Smt M.D.V.N.Sindura, LL.B.,

Fair copy

THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BHIMAVARAM.

Present ::Smt.M.D.V.N.Sindhura,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

Wednesday, the 24 th day of June, 2020.

O.S.No.272/2016

BETWEEN:

M/s.Ravindra Commercial Corporation, Rep. by its Prop. Sri VegesnaRangaRaju, Rep. by his G.P.A.Holder Pericherla Surya BhagavanRaju, S/o.RamakrishnamRaju, Age 29 years, Pedagaruvu, BhimavaramMandal. … Plaintiff

AND

Vanga Anjaneyulu, S/o.Krishna, Hindu, Age 30 years, PedanindraKolanu -234 195, NidamarruMandal.… Defendant

This Suit is coming on 22.06.2020 before me for final hearing of Sri N.V.P.SeshaSai, Sri N.R.P.AmmiRaju and Sri K.B.R.Sekhar, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri M.Venkatachari and Sri PydiVenkataRaju, Advocate for the defendant; and upon hearing through Video Conference in Whats app, and on perusal of the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The plaintiff firm filed this suit for recovery of the outstanding due of Rs.24,743/- by the defendant, with subsequent interest and costs arising thereof.

02.The plaint averments in brief are as follows:-

The plaintiff firm is doing business in fish and prawn feet etc., and it is having head office at Bhimavaram and sub branches at Eluru, Akividu, kaikaluru, Ganapavaram, Veeravasaram, Machilipatnam, Bhimavaram, Avanigadda, Cherukuwada and Palakol. The defendant approached the plaintiff firm branch at Ganapavaram in the month of May, 2014and requested to supply fish and prawn feed on credit basis and accordingly agreed to pay the stock worth with interest @ 24% per annum. The plaintiff firm after due verification, agreed for the same and accordingly, the defendant got an account in the Account books of plaintiff firm on 15.05.2014. Since then, the defendant had been taking fish feed and prawn feed as well as other required accessory chemicals for fish and prawn tanks on credit basis from the plaintiff firm and used to pay the same amounts as per his convenience.

2

03.The plaintiff firm supplied the feed to the defendant on different dates and as per the plaintiff books of account, a sum of Rs.24,743/- was due by the defendant as on 24.12.2014. The plaintiff demanded the defendant personally and through the plaintiff office staff for the payment of due amount, but the defendant did not pay any amount. Subsequently the plaintiff firm got issued a registered notice on 30.09.2016, demanding the defendant for the payment of due amount as per the khata. The defendant having receipt of the said legal notice, has got issued reply with false and untenable allegations. Hence, the suit.

04.The defendant filed his written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and inter-alia contended that he opened khata with the plaintiff firm and used to purchase prawn feed and fish feed from the plaintiff firm for the fish tanks being cultivating by him on lease basis. That he used to pay the due amount to the plaintiff firm whenever he had amount available. The plaintiff firm has not issued any receipt for the payments made by him and out of trust, the defendant did not confront the plaintiff firm about the same.

05.The defendant further contended that by the time of netting the fishes from the fish tanks, the subordinates of the plaintiff firm, approached him and requested to sell the fish to the plaintiff firm towards the amount owed by him. The said proposal was accepted by him and accordingly, he sold the fish to the plaintiff firm and requested the plaintiff to adjusted to his khata debt.

06.The defendant further contended that he later approached the plaintiff firm management and requested to close his account as the fish he sold to the firm is worth of is debt amount. That the plaintiff firm agreed to close the khata. The defendant under the belief that the plaintiff firm closed his khata, left the office in good faith.

07.The defendant further contended that he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff firm and the plaintiff firm is not entitled to recover any amount from him. That the plaintiff firm taking advantage of his illiteracy, without issuing receipts, obtained fishes from him persuading that they would adjust the amount to the khata. That the plaintiff firm thereby cheated him. Thus, prays for dismissal of the suit.

08.Basing of the pleadings of either side the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim amount from the defendant?

2. To what relief?

3

09.During trial, the General Power of Attorney Holder of plaintiff firm is examined as PW.1. Exs.A.1 to a.7 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff firm. On the other hand, the defendant got himself examined as DW.1. No documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant.

10. Heard arguments on both sides through Video Conference in Whats app. In addition to the oral arguments, the defendant has submitted his written arguments.

11.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant has emphasized the following Judgment:

1. M/s.Sushee Ventures Private Limited Vs. Rahul Agarwal and others reported in 2017 (1) ALT 257 (D.B.)

12.ISSUE No.1:-

The General Power of Attorney holder of the proprietary of the plaintiff firm namely Pericherla Surya BhagavanRaju filed his chief-examination affidavit as PW.1 in lieu of his chief-examination wherein he reiterated the plaint averments. To show his locus standito depose evidence on behalf of the plaintiff firm, he filed the certified copy of the General Power of Attorney, dated 23.11.2015 executed by the proprietor of the plaintiff firm in his favour which is marked as Ex.A.1. Apart from that, the plaintiff firm filed the Ledger account of the defendant for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 which is marked as Ex.A.2. Ex.A.2 Ledger account reflects the outstanding amount owned by the defendant as Rs.44,743/- by the end of 31.03.2015. The Receipt, dated 24.12.2014 issued by the plaintiff firm in favour of the defendant is marked as Ex.A.3. Ex.A.3 reflects that the defendant has paid amount of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff firm and obtained the said receipt. According to the plaintiff firm, the signatory in Ex.A.3 Receipt, VangaUdayaBhaskaraRao is relative ofof the defendant at whose instance; the payment was received by the firm. The Credit bill, dated 15.05.2014 issued by the plaintiff firm in favour of the defendant was marked as Ex.A.4 and it reflects that the defendant obtained the feed from the plaintiff firm under the said Credit bill worth of Rs.44,743/- on 15.05.2014. According to the plaintiff firm, the defendant signed in Ex.A.4 Credit bill and obtained stock. The office copy of the legal notice, dated 30.09.2016 got issued by the plaintiff firm to the defendant along with corresponding postal receipts is marked as Ex.A.5. It is also not in dispute that the defendant received Ex.A.5 legal notice and got issued reply notice denying the account statement and further contending that he discharged the entire outstanding amount. The said Reply notice, dated 05.10.2016 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff firm is marked as Ex.A.6. The Registration certificate of the plaintiff firm is marked as Ex.A.7.

4

13.As seen from the written statement, it is manifest that the defendant has taken the defence that he discharged the entire debt amount owed to the plaintiff firm by him. The defendant took the specific plea that he sold fishes to the plaintiff firm and without receiving the sale consideration, requested the plaintiff firm to adjust the said amount to his outstanding amount and accordingly, the plaintiff firm agreed and promised that they would close the khata account of the defendant but they cheated the defendant without doing so. The defendant by reiterating the written statement contentions, has got filed his chief-affidavit as DW.1 in lieu of his chief-examination. The learned defendant’s counsel firstly argued that the defendant has opened the khata in the books of account of the plaintiff firm at Ganapavaram branch, as such, this court is lacking of territorial jurisdiction to try this matter and the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem is the appropriate count having jurisdiction to try this matter. In this context, the learned defendant’s counsel has placed his reliance in a judgment held between M/s.Sushee Ventures Private Limited Vs. Rahul Agarwal and others reported in 2017 (1) ALT 257 (D.B.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of Andhra Pradesh held that

“the parties confer jurisdiction if the court does not have jurisdiction

inherently to teal with the matter, the parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon

it by agreement”.

14.I have carefully gone through the Judgment emphasized by the learned defendant’s counsel and also perused of the pleadings and the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that the defendant opened the khata in the books of account in the plaintiff firm at Ganapavaram branch and accordingly obtained feed on credit basis from time to time. The plaintiff firm in the plaint itself mentioned that the firm has sub-branches at Ganapavaram, Akividu, Cherukuwada, Kaikaluru, Veeravasaram, Machilipatnam, Avanigadda, Chinchinada and Palakol and the head office is situated at Bhimavaram and all the transactions of the plaintiff firm arising at any of the branches comes under the jurisdiction of Bhimavaram. Ex.A.7 Registration certificate filed by the plaintiff firm evidences in further, that the head office of the plaintiff firm is situated at the first floor, 27-16-9, Ravindra Plaza, Rayalam Road, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, and also in the same Registration certificate, the list of branches at different places were also mentioned. Also the defendant in his cross-examination conceded that the head office of the plaintiff firm is situated in Bhimavaram. Hence, I find no force in the argument of the learned defendant’s counsel, that this court is lacking of territorial jurisdiction to try this matter. Since the head office is situated in Bhimavaram, the plaintiff firm can file suits at Bhimavaram relating to any transactions of its branches held at different places. Thus, in my opinion, this court is absolutely having the territorial jurisdiction to try this matter and with due respects, the judgment relied by the learned defendant’s counsel has no applicability to the present suit facts.

5

15.Nextly, the defendant admitted that he opened the khata account in the plaintiff firm in Ganapavaram branch and obtained the feed and he used to clear the amount as per his convenience. Except his self-serving evidence, there is no evidence on record showing that he sold fishes to the plaintiff firm. The defendant contended that the plaintiff firm never issued any receipt to him in token of the payment. The plaintiff to falsify the same, has filed Ex.A.3 Receipt evidencing the of acknowledgment of payment of Rs.20,000/-. The defendant in his cross- examination has denied his signature in Ex.A.4 Credit bill so also the signature of the said Vanga Udaya Bhaskara Rao in Ex.A.3 Receipt. But it is elicited from the defendant that the said Vanga Udaya Bhaskara Rao is his relative. Curiously, the defendant also disputed his signature in Vakalat filed by his counsel so also in the served postal acknowledgment as well as in the court summons.

16.Further to the utter surprise, the defendant deposed that he did not instruct his counsel to mention in his chief-affidavit that, “by the time of netting the fishes from the fish tank, the plaintiff firm subordinate approached him and requested him to sell the fishes so as to adjust the amount towards the khata debt and accordingly he sold the fishes to the plaintiff firm and requested to adjust the amount to the khata debt”. DW.1 further added that he only obtained prawn feed from the firm and the selling of fishes to the plaintiff firm never happened. Also he himself deposed that he neither sell prawn nor fish to the plaintiff firm towards adjustment of the khata amount.

17.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further has drawn the attention of the court to the relevant lines in Ex.A.6 Reply notice wherein the defendant mentioned that he paid Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff firm in the presence of one Vanga Udaya Bhaskara Rao. But in his cross-examination, DW.1 has also denied that he did not mention in Ex.A.6 Reply notice about the payment of Rs.25,000/-. The defendant who disputed his signature in Ex.A.4 Credit bill, dated 15.05.2014 conceded that he approached the plaintiff firm and obtained the prawn feed on 15.05.2014 and the worth of the prawn feed obtained on Credit basis was Rs.44,743/-. Thus, having analyzed the evidence of DW1 extracted above,his manner of deposing evidence clinchingly reveals that he is not trust-worthy and his defence is lacking of truth and credibility. The defendant himself falsifies his own defence by denying the alleged selling of fishes to the firm. Thus, in culmination of the facts and circumstances discussed above, I hold that the plaintiff has proved its case against the defendant. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of plaintiff firm and against the defendant.

18.ISSUE No.2: In view of finding given in Issue No.1, the plaintiff firm is entitled for decree as prayed for.

6

19.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.24,743/- (Rupees Twenty four thousand seven hundred and forty three only) together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realization on the outstanding amount of Rs.24,743/- (Rupees Twenty four thousand seven hundred and forty three only).

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her,corrected in my Laptop and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- M.D.V.N.Sindhura

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Bhimavaram

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff:For defendant:

PW.1 :Pericherla Surya BhagavanRajuDW.1 : VangaAnjaneyulu

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/dt.23.11.2015-Certified Copy of the General Power of Attorney executed by the Proprietor of the plaintiff firm in favour of PW.1.

Ex.A2/dt.---Ledger Account of the defendant for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015.

Ex.A3/dt.24.12.2014-Receipt issued by plaintiff firm in favour of defendant for Rs.20,000/-

Ex.A4/dt.15.05.2014-Credit bill with Bill No.2156, issued by plaintiff firm in favour of defendant.

Ex.A5/dt.30.09.2016-Office copy of the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff firm to the defendant along with the corresponding postal receipt.

Ex.A6/dt.05.10.2016-Reply notice received from the defendant by the plaintiff firm.

Ex.A7/dt.---Internet copy of the Registration certificate of the plaintiff firm.

For defendant:- Nil -

Sd/- M.D.V.N.S.,

PJCJ, BVRM.

Fair copy

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BHIMAVARAM.

Present :: Smt.M.D.V.N.Sindhura,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

Friday, the 19 th day of June, 2020.

O.S.No.144/2019

Between :

Katikatala Ramesh, S/o.Ramu, Hindu, Aged 33 years, Driver, R/o.Near Church, Vandram, Undi Mandal, W.G.Dist., BJCJC. … Plaintiff

And

Gathala Chitti Yohanu, S/o.Ratna Raju, Hindu, Aged 38 years, Cultivation, R/o.Pathapeta, Juvvalapalem village, Kalla Mandal, W.G.Dist., BJCJC. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 17.06.2020 before me for final hearing of Sri M.N.V.Malleswara Rao and Sri Venkanna Babu Kothalanka, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri S.Benarji Vijaya Kumar and Sri B.Sunil Kumar, Advocates for the defendant; and upon hearing through Video Conference in Whats app; and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,76,133/- due under the foot of promissory note together with subsequent interest and costs thereof.

02.The plaint averments are as follows:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.08.2017 for his family necessities and to discharge his sundry debts and accordingly executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the debt amount together with interest @ 24% per annum. Later despite several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant kept on postponing the repayment of the debt amount on one pretext or other. The plaintiff then got issued legal notice, dated 06.03.2019 to the defendant demanding to repay the debt amount. The defendant having receipt of the said legal notice, kept quiet without making payment of the promissory note debt amount and without issuing any reply. Hence the suit.

03.The defendant filed the written statement denying the material 2 allegations made in the plaint and inter-alia he contended that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff much less the Rs.2,00,000/- shown in the suit promissory note. Further the defendant contended that he has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff or any person as he has no capacity to discharge the said sum. Further the defendant contended that the plaintiff never demanded him about the alleged debt amount and the signature in the promissory note do not belongs to him. Further the defendant contended that the said signature in the promissory note is a forged one and he is going to prove the same by sending it, to the Hand-writing Expert during the course of trial. The defendant further contended that in view of some family disputes and at the behest of his enemies, the plaintiff resorted to forge his signature with the help of attesters and scribe. Previously also the plaintiff issued another legal notice to him on 16.02.2019 in the name of one Chabathina Suvarna Raju, S/o.Swarna Raju of Kamathamvanigudem of Akividu Mandal. But again the plaintiff issued the legal notice, dated 06.03.2019 to him which clearly reveals his false motive. Thus, prays for dismissal of the suit.

04.Basing on the pleadings of either sides, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim amount?

3. If so, to what relief?

05.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1, Exs.A.1 to A3 are marked and PWs.2 to 4 are examined on his behalf. On the other hand, the defendant got himself examined as DW.1. No documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant.

06.Heard arguments of both sides through Video Conference in Whats app.

07.ISSUE No.1:-

The plaintiff Katikatala Ramesh got filed his chief-examination affidavit as PW.1 in lieu of his chief-examination wherein he reiterated the plaint averments. The plaintiff to substantiate his contention that he lent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant on 20.08.2017, he filed the promissory note said to have executed by the defendant on 20.0.10.2017, which is marked as Ex.A.1. Further, it is manifest that the plaintiff prior to the date of filing of the suit, has got issued legal notice, dated 06.03.2019 to the defendant with a demand to repay the amount owed under Ex.A.1 promissory note. The office copy of the legal notice is marked as Ex.A.2. It is not in dispute that the said legal notice was served on the defendant 3 and the served postal acknowledgment, dated 07.03.2019 is marked as Ex.A.3. Apart from filing Ex.A1 Promissory note, the plaintiff also examined its attesters namely Gathal Ehezkelu and Gatjala Abraham @ Chanti as well as its scribe namely Pamu Swaroop Kumar as PWs.2 to 4 respectively. In their respective chief-affidavits, PWs.2 to 4 deposed that they witnessed the passing of consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant on 20.08.2017 and that they the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note by the defendant to the effect of the said transaction.

08.Coming to the defence of the defendant, he contended that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 promissory note and that the signature in Ex.A.1 promissory note do not belongs to him and it was forged by the plaintiff at the behest of his family rivals. The defendant by reiterating his defence contention, has got filed his chief-examination affidavit as DW.1 in lieu of his chief-examination.

09.It is needless to say that the initial burden to prove the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note by the defendant upon receipt of the consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-,is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff as PW.1 during his cross-examination strangely deposed that he do not know Gathala Chitti Yohanu (defendant) and he got issued the legal notice through the court to his debtor whose name he did not mention in specific. Further it is elicited by the learned defendant’s counsel from PW.1 that PW.1 is a driver working in fish production company in Vandram village and his monthly salary is Rs.11,000/- only. PW.1 deposed regarding the source of Rs.2,00,000/- that he secured the said amount from his fish tank of Ac.1-50 cents situated in Gummallapadu village of Krishna District. But PW.1 failed to said the boundaries of his fish tank and further he deposed that the said fish tank do not have any survey number and further that he has no documentary evidence to show his possession of the said fish tank.

10.While coming to PW.2’s evidence, the learned defendant’s counsel elicited from PW.2 that the grand-father of the defendant and the grand-father of the PW2 are own brothers and that PW.2 has disputes with the defendant over some property issues and from the last several years, he has no talking terms with the defendant. Also PW.2 conceded that for the last 10 years, they never joined with the defendant. Besides deposing so, PW.2 during his subsequent cross-examination testified that he along with the defendant, went to Vandram village about 3 years back on the date of transaction to the plaintiff’s house and there they spent half an hour and thereafter the transaction of Ex.A.1 promissory note took place. The evidence of PW.2 is quite inconsistent and creating doubt over his credibility. When there have been disputes exist in between the families of defendant and PW2 for the last several years, the defendant opting PW2 as a witness about 3 years back is 4 not found sensible to believe with.

11.The defendant in his written statement alleged that the plaintiff forged his signature in the promissory note and filed the suit at the behest of some persons with whom he has family disputes. In the back drop of inconsistent evidence of PW.2, there seems to be some force in the defence of the defendant. Also the defendant in his written statement contended that the plaintiff prior to Ex.A.2 legal notice, has got issued another legal notice through one Chabathina Suvarna Raju and by suppressing the same, he issued Ex.A.2 legal notice. The learned defendant’s counsel during cross-examination, has elicited from PW.2 that the said Chabathina Suvarna Raju, S/o.Swarna Raju is relative of PW.2 from his maternal side.

12.While coming to the testimony of PW.3 Gatjala Abraham @ Chanti, the another attester of Ex.A.1 promissory note, he strangely deposed that he do not know Katikatala Ramesh (plaintiff). He further deposed that the scribe Pamu Swaroop Kumar is his brother and he knew PW.2 Gathal Ehezkelu. The evidence of PW.3 regarding his non-acquaintance with the plaintiff further strengthens the defence of the defendant.

13.While coming to the testimony of PW.4 Pamu Swaroop Kumar, the scribe of Ex.A.1 promissory note, he deposed that he got acquaintance with the plaintiff through PW.3 Gatjala Chanti @ Abraham. It is mentioned in the above paragraph that PW.3 deposed that he do not know the plaintiff but here PW.4 unveiled a new version that he got acquaintance with the plaintiff through PW.3 only. PW.4 further deposed that on the date of transaction, he started from China-Amiram village and met PWs.2 and 3 Kopalle High School and from there, they three proceeded to the plaintiff’s house and by the time they entered the house of plaintiff, both plaintiff and defendant were already present in the plaintiff’s house. While his evidence stood thus, PW.2 Gathal Ehezkelu, the 1st attester over this same context deposed that he along with the defendant, went to the house of plaintiff and after they went there, the remaining parties to the Ex.A.1 promissory note came to the house of plaintiff. As rightly argued by the learned defendant’s counsel, this inconsistent evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is raising several doubts over the plaintiff’s case. This is another major discrepancy creating several suspicions over the case of plaintiff.

14.From the evidence extracted above, it is manifest that PW.1 by deposing that he does not know the defendant has raised some suspicion over his own case which was followed by the inconsistent testimonies of PWs.2 to 4 pointed in the above paragraphs which stirs the suspicion over the plaintiff’s case. When PW.2 Gathal Ehezkelu is having property disputes with the defendant’s family over 10 years and they have no talking terms, the question arises in one’s mind is how he was chosen 5 by the defendant as the witness for the transaction and how he along with the defendant went to plaintiff’s house at about 3 years back. It is not the evidence of PW.2 that he was asked by the plaintiff to attend the transaction and he clearly deposed that he along with the defendant, went to the house of plaintiff and attended the transaction. There are several infirmities in the plaintiff’s case which strengthens the defence of the defendant that the defendant may not execute Ex.A.1 promissory note and that the said transaction was not happened and no consideration was passed from the plaintiff to the defendant. Since the plaintiff failed to instill confidence in the mind of court over the credibility of his own self and the evidence of his witnesses, I find no force in the argument of plaintiff’s counsel that for the mere reason the defendant did not choose to send the promissory note to the Expert for proving his defence, the plaintiff said to have proved the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note.

15.In a Civil suit, the primary burden rests upon the plaintiff to prove his case by standing on his own legs. In the instant suit at hand, there are several suspicions over the credibility of PWs.1 to 4 and their evidence do not create confidence in the mind of court in respect to Ex.A.1 transaction. Hence, in culmination of the facts and circumstances discussed above, I hold that the plaintiff failed to prove that the Ex.A.1 promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

16.ISSUE Nos. 2 & 3:- In view of finding in issue No.1, the plaintiff is not entitled for decree, as prayed for.

17.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected in my Laptop and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19 th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- M.D.V.N.Sindhura

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Bhimavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiff :For the Defendant :

PW.1 : Katikatala Ramesh DW.1 : Gathala Chitti Yohanu PW.2 : Gathal Ehezkelu PW.3 : Gatjala Abraham @ Chanti PW.4 : Pamu Swaroop Kumar 6

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/dt.20.08.2017 -Promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

Ex.A2/dt.06.03.2019 -Office copy of the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.A3/dt.07.03.2019 -Served postal acknowledgment received from the defendant.

For Defendant : - Nil -

Sd/- M.D.V.N.S.,

PJCJ/BVRM.

Fair copy

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BHIMAVARAM.

Present :: Smt.M.D.V.N.Sindhura,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

Monday, the 22 nd day of June, 2020.

O.S.No.2/2019

Between :

Korrakuti Venkateswararao, S/o.Apparao, Hindu, Aged 55 years, Business, D.No.6.1.45, Srinivasa Centre, 10th Ward, Bhimavaram, BJCJC.… Plaintiff

And

Mallabathula Rama Rao, S/o.Ramulu, Hindu, Aged 40 years, Attender, Bhimavaram Municipality, Bhimavaram, BJCJC. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 16.06.2020 before me for final hearing of Sri G.V.V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Md.Munvar Kamal Pasha and B.Gopinath, Advocates for the defendant; and upon hearing through Video Conference in Whats app; and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,89,800/- due under the foot of promissory note together with subsequent interest and costs arising thereof.

02.The plaint averments are as follows:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family welfare and for discharging his sundry debts on 02.10.2017 and accordingly executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % per annum. Later despite several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant kept on postponing the payment on some pretext or other. Hence the suit.

03.The defendant filed the written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and inter-alia he contended that he never borrowed the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and never executed the suit promissory note in his favour. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff is doing finance business in higher rate of interest without possessing the license and 2 that 5 years back, he approached the plaintiff and requested him to lend an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and that the plaintiff though agreed to lend the amount, but insisted him that he need to pay interest of higher rate and further that he need to repay the amount Rs.11,000/- per month including interest and part payment of

principal amount payable in 5 years. That the plaintiff also asked for two empty

signed promissory notes for collateral security. The defendant further contended that having no other option for him, he agreed to the unruly condition of the plaintiff and accordingly gave two blank promissory notes by a fixing his thumb impression. That he later paid an amount of Rs.6,60,000/- to the plaintiff within 5 years each installment @ Rs.11,000/- towards principal and interest. The defendant further contended that after he cleared-off entire debt owed to the plaintiff as demanded, he along with the elders, approached the plaintiff and requested to return him to his blank promissory notes. That the plaintiff on that day, told them that he kept the promissory notes in the bank locker and he will return the documents very soon. That he believed the words of plaintiff and hence kept quiet. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff having ill motive, taking advantage of the custody of the blank promissory notes, got filed this suit even without issuing any legal notice. That he is a Government Employee and also partial blind person and taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff got wrongful gain from him, has resorted to file the false suit by fabricating promissory note with the help of his stock witnesses. Thus, prays for dismissal of the suit.

04.Basing on the pleading of either sides, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim amount?

3. If so, to what relief?

05.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1, Exs.A.1 is marked and PW.2 is examined on his behalf. On the other hand, the defendant got himself examined as DW.1, Ex.B.1 is marked and DW.2 is examined on his behalf.

06.Heard arguments on both sides through Video Conference in Whats app.

07.During course of arguments, counsel for the plaintiff has emphasized the following Judgments:

1. Manyam Janakalakshmi Vs. Manyam Madhava Rao and others reported in AIR 1973 Andhra Pradesh 103 (V 60 C 34).

3

2. Habeebkhan Vs. Valasula Devi reported in 1996(1) A.P.L.J. 72 (SN)

3. Desi Kedari Vs. Huzurabad Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., by its Chairman of the Committee, V.Ramaiah and others reported in 1994 (2) alt 539 (D.B.)

08.ISSUE No.1:-

The plaintiff got filed his chief affidavit as PW.1 in lieu of his chief examination wherein he reiterated the plaint averments. To substantiate that he lent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant, he filed the promissory note, dated 02.10.2017, said to have executed by the defendant in his favour upon receipt of consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. The said promissory note is marked as Ex.A.1. The plaintiff also examined the 1st attester of Ex.A.1 promissory note namely Ganta Pandu Rangarao as PW.2 who in his chief-affidavit deposed that he witnessed the passing of consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant on 02.10.2017 and that the defendant executed Ex.A.1 promissory note to that effect in favour of the plaintiff.

09.While coming to the defence set up by the defendant, he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- at about 5 years back, from the plaintiff, who run finance business for higher rate of interest. That he gave two blank promissory notes by affixing his thumb impression to the plaintiff, at his demand, towards collateral security for the said Rs.1,60,000/- That he repaid the said Rs.1,60,000/- along with interest totaling Rs.6,60,000/- to the plaintiff within 5 years @ Rs.11,000/- per month installments as agreed. That the plaintiff did not return his promissory notes even after receipt of the entire amount and when asked, he told that he kept the documents in the locker and he will return it, at the later point of time. That the plaintiff to get unlawful gain from the defendant, filed this suit, taking advantage of the custody of the blank promissory note. The defendant by reiterating the same contention, has filed his chief-affidavit as DW.1 in lieu of his chief-examination. To substantiate that he is visually impaired and got the job in Bhimavaram Municipality under physical disability quota, the defendant filed his physical disability certificate which is marked as Ex.B.1.

10.Apart from that, the defendant also examined one Grandhi Raja Ramesh as DW.2 who in his chief-affidavit deposed that he accompanied the defendant to the plaintiff for asking to return the promissory note, but the plaintiff without returning the documents, told them that the said promissory notes are kept in locker and he will return the same later. From the defence of the defendant, it is evident that there is an acquaintance in between the plaintiff and the defendant. The learned defendant’s counsel during cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 stressed on the aspect that the defendant is totally blind and he cannot go to the house of plaintiff 4 for the transaction. But the very defence of the defendant is that about 5 years back, he borrowed sum of Rs.1,60,000/- from the plaintiff and gave the blank promissory notes towards security. That being the case, the argument of the learned defendant’s counsel that the defendant is a blind person who cannot borrow amount from others is out and out absurd.

11.Moreover in the written statement itself, the defendant mentioned that he is partially blind but contrary to that the learned defendant’s counsel during cross- examination of PWs.1 and 2 suggested that the defendant is 100% blind. Ex.B.1 Physically disability certificate though supported the said suggestion of the learned defendant’s counsel but there are no reasons stated by the defendant for mentioning in his written statement that he is partially blind. Also the defendant in is chief- examination affidavit mentioned the same that he is partially blind person. However the said aspect has nothing to do, in this back-drop of circumstances, because the defendant is a married person having wife and two children as per the evidence of DW.2 and he too would have necessities as like any other normal people much less the defendant is working as an attender in Bhimavaram Municipality and as per his own evidence, his duties are that he need to take the files from one section to another section as per the directions of the concerned clerks. So, the argument of the learned defendant’s counsel that the defendant is completely a person who cannot do the things on his own is ruled out.

12.Apart from that, the defendant who contended that he discharged the entire debt amount owed from the plaintiff but the plaintiff retained his promissory notes, did not assign any reason for not obtaining any acknowledgment of receipt from the plaintiff after payment of entire debt amount of Rs.6,60,000/- or what so ever. DW.2 Ramesh is evidently a close associate of the defendant and according to DW.2, he accompanied the defendant to the plaintiff for asking to return the blank promissory note. Even DW.2 has not stated any reason for not obtaining the receipt of acknowledgment from the plaintiff on the said date, foreseeing the consequences. No steps were taken by the defendant against the plaintiff being a Government servant for retaining the promissory note even after receipt of payment and for filing the false case against him. Hence, I find no force in the defence of the defendant. On the other hand, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is consistent and credible and nothing was elicited from PWs.1 and 2 in favour of defence.

13.It is further pertinent to say here that when once the signature in a Negotiable Instrument is admitted by its drawer as per section 118-A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumption arose that the said Negotiable Instrument is supported by the consideration. Herein the in instant suit at hand, it is not in dispute that the thumb impression in Ex.A.1 promissory note admittedly belongs to the defendant and hence the presumption arose in favour of the plaintiff that Ex.A.1 promissory 5 note is supported by the consideration. The burden thus shifts upon to the defendant to disprove the same by letting cogent evidence. As already discussed in the above paragraphs, the defendant failed to disprove the case of the plaintiff and hence the presumption would favours the plaintiff. Hence in culmination of facts and circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff has proved the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note by the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant failed to disprove the same. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

14.ISSUE Nos. 2 & 3:- In view of finding in issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for decree, as prayed for.

15.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.3,89,800/- (Rupees Three lakhs eighty nine thousand and eight hundred only) together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only).

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected in my Laptop and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of June, 2020.

Sd/- M.D.V.N.Sindhura

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Bhimavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff :For Defendant :

PW.1 : Korrakuti Venkateswararao DW.1 : Mallabathula Rama Rao PW.2 : Ganta Pandu Rangarao

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/dt.02.10.2017 -Promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-

For Defendant : Ex.B1/dt.---True copy of the Disability Certificate of DW.1 issued by Area Hospital, Jangareddy Gudem, obtained through mee-seva.

Sd/- M.D.V.N.S.,

PJCJ/BVRM.

Fair copy

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BHIMAVARAM.

Present :: Smt.M.D.V.N.Sindhura,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

Wednesday, the 24 th day of June, 2020.

O.S.No.108/2019

Between :

Bangaru Rama Krishna, S/o.Rama Mohana Rao, Aged 50 years, Male, Resident of Sriramapuram, Bhimavaram… Plaintiff

And

Suragani Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Venkatarao (late), Aged 55 years, Male, Business, R/o.Near Railway Gate, Cherukuwada, Undi Mandal. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 17.06.2020 before me for final hearing of Sri Paka Ramesh Babu and Smt.Katta Malathi Latha, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri K.S.S.Prasad and Sri Matta Rama Krishna, Advocates for the defendant; and upon hearing through Video Conference in Whats app; and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,46,000/- due under the foot of promissory note together with subsequent interest and costs thereof.

02.The plaint averments are as follows:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.07.2016 for the purpose of this business investment and accordingly executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the principal amount along with interest @ 24% per annum. Later despite several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the debt amount. Hence the suit.

03.The defendant filed the written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and inter-alia contended that the long cause title of the plaint do not shown his entire particulars. That the defendant younger brother is a practicing Advocate at Bhimavaram and as per his enquiries, it is learnt that the plaintiff has been running a small medical shop at Juvvalapalem Road in Bhimavaram and the plaintiff is chronic litigant. The plaintiff is in the habit of 2 filing the suits, complaints under Negotiable Instruments Act and also some others have filed suits and cheque bounce complaints against him.

04.The defendant contended that the plaintiff has no properties in his name and he is running a petty business and he has no financial capacity to lend Rs.1,50,000/- That the plaintiff is running his medical shop in a rented premises and he has not not even prompt in paying the monthly rents to his owner. That the plaintiff is thus not a person who could lend such a huge amount to the others and the plaintiff even do not have bank account.

05.The defendant further contended that the persons who are enimically with him in Cherukuwada village, are the behind the back of in filing the suit. That the signature in the promissory note is a forged one and the said document was created by the plaintiff with the help of the attesters.

06.The defendant further contended that he do not know the attesters and the scribe of the promissory note and he has no business in Cherukuwada village and he has no necessity to borrow any amount for that alleged business.

07.The defendant further contended that he never happened to see the defendant at any point of time and vice-versa. That the suit promissory note is not supported by the consideration and the plaintiff failed to produce any documents showing his possession of Rs.1,50,000/- as on the date of promissory note. Thus, prays for dismissal of the suit.

08.Basing on the pleadings of either side, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim amount?

3. If so, to what relief?

09.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1, Ex.A.1 is marked and PW.2 tis examined on his behalf. On the other hand, the defendant got himself examined as DW.1. No documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant.

10.Heard arguments of both sides through Video Conference in Whats app. In addition to the oral arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant has submitted his written arguments.

3

11.ISSUE No.1:-

The plaintiff by reiterating the plaint averments, has got filed his chief- examination affidavit as PW.1 in lieu of his chief-examination. To substantiate that he lent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant, he filed the promissory note,

dated 10.07.2016 marked as Ex.A.1. Apart from letting Ex.A.1 promissory note, the

plaintiff examined its scribe namely Patcha Venkata Ramanjaneyulu as PW.2 who filed his chief-affidavit deposing that he along with the attesters namely B.Prasad babu and K.Mahesh Kumar Raja witnessed the passing of consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant and that the defendant executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff to that effect.

12.While coming to the defence set up by the defendant, he contended that his rivals standing behind the back of plaintiff, got filed this false suit by forging his signature in Ex.A.1 promissory note. That he do not know the plaintiff and that as a matter of fact, they even do not have facial acquaintance with each other. The defendant by reiterating the written statement contentions, got filed his chief- affidavit as DW.1 in lieu of his chief-examination. The learned counsel for the defendant in his written statement has pointed out the financial capability of the plaintiff at the first instance. The plaintiff during his cross-examination deposed that he has been doing medical business both in whole-sale and retail in Juvvalapalem Road in Bhimavaram under the name and style of “Sri Mahalakshmi Medical Store” for the last 35 years and his business turnover is Rs.15,00,000/- per annum and he is an income-tax assessee. The learned defendant’s counsel pointed out that the plaintiff did not file any documentary evidence showing that his yearly turnover of the business so also that he is an income-tax assessee. During cross examination, PW.1 deposed that one month prior to Ex.A.1 promissory note, he lent Rs.70,000/- to Balaji Medical stores and Rs.75,000/- to Aditya Medical Agencies who inturn discharged the said amounts and he lend the said two amounts out of income realized from the coconut gardens and that coconut gardens belongs to his wife and from that income accrued from coconut garden, he lent amounts to his debtors. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff ought to have examine his wife in whose name the coconut garden is there and since no piece of paper was filed showing his possession of Rs.1,00,000/- as on the date of Ex.A.1 promissory note, it is to be inferred that he has no such capacity to lend the amount.

13.Secondly, the learned counsel for the defendant has drawn the attention of the court to the relevant lines in the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 where they differed in deposing about the particulars of the defendant in respect to the height and age. PW.1 deposed that the defendant is of height around 5.6 to 5.8 inches each while PW.2 deposed that the defendant is of the height 5.3 or 5.4 inches.

4

PW.1 deposed that he cannot say the age of the defendant as on the date of Ex.A.1 while PW.2 deposed that the age of the defendant by then was around 45 to 50. In the plaint, the age of the defendant was mentioned as 55 years by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendant arguing that, since the plaintiff and his witness never saw the defendant, they were unable to say the height and age of the defendant. Also the learned defendant’s counsel argued that the plaintiff is the respondent in one civil suit and two criminal cases as per his own evidence, as such, his version that he has capability to lend Rs.1,00,000/- is a blatant lie.

14.I have carefully considered the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and DW.1so also the points raised by the learned defendant’s counsel. The learned defendant’s counsel during cross-examination of PW.1 did not choose to shatter the testimonies of PWs1 and 2 by showing photographs of the defendant along with others photographs for the identification, except asking his height and age. It is humanly impossible for everyone to assess the height and age of a person by seeing him except the said person is apparently too tall or too fragile in appearance. So far, the age is concerned, PW.1 deposed that he does not know the exact age while PW.2 deposed the approximate age as 45 to 50 years. The age mentioned in the plaint is 55 years which is not disputed and the difference of 4 or 5 years is not a serious error. More over the defendant did not bring any documentary evidence before this court regarding the age of the defendant, as such, I find no force in the said argument of the learned defendant’s counsel. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in respect to the Ex.A.1 transaction is consistent and credible.

15.The defendant who contended that some rivals stood behind the back of the plaintiff, did not make any mention of his rivals names or the steps he has taken subsequent to the filing of the suit against those rivals. The defendant even to disprove his signature in Ex.A.1 promissory note, did not make any effort to send the disputed signature to the Forensic Expert’s opinion for comparison. Further, the argument in respect to the financial capacity of the plaintiff, in my opinion, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is not beyond the financial reach of a middle-class man in the present day standards of living. The plaintiff is doing medical business even as per the version of the defendant. When such is the case, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is not such a huge amount for the plaintiff to lend and his evidence is credible and consistent. Though the plaintiff did not file proof of his possession of the amount by the date of Ex.A1 and further, that he is an income tax assesse, but his evidence regarding his source of income and his lending of amounts to others as well, is found credible and consistent and he stood for the test of cross examination and inspires confidence in the mind of court over his credibility. Moreover, the defendant did not establish any impetus for the plaintiff to file false suit against him. Hence, in culmination of facts and circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note by the defendant. Accordingly, the 5 issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

16.ISSUE Nos. 2 & 3:- In view of finding in issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for decree, as prayed for.

17.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.2,46,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs forty six thousand only) together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realization on the

principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected in my Laptop and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24 th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- M.D.V.N.Sindhura

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Bhimavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiff :For the Defendant :

PW.1 : Bangaru Rama Krishna DW.1 : Suragani Venkata PW.2 : Patcha Venkata RamanjaneyuluSatyanarayana

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/dt.10.07.2016 -Promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-

For Defendant : - Nil -

Sd/- M.D.V.N.S.,

PJCJ/BVRM.

Fair copy

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BHIMAVARAM.

Present :: Smt.M.D.V.N.Sindhura,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

Thursday, the 18 th day of June, 2020.

O.S.No.68/2019

Between :

Bheemala Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Bhaskara Rao, Aged 53 years, Agriculture, D.No.2-83(4), High School Road, Ranga Center, Gootlapadu, Gootlapadu village, Bhimavaram, W.G.Dt. … Plaintiff

And

Baswani Venkateswarlu, S/o.Krishna Murthy, Aged 65 years, D.No.10-452, Aanandapuram, Malavani Tippa Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, PJCJC. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 16.06.2020 before me for final hearing of Sri R.Padmanabha Raju, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri P.Narasimham, Advocate for the defendant; and upon hearing through Video Conference in Whats app; and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,69,300/- due under the foot of promissory note together with subsequent interest and costs thereof.

02.The plaint averments are as follows:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.10.2017 for the purpose of investment in agriculture/prawn tanks and accordingly executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the principal amount along with interest @ 18% per annum. Later despite several demands made by the plaintiff personally and through his agents, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount and successfully postponed the payment on one pretext or other. Then, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his Advocate to the defendant on 18.12.2018, demanding to repay the amount due under the promissory note. The defendant having receipt of the said notice from the plaintiff, kept quiet without making any response. Hence the suit.

2

03.The defendant filed the written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and inter-alia he contended that his daughter namely Chinta Devi got employee in Kuwait and for traveling expenses, she approached the plaintiff for financial help, who is running running private Chits. That his daughter Chinta Devi is one of the member in the Chit who is running by the plaintiff. That the plaintiff assured Chinta Devi that he will provide financial assistance to her and on that assurance, at the instance of his daughter, the defendant gave blank signed promissory notes to the plaintiff towards security, for the amount advanced by the plaintiff to his daughter. The defendant further contended that he is a daily wage worker and he has no necessity to borrow such huge amount Rs.3,00,000/- and that his daughter Chinta Devi cheated him and colluded with the plaintiff, got filed the suit as he opposed his daughter to marry one Venkateswarlu. Thus, prays for dismissal of the suit.

04.Basing on the pleading of either sides, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim amount?

3. If so, to what relief?

05.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1, Exs.A.1 to A3 are marked and PWs.2 and 3 are examined on his behalf. On the other hand, the defendant got himself examined as DW.1. No documentary evidence is adduced on his behalf.

06.Heard arguments on both sides through Video Conference in Whats app.

07.ISSUE No.1:-

The plaintiff got filed his chief affidavit as PW.1 in lieu of his chief examination wherein he reiterated the plaint averments. The plaintiff to substantiate that he lend an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant, has filed the promissory note, dated 30.10.2017, marked as Ex.A.1. Further, the plaintiff filed the legal notice (office copy), dated 18.12.2018, marked as Ex.A.2 which he got issued to the defendant prior to the date of filing of the suit by demanding to repay the amount due under Ex.A.1 promissory note. It is further evident that the said legal notice was duly served on the defendant which is evidenced by the served postal acknowledgment, dated 26.12.2018, marked as Ex.A.3 which was filed by the plaintiff.

3

08.The plaintiff as a part of ocular evidence, has examined the 2nd attester and the scribe of Ex.A.1 promissory note namely one Kopparthi Suryanarayana and B.Udaya Bhaskar Rao as PWs.2 and 3 respectively. Both PWs.2 and 3 in their respective chief-affidavits, deposed that they witnessed the passing of consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant on 30.10.2017 in their presence and that the defendant executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum.

09.While coming to the defence set up by the defendant, the plaintiff is running private Chits wherein the defendant’s daughter Chinta Devi was one of the Chit members. That the defendant’s daughter planned to go to Kuwait for livelihood and at that time for her traveling expenses, she borrowed some amount from the plaintiff and at that time, gave blank promissory note signed by the defendant to the plaintiff towards collateral security. Later the defendant and his daughter Chintha Devi got some disputes, when the defendant did not consent for the marriage of his daughter with her love Venkateswarlu. That the defendant’s daughter in this context bore grudge against him and she colluded with the plaintiff and got filed the suit, taking advantage of the custody of the blank signed promissory note of the defendant, with the plaintiff. The defendant by reiterating the said defence, has filed his chief-examination affidavit as DW.1 in lieu of his chief-examination.

10.The learned defendant’s counsel conducted cross-examination for PWs.1 to 3, but the testimonies of PWs.1 to 3 are credible and consistent and do not give any way for the suspicion over their credibility. They consistently deposed about the happening of the transaction in between the plaintiff and the defendant on 30.10.2017. It is manifest that the defendant has admitted his signature in Ex.A.1 promissory note but contended different circumstances regarding the shifting of promissory note from his hands to plaintiff’s hands. It is needless to say that as per section 118-A of Negotiable Instruments Act, when once the executant admitted his signature in the Negotiable Instrument like promissory note, it shall be presumed that the said promissory note is supported by the consideration. The burden would rests upon the drawer of the instrument to rebut the said presumption by letting cogent evidence.

11.In the instant suit at hand, the defendant except letting his self-serving evidence, has not filed any documentary or oral evidence to substantiate his contention. Moreover there is no convincing reason on the part of defendant for not issuing reply to Ex.A.2 legal notice despite receipt of the same. The non-issuance of the reply notice denying the allegations of plaintiff, is one of the strongest adverse circumstance for the defendant. Hence, in the light of afore going discussion, I hold that the plaintiff has proved Ex.A.1 transaction by letting Ex.A.1 promissory note and by examining PWs.2 and 3 on his behalf. On the other hand, 4 the defendant failed to prove his defence. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12.ISSUE Nos. 2 & 3:- In view of finding in issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for decree, as prayed for.

13.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.3,69,300/- (Rupees Three lakhs sixty nine thousand and three hundred only) together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only).

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected in my Laptop and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18 th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- M.D.V.N.Sindhura

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Bhimavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiff :For the Defendant :

PW.1 : Bheemala Venkateswara Rao DW.1 : Baswani Venkateswarulu PW.2 : Kopparthi Suryanarayana PW.3 : B.Udaya Bhaskar Rao

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/dt.30.10.2017 -Promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-

Ex.A2/dt.18.12.2018 -Office copy of the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, along with corresponding postal receipt.

Ex.A3/dt.26.12.2018 -Served postal acknowledgment received from the defendant.

For Defendant : - Nil -

Sd/- M.D.V.N.S.,

PJCJ/BVRM.