December, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 870 /2020

Between:

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Rep. by its Chief Manager, P. Syam Naveen Kumar, and his successor in office, Jayanagar Colony Branch, Kadapa City. (Formerly known as Rayalaseema Grameena Bank). … Plaintiff.

- And -

Shaik Mahammad Hidayathulla, S/o. S. Mahaboob Saheb, Aged 50 years, Muslim, Business, R/at D.No.18/252, Gurram Chinnaiah Street, Kadapa, having died his L.Rs of two sons i.e., defendants No.1 and 2,

1) Shaik Fayaz, S/o. Late S. Mahammad Hidayathulla, Aged 30 years, Muslim, Business, Shop at Stall No.184, Old Vegetable Market, Kadapa, R/at D.No.18/252, Gurram Chinnaiah Street, Kadapa City.

2) Shaik Mainuddin, S/o. Late S. Mahammad Hidayathulla, aged 29 years, Muslim, Business, Shop at Stall No.185, Old Vegetable Market, Kadapa, R/at D.No.18/252, Gurram Chinnaiah Street, Kadapa City.

3) Syed Shafiullah, S/o. S. Mahaboob Saheb, Aged 51 years, Muslim, Business, R/at D.No.11/646, G.D. Street, Kadapa City. … Defendants.

This suit came on 05.12.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Syam Sunder, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 3 remained ex-parte and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 2O.S.No.870/2020

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,91,124/- together with interest at the rate of 13% p.a. from the defendants with regard to the loan granted to Shaik Mahammad Hidayathulla for costs of the suit and other reliefs as deemed fit.

2.The averments of the plaint in nutshell are that :

The plaintiff’s bank granted loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to Shaik Mahammad

Hidayathulla on 07.2.2008, Shaik Mahammad Hidayathulla executed all necessary documents in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the loan amount in 40 installments, the 3rd defendant stood as a guarantor for the loan of Shaik Mahammad Hidayathulla, the defendant No.1 and 2 are the sons of Shaik Mahammad Hidayathulla and he died leaving the defendant

No.1 and 2 as his legal heirs, during the lifetime of Shaik Mahammad

Hidayathulla he did not discharge his debt, after death of Shaik Mahammad

Hidayathulla his estates were devolved on the defendant No.1 and 2, therefore defendant No.1 and 2 as legal heirs and 3rd defendant as guarantor are liable to discharge the loan but they did not discharge loan, as on 25.3.2019 the loan amount became Rs.1,91,124/-. Finally the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 29.11.2018, but the defendants failed to discharge the debt. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit amount. Hence the suit.

3.The defendants 1 to 3 are remained ex-parte.

4.During the course of trial, P.W.1 is examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

5.Heard. Perused the material on record.

3O.S.No.870/2020

6.Now the point for determination is ‘Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim amount as prayed for’?

7.In order to prove the case of plaintiff, Shaik Mahammad

Hidayathulla is examined as P.W.1 by filing his chief-examination-affidavit,

Exs.A.1 to A.12 are marked through him. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that he has been working as Branch Manager of the plaintiff’s Bank, he know the facts of the case. P.W.1 further deposed repeating the contents of plaint.

P.W.1 deposed his evidence basing on the file available in the plaintiff’s

Bank.

8.This Court minutely gone through the contents of plaint, evidence of P.W.1 and contents of Exs.A.1 to A.12. It is clear from the material that Shaik Mahammad Hidayathulla borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 07.2.2008, he executed all necessary documents to repay the said amount, the 3rd defendant stood as guarantor for the debt of Shaik

Mahammad Hidayathulla. It is further clear that Shaik Mahammad

Hidayathulla died before full discharge of loan amount. It is further clear from the material that the defendant No.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of Shaik

Mahammad Hidayathulla and they succeeded the estate of Shaik

Mahammad Hidayathulla on his death. It is further clear from the material that as on 25.3.2019 the loan amount due is Rs.1,91,124/-. On considering the entire material on record this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff proved its case against the defendants No.1 to 3..

9.In-spite of having opportunity to contest the suit, cross examine

P.W.1, deny the contents of Exs.A.1 to A.12 the defendants not chosen to do any one of these acts. Therefore, it can be said that on one hand plaintiff 4O.S.No.870/2020 proved it’s case and on the other hand the defendants failed to rebut the case of plaintiff. This suit has merits and deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendants to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,91,124/- from out of estate of deceased Shaik Mahammad

Hidayathulla which is in the hands of defendants No.1 to 3 together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization of Rs.1,91,124/-.

Typed by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- M. Asha Priya

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff’s side Defendants’ side

P.W.1 : P. Thejas - Ex-parte -

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:

Ex.A. 1. : Composite Hypothecation Loan Agreement, dt.07.2.2008 executed by Shaik Mahammed Hidayathulla in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A. 2. : Guarantee Loan Agreement, dt.07.2.2008 executed by 3rd defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank.

Ex.A. 3. : Acknowledgment of debt, dt.31.01.2011 executed by Shaik Mahammed Hidayathulla and 3rd defendant.

Ex.A. 4. : Re-schedule request letter, dt.28.3.2013 executed by Shaik 5O.S.No.870/2020

Mahammed Hidayathulla and 3rd defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A. 5. : Re-schedule loan agreement, dt.28.3.2013 executed by Shaik Mahammed Hidayathulla and 3rd defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A. 6. : Acknowledgment of debt, dt.30.11.2013 executed by Shaik Mahammed Hidayathulla.

Ex.A. 7. : Acknowledgment of debt, dt.16.8.2016 executed by Shaik Mahammed Hidayathulla.

Ex.A. 8. : Office copy of legal notice, dt.29.11.2018 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants.

Ex.A. 9. : Three postal receipts.

Ex.A. 10.: Three unserved returned postal covers against the defendants.

Ex.A. 11.: Plaintiff’s ledger extract, dt.25.3.2019.

Ex.A. 12.: Attested copy of Power of Attorney.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants: ­Nil­

Sd/- M. Asha Priya

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

1 (O.S.527/2024)

APKD020021812024

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KADAPA.

Present: Kum. Munnangi Asha Priya, IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of December, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 527 /2024

Between: Siddavatam Reddemma, W/o. S. Viswanadha Reddy, Aged 72 years,

Hindu, Housewife, R/at H.No.203, Mallemala Apartment, Raja Reddy

Veedhi, Kadapa City and District.

… Plaintif - And -

Pasam Prasad, S/o. P. Devasahayam, Aged 61 years, Hindu, working as

VRO in Tahsildar Office, L.R.Palli Mandal, Annamayya District. R/at

Rajeev Gruhakalpa, near RTC Work Shop, Kadapa Town.

… Defendant

This suit came before me on 17.11.2025 for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri G. Gnana Prasad, Advocate for the plaintif and the defendant having remained Ex-parte, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of

Rs.3,29,106/- based on suit promissory note which comes to a tune of

Rs.1,20,000/- with interest and costs.

The facts of the plaintiff's case, in brief, is that :-

2. On 18.2.2017 the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from the plaintif and has executed suit promissory

Dt.10-12-2025 IV A.C.J.(J.D.), KDP.

2 (O.S.527/2024) note on the same day, promising to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., to the plaintif or to her order on demand. Later the defendant has paid Rs.1,000/- on 01.2.2020 and again Rs.500/- on 02.01.2023 towards part payment. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif personally, the defendant failed to discharge the debt. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit amount.

3.The defendant was set exparte.

4.During the course of trial, the plaintif got herself examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked.



Ex.A.1 – Original Promissory Note, dt.18.2.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.1,20,000/-.



Ex.A2 – Part payment endorsement made by the defendant, dt.01.02.2020 for Rs.1,000/- on rear side of Ex.A1.



Ex.A3 – Part payment endorsement made by the defendant, dt.02.01.2023 for Rs.500/- on rear side of Ex.A1.

5.Perused the pleadings and exhibits available.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?”

P O I N T:

7.The Plaintif filed her chief examination affidavit as P.W.1, confirmed the contents of the same. She testified in chief that the defendant for his necessities has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on 18.02.2017 and executed Ex.A1 and agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. She further deposed that the defendant has made part payment of Rs.1,000/- on 01.02.2020 and

Dt.10-12-2025 IV A.C.J.(J.D.), KDP.

3 (O.S.527/2024)

Rs.500/- on 02.01.2023. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by her, the defendant did not choose to repay the debt due amount. As the defendant was set exparte, the evidence of P.W.1 stood unchallenged and uncontraverted as not cross examined by the defendant. In the light of evidence of P.W.1 and contents of documentary evidence, the case of the plaintif is proved. Hence, the plaintif is entitled to the suit claim. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintif.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.3,29,106/- together with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and further interest at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization of principal amount of Rs.1,20,000/-.

Typed by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 10th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- Munnangi Asha Priya

IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :-For Defendant :- P.W.1 : Siddavatam Reddemma -None-

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A.1 : Original suit Promissory Note, Dt.18.02.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.1,20,000/-.

Ex.A.2 : Part payment endorsement made by the defendant, dt.01.02.2020 for Rs.1,000/- on rear side of Ex.A1.

Dt.10-12-2025 IV A.C.J.(J.D.), KDP.

4 (O.S.527/2024)

Ex.A.3 : Part payment endorsement made by the defendant, dt.02.01.2023 for Rs.500/- on rear side of Ex.A1.

For Defendant :- - Nil -.

Sd/- Munnangi Asha Priya

IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kadapa.

Dt.10-12-2025 IV A.C.J.(J.D.), KDP.

1 (O.S.No.979/2024)

APKD020040042024

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KADAPA.

Present: Kum. Munnangi Asha Priya, IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

Wednesday, the 10th day of December, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 979 /2024

Between:

V.A. Narayana Reddy (Vennapusapalli Alavalapati Narayana Reddy), S/o. V.A. Aswartha Reddy, Aged 54 years, Hindu, Business, R/at D.No.1/436-7, Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa City and District. … Plaintiff.

- And -

M. Nageswaraiah, S/o. M. Chinna Subbaiah, Aged 55 years, Hindu, Cement Business, R/at D.No.36/203-2, Sriram Nagar, Chinnachowk, Kadapa City and District. … Defendant.

This suit came before me on 13.11.2025 for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri M. Ramanjaneya Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having remained Ex-parte 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 a suit filed for recovery of an amount of

Rs.3,21,266/- based on suit promissory note which comes to a tune of

Rs.1,87,000/- with interest and costs.

The facts of the plaintiff's case, in brief, is that :-

2. On 22.11.2021 the defendant has borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,87,000/- from the plaintiff and has executed the suit promissory

Dt.09-12-2025 IV ACJ (JD), Kdp.

2 (O.S.No.979/2024) note on the same day, promising to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the debt. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit amount.

3.The defendant was set exparte.

4.During the course of trial, plaintiff got himself examined as

PW.1 and PW.2 was examined on behalf of plaintiff, Ex.A1 was marked through PW.1.



Ex.A.1 – Original suit promissory note, dt.22.11.2021 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.1,87,000/-.

5.Perused the pleadings and exhibit available.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?”

P O I N T :

7.The Plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit as P.W.1, confirmed the contents of the same. He testified in chief that the defendant for his necessities has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,87,000/- on 22.11.2021 and executed Ex.A1-promissory note agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by him, the defendant did not choose to repay the debt due under Ex.A1. As the defendant was set exparte, the evidence of P.W.1 stood unchallenged and uncontraverted as not cross examined by the defendant. In the light of evidence of

Dt.09-12-2025 IV ACJ (JD), Kdp.

3 (O.S.No.979/2024)

P.Ws.1, 2 and contents of documentary evidence, the case of the plaintiff is proved. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.3,21,266/- together with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and further interest at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,87,000/-.

Typed by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 10th day of December, 2025.

Sd/- M. Asha Priya

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :-For Defendant :-

P.W.1 : V.A. Narayana Reddy -None-

P.W.2 : Guniguntla Esuf Basha

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A.1 – Original suit promissory note, dt.22.11.2021 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,87,000-.

For Defendant :- - Nil -.

Sd/- M. Asha Priya

IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kadapa.

Dt.09-12-2025 IV ACJ (JD), Kdp.