Ms. M.jagadeeswari

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR DIVISION);

GUNTUR.

PRESENT : Smt Jagadeeswari Meesala, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur

Saturday, the 16th day of May, 2026

OS No.751/2022

Between

Chilaka Vara Prasad Reddy S/o Venkateswara Reddy, rep. By GPA holder Chilakala Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Polireddy, age 69 years, R/o D.No.4-6-189, Hanumaiah nagar road,

Near Ganesh Temple, Koritepadu , Guntur. ... Plaintiff

And

Karasani Vijaya Lakshmi D/o Satyanarayana Reddy, age 43 years, R/o Old D.No.4-7-137/2, near Gandhi stature, Koritepadu, Guntur.

... Defendant

This suit is coming on 13.05.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Rama krishna Reddy and D.Arun Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri.

P.Vijay Kiran and V.Srinivasa Reddy, advocate for defendant and upon considering the material on record, hearing on the both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.16,34,250/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and other relief with costs of the suit.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff averred that the plaintiff / Chilakala Vara Prasad

Reddy, presently residing in the USA and represented by his General Power of

Attorney holder and father Chilakala Venkateswara Reddy, filed the suit against

Karasani Vijaya Lakshmi for recovery of money based on several promissory 2 notes executed by the defendant. The plaintiff further averred that the defendant, who is a relative of the plaintiff, approached the plaintiff’s father seeking financial assistance for family expenses. The plaintiff, residing in the

USA, had earlier sent money to his father. On the request of the defendant and with the consent of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s father allegedly lent amounts to the defendant on different dates at Guntur. According to the plaint, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 28-06-2019, Rs.2,30,000/- on 14-04-2020, Rs.3,60,000/- on 17-04-2020, Rs.2,09,000/- on 19-04-2020, and

Rs.76,000/- on 21-04-2020. Further averred that for each transaction, the defendant allegedly executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the amounts with interest at 24% per annum on demand.

Despite repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff and through mediators the defendant did not repay the amount due under the promissory notes and postponed the same on one pretext or other. On 6.4.2022 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding the suit debt amount, but the defendant allegedly sent a reply notice containing false allegations without clearing the debt. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement and denying the averments in the plaint and contended that she filed the written statement denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff/ Chilakala Vara Prasada

Reddy, represented by his GPA holder Chilakala Venkateswara Reddy. The defendant stated that the suit is false, frivolous, and created only for the purpose of harassing her. She specifically denied knowing the plaintiff, who is residing in the USA, and denied borrowing any amounts alleged in the plaint, namely Rs.2,00,000/- on 28-06-2019, Rs.2,30,000/- on 14-04-2020,

Rs.3,60,000/- on 17-04-2020, Rs.2,09,000/- on 19-04-2020, and Rs.76,000/- on 21-04-2020. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff had already filed another suit, O.S. No.754/2022, against her father alleging similar transactions for nearly identical amounts. According to the defendant, this circumstance itself shows that the plaintiff and his father colluded together and fabricated promissory notes in order to file multiple false cases against the defendant and 3 her family members. She further stated that no consideration was ever passed under the alleged promissory notes and that the suit promissory notes are forged documents created by the plaintiff’s father. The defendant further stated that she denied the allegations that she approached the plaintiff’s father for financial help or that the plaintiff sent money from the USA through his father. She contended that the plaintiff’s father had filed several suits, including O.S. Nos.447/2021, 448/2021, 449/2021, 451/2021, 668/2021, 754/2022, 758/2021, 769/2022, and 778/2022, through various close relatives against the defendant and her father claiming huge amounts about

Rs.75,96,014/-. According to her, all these suits are based on forged promissory notes created only to harass them. The defendant further submitted that she issued a reply notice dated 23-04-2022 to the plaintiff’s legal notice dated 06-04-2022, requesting copies of the alleged promissory notes, but the plaintiff failed to furnish the same. She denied all other averments relating to execution of promissory notes, payment of consideration, agreement to repay with 24% interest, and alleged borrowing for family expenses. She contended that all such allegations are false and invented by the plaintiff’s father. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.On the strength of rival contentions on both sides, this court framed the following issues for final determination:

1. Whether the A, B, C, D and E marked suit promissory notes dt.28.6.2019, 14.4.2020, 17.4.2020, 19.4.2020 and 21.4.2020 are true valid, genuine supported by consideration and binding on the defendant ?

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

3.If so, to what relief?

5. In support of contention of the plaintiff who is Power of attorney he examined himself as PW.1 and 2nd attestor of the suit promissory notes was 4 also examined as Pw.2 and got marked the Ex.A1 to A7 on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant was examined as Dw.1 and no documents were marked on her behalf.

6. Heard the learned counsels for plaintiff and defendant. Perused the records available and the evidence.

Issue No.1 and 2:

7. As issues No.1 and 2 are related to each other, they are discussed commonly in order to avoid repetition of pleadings, evidence and discussion.

8.The PW.1 filed his chief examination affidavit and deposed his evidence by reiterating the contents of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A7 in his favour. PW.1 during his cross examination he admitted that Exs.A1 to A5 does not contain his name and that the original plaintiff/ Vara Prasada Reddy is his son, for whom he is acting as GPA holder. He further admitted that the attestors to all the promissory notes are the same persons. He also admitted that he had filed another suit in O.S. No.754/2022 against the father of the present defendant i.e., Satyanarayana Reddy. P.W.1 further admitted that the amounts covered under Exs.A1 to A5 were not reflected in his own bank account. However, he volunteered that the amounts were reflected in his wife’s bank account and stated that he could file supporting bank documents, though no such documentary proof had been filed before the Court till that date. pw.1 further stated that he did not know whether the original plaintiff was an income tax assessee. He admitted issuance of legal notice to the defendant prior to filing of the suit but stated that he did not know whether any reply notice was issued by the defendant. He further admitted that he could not produce the evidence of the original plaintiff before the Court. P.W.1 denied the suggestions put to him by the defendant’s counsel that there was no consideration passed under Exs.A1 to A5, that the defendant had no necessity to borrow the amounts, that he was incompetent to depose as GPA holder. He also stated 5 that no other transactions took place at his house on the dates of the alleged transactions.

9. One B.Govinda Reddy was examined as Pw.2 and he is the 2nd attestor of the Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 promissory notes and he deposed his evidence on par with evidence of the PW.1. During his cross examination he stated that he studied up to 10th class and that he prepared his chief affidavit based on instructions given by the learned counsel. Pw.2 admitted that Chilakala Vara

Prasada Reddy filed the suit against Karasani Vijaya Lakshmi and that he knows the plaintiff. He further stated that the plaintiff was not personally present on the dates of the transactions covered under Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, though all the promissory notes stood in the name of the plaintiff. PW.2 further stated that he and one Y.V.S. Raghava Reddy signed Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 as attestors and that the first attestor, Y.V.S. Raghava Reddy, is a relative of the plaintiff. He stated that except the transactions dated 14-04-2020, 17-04-2020, 19-04-2020 and 21-04-2020, no other transactions took place, and he had not acted either as attestor or scribe in any other alleged transactions of the plaintiff. PW.2 denied the suggestions put by the defendant’s counsel that he was not present at the time of the alleged transactions, that he had not signed as attestor, and that no such transactions took place. Pw.2 further denied the suggestions that the promissory notes were fabricated due to rivalry between the families of the plaintiff and defendant. Further, he denied that the defendant had no necessity to borrow money from the plaintiff and denied that he was giving false evidence at the instance of the plaintiff and also his chief affidavit were false.

10. On the other hand, the defendant/DW1 has given her evidence in the form of her chief affidavit by reiterating the contentions raised by her in the written statement. In her cross-examination she stated that she is literate.

When confronted with the vakalat, written statement, and Ex.A1, she admitted her signatures on the vakalat and written statement but specifically denied the signature appearing on Ex.A1. She admitted that she knew Chilakala

Venkateswara Reddy, the GPA holder of the plaintiff. D.W.1 denied the 6 suggestion that there were financial transactions between her and the plaintiff’s family. However, she admitted that she had paid amounts in O.S.

No.451/2021 filed by Tatireddy Padmavathi and also in another suit filed by

Padmavathi’s husband. She further stated that she was aware of the contents of her written statement and chief affidavit. Importantly, D.W.1 admitted that she had not filed any petition before the Court seeking expert opinion regarding the disputed signatures to substantiate her plea of forgery. Dw.1 further admitted that she had not initiated any criminal proceedings against the plaintiff alleging forgery. She denied all suggestions that she failed to repay the plaintiff, that she intentionally evaded payment despite having financial capacity, or that she borrowed money from the plaintiff. She further denied the suggestion that the contents of her chief examination were false.

11. As observed from record, the plaintiff by examining himself as PW1 discharged his initial burden of proving the money transaction covered under subject matter Ex.A1 to A5 pronotes. Thus, from the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A7, it is clear that the plaintiff had placed sufficient material to raise presumptions U/s.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act in favour of the plaintiff.

12.The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 establishes that the defendant borrowed amounts from the plaintiff and executed the suit documents in acknowledgment of the debt. The oral evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses remained cogent and trustworthy throughout the cross-examination. The defendant, while deposing as D.W.1, admitted her signatures on the vakalat and written statement. Though she denied her signature on Ex.A1, she admitted that she did not take any steps to substantiate her allegation of forgery. Significantly, D.W.1 admitted in her cross-examination that she did not file any petition before the Court seeking comparison of signatures by a handwriting expert. Further, though the defendant alleged forgery, she admittedly did not lodge any criminal complaint against the plaintiff alleging 7 fabrication of documents. If really the suit document was forged, the natural conduct of a prudent person would be to initiate criminal proceedings. The failure of the defendant to take any such action creates serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of her defence. The evidence of D.W.1 further discloses that she was involved in other monetary transactions and had repaid amounts in

O.S. No.451/2021 filed by Tatireddy Padmavathi and another suit filed by her

husband. This admission probabilises the plaintiff’s version regarding the financial dealings of the defendant. Mere denial of signature is not sufficient.

The burden lies heavily upon the defendant to prove the plea of forgery, especially when the plaintiff adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of execution of the documents. The defendant failed to produce any expert evidence, independent witness, or contemporaneous material to probabilise her plea. On the contrary, the plaintiff successfully established the execution of the suit documents and the passing of consideration.

13.Thus, out of the oral and documentary evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 it can be believed that the Ex.A1 to A5 suit promissory notes are duly supported by consideration and validly executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Hence, in view of the above discussion, this court holds that the suit promissory notes are true, valid, supported by consideration and accordingly binding upon defendant. Hence, issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. Thus, this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest as prayed for.

Issue No.3:

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs.16,34,250/- with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a.

from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree, till the date of realization on the principal amount of 8

Rs.10,75,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/-+ Rs.2,30,000/-+ Rs.3,60,000/-+ Rs.2,09,000/- and Rs.76,000/-).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of May, 2026.

sd/- M.Jagadeeswari,

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff P.W.1 : Ch.Venkateswara Reddy,

Pw.2 : B.Govinda Reddy.

For defendant :

DW.1 : K.Vijaya Lakshmi

Documents marked

For Plaintiff

Ex.A1 : Original suit promissory note dt.28.6.2019 for an amount Rs.2,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : Original suit promissory note dt.14.4.2020 for an amount Rs.2,30,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A3 : Original suit promissory note dt.17.4.2020 for an amount Rs.3,60,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A4 : Original suit promissory note dt.19.4.2020 for an amount Rs.2,09,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A5 : Original suit promissory note dt.21.4.2020 for an amount Rs.76,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A6 : Office copy of legal notice along with postal receipts dt.6.4.2022 9

Ex.A7: Postal acknowledgment dt.7.4.2022.

For Defendant: Nil.

sd/- M.Jagadeeswari,

I ACJ (J.D), Guntur 10

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR DIVISION);

GUNTUR.

PRESENT : Smt Jagadeeswari Meesala, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur

Tuesday, the 15th day of May, 2026

O.S. No.916/2019

BETWEEN

Vanga Subba Reddy S/o Veera Reddy, age 63 years, R/o D.no.26-39-129/235, 2nd lane, Bhavani puram, near Reddy college, Guntur

...Plaintiff

AND

1. Kolli Madhuri W/o Late Hari Prasad Reddy, age 30 years,

2. Kolli Dheeraj Reddy S/o Late Hari Prasad Reddy, age 11 years,

3. Koli Satwik Reddy S/o Late Hari Prasad Reddy, age 9 years,

The defendants No.2 and 3 are being minors represented by her mother / natural guardian Kolli Maduri) defendants NO.1 to 3 are R/o Flat No.202, Kundan towers, 1st lane,

Pattabhipuram, Guntur

4. Kolli Rama Devi W/o Basivi Reddy, age 60 years, R/o H.No.2-72, Modukuru

village, Tsunduru mandal, Guntur District. ...Defendants

This suit came up on 12.5.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Kalesha, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri K.Devarajan and G.Divakar, Advocates for the defendants and 4th defendant set exparte and upon perusing the material available 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 on behalf of plaintiff against the defendants

No.1 to 4 with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.2,73,333/- 2 together with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of suit till the date of realization, costs of the suit and other reliefs as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff averred that on 5.2.2018 the said Kolli Hariprasada

Reddy borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff to meet his family expenses and the defendant executed a promissory note on the even date at Guntur in favour of the plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the Kolli Hariprasada Reddy did not discharge the said debt amount under the cover of promissory note.

Unfortunately, on 22.3.2019 the said Kollil Hariprasada Reddy died intestate leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs to his estate and that the defendants succeeded to the assets and estate of the deceased Kolli

Hariprasada Reddy. The plaintiff further averred that after demise of Kolli

Hariprasada Reddy the plaintiff demanded the defendants to discharge the above said debt due to the plaintiff covered under the above said promissory note, but the defendants dodged the matter on one pretext or other. Later, on 18.4.2019 the plaintiff got issued a Regd. Legal notice to the defendants demanded the suit debt amount, on 2.5.2019 the defendants gave reply notice with false and baseless averments by denying the execution of promissory note transactions. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

3.After receipt of summons the 1st defendant appeared before this court and filed her written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants No.2 and 3 and that 1st defendant stated that her husband Kolli

Hari Prasada Reddy never borrowed any amount at any point of time from the plaintiff and that the said Kolli Hari Prasada Reddy met with an accident and 3 admitted in a hospital for treatment. At that time the plaintiff and some others met the defendant and they introduced themselves as the friends of Kolli Hari

Prasada Reddy and enquired about the health of the said Kolli Hari Prasada

Reddy and also they stated that the said Kolli Hari Prasada Reddy borrowed some amounts from them as hand loan and they demanded the defendant to discharge the said hand loans to them. The plaintiff and other creditors never stated that they lent the amount to the said Kolli Hari Prasada Reddy basing on the pronote, as alleged in the plaint. Now the suit is filed on the basis of pronote which were rank forgery and it was brought into existence with the help of attestors and their henchmen and that the said Kolli Hari Prasada Reddy has no necessity to borrow huge amount from the plaintiff or from anybody for the purpose of business. The plaintiff or other creditors never demanded the said Kolli Hari Prasada Reddy during his lifetime. The plaintiff and other creditors colluded with each and filed this suit only to grab the properties of the said Kolli Hari Prasada Reddy which is in the hands of the defendants. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

4.On the strength of above pleadings, this court has settled following issues for trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.5.2.2018 is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on defendants ?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount from the estate of deceased Kolli Hari Prasada Reddy, lying in the hands of defendants as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

4

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and

Ex.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and the 1st attestor was examined as Pw.2 on behalf of the plaintiff. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants.

7.Heard both sides.

Issues No.1 and 2 :

8.As issues No.1 and 2 are related to each other, they are discussed commonly in order to avoid repetition of pleadings, evidence and discussion.

8.In order to prove the claim of the plaintiff in the present suit, it is the first and foremost obligation of the plaintiff to prove the original money transaction dt5.2.2018 which was said to be held in between the plaintiff and the deceased Kolli Hariprasada Reddy. While the deceased Kolli Hariprasada

Reddy executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and after the demise of the said Kolli Hariprasada Reddy being the executant of the promissory note covered under Ex.A1. Hence, the defendants No.1 to 4 being the legal heirs who has succeeded to the estate of the deceased is liable to discharge the suit debt amount. However , the plaintiff is required to prove the factum of execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff by the deceased debtor i.e., Kolli Hariprasada Reddy and he has to relieve his initial burden.

9. In discharging such burden, the plaintiff got examined himself as

PW.1 and the 1st attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note was examined as Pw.2 by way of filing their evidence affidavit wherein, they have reproduced all the material particulars of the suit claim as described in the plaint with regard to execution of Ex.A1 pronote by the deceased Kolli Hariprasada Reddy and passing of consideration thereunder. Pw.1 / plaintiff also further deposed that 5 inspite of repeated made by the plaintiff and through his mediators, but the defendants failed to pay single pie to discharge the debt amount due under

Ex.A1 promissory note, later, the said Kolli Hariprasada Reddy died intestate leaving behind the defendants No.1to 4 as his legal heirs for his entire estate, as such, he has to move the present suit for recovery of money basing on

Ex.A1 pronote.

10.In support of his claim, the plaintiff adduced his oral evidence and got marked the original suit promissory note as Ex.A1.

Exs.A1 is the primary evidence being the documentary proof in respect of the said money transactions dt.5.2.2018 executed for an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- in between the plaintiff and the deceased Kolli Hariprasada

Reddy, while he was alive and later died leaving behind his legal heirs to his succeed estate as defendants Nos.1 to 4. A careful perusal of said promissory note covered under Ex.A1 read in conjunction with evidence of Pw.1, the recitals of Ex.A1 shows the passing of consideration to the deceased Kolli

Hariprasada Reddy. When the evidence of Pw.1 read in together with the exhibits covered under Ex.A1, it appears that the deceased Kolli Hariprasada

Reddy seems to have borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from plaintiff on 5.2.2018 during his life time and in evidence thereof, he executed the suit promissory note and consideration was also passed to his, as such, after his demise the defendants No.1 to 4 being the legal heirs of his are liable to discharge the suit debt amount. So, the plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of money from the estate of the deceased lying in the hands of the defendants.

But as the defendants neither choose to cross examine Pw.1 and Pw.2 nor brought anything contrary to the above aspects as evident from Ex.A1 promissory note and evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 thereby pleading of plaintiff on those aspects are remained uncontraverted. The defendants despite taking 6 several pleas in their written statement such as forgery and fabrication of pronote, but they could not adduce any defense evidence to substantiate their contentions raised in the written statement and the death of the said Kolli

Hariprasada Reddy, the suit is proceeded against the estate of the deceased lying in the hands of the defendants No.1 to 4 being their legal heirs. As the 4th defendant refused to take summons, she was set exparte and accordingly, she did not choose to come forward to resist the claim of the plaintiff against the estate of the deceased Kolli Hariprasada Reddy. It is settled principle of law that any allegation without there being evidence to subsist the such allegation is of no significance in the eye of law and cannot be looked into.

Thus, a mere plea of 1st defendant with regard to forgery of pronote without taking any steps as envisaged U/s.45 of Indian Evidence Act has no consequence. As the plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and the 1st attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note was examined as Pw.2 and also got marked the documents covered under Exs.A1 to A4 has proved his claim. Therefore, it can be said that the plaintiff discharged his initial burden and got the presumption under N.I Act in his favour and thereby thrown the onus of proof to rebut the presumption on the shoulders of the defendants. But the defendants No.1 to 4 being legal heirs of deceased Kolli Hariprasada Reddy neither choose to cross examine the plaintiff, nor had produced any contra evidence against the plea of the plaintiff nor even enter into witness box. A failure of a party to challenge the case of plaintiff by way of producing any rebutal evidence which amounts to acceptance of the truthfulness of plaintiff’s claim.

0. At this juncture, it is relevant to note a decision held by our

Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 Vidhyadhar Vs Manikya Rao

and another wherein it was held that :

“Where a party to the suit does not appear into witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by other 7 side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. If a party abstains from entering into the witness box, it would give raise to an interference adverse against him”.

11.Herein in this case, the defendants must have examined themselves and by also shall offer to be cross examined by the other party to prove their contentions and also to disprove the case of other side. If they omitted to do so, the fatal consequence is whatever the contentions raised by them would not be accepted and as a corollary, presumption U/Sec.114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn against them who failed to enter into the witness box to substantiate their defence. Inspite of ample opportunity to rebut the claim to rebut the claim of plaintiff. But, the defendants except taking a mere plea of forgery of suit pronote, no steps were taken to prove the same, which failure of them is fatal to their defense.

12.Further more, Exs.A1 is one of the kind of Negotiable Instrument, as defined under Section 4 of N.I Act. Hence, we may presume that such promissory note is executed on the date mentioned therein, and it was made for consideration as envisaged U/s.118 and 139 of N.I. Act. Thus, the oral evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 and documentary evidence covered under Exs.A1 to A4 let in by plaintiff is enough to hold that the plaintiff has successfully discharged his burden and proved money transaction dt.5.2.2018 held in between the plaintiff and the deceased Kolli Hariprasada Reddy and on even date of Ex.A1. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount along with interest as sought for from the estate of the deceased Kolli

Hariprasada Reddy lying in the hands of the defendants No.1 to 4 being the legal heirs of the deceased.

13.So, the oral evidence of PW.1 and Pw.2 coupled with the contents 8 of Exs.A1 to A4, Ex.A1 proves the fact with regard to execution of pronote by the executant as such, it can be believed to hold that the deceased Kolli

Hariprasada Reddy while he was alive has executed Exs.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintiff by borrowing the cash amount as mentioned therein, after his demise, the defendants No.1 to 4 being the legal heirs who succeeded his estate is liable to discharge the suit debt amount.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for the suit amount of

Rs.2,73,333/- against the estate of the deceased Kolli Hariprasada Reddy lying in the hands of the defendants No.1 to 4 to be payable with subsequent interest at the @ 12% pa from the date of filling of suit till the date of decree thereafter at the @ 6% p.a., till realization on Principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer grade-III and corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the day of 15th day of May, 2026.

sd/- M.Jagadeeswari,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTs:

P.W.1 :V.Subba Reddy, -Nil-

Pw.2 : B.Siva Reddy.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note dt.5.2.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/- executed by the 9 defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice along with postal receipts

Ex.A3 : Postal acknowledgments

Ex.A4 : Reply notice dt.2.5.2019.

FOR DEFENDANT: --Nil—sd/- M.Jagadeeswari,

I ACJ (J.D), Guntur

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Present : Smt. Jagadeeswari Meesala, I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No.524 of 2024.

Between:

Union Bank of India, Brodipet Branch, Rep. by it's Branch Manager cum Authorized Person T.Vijaya Babu, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged about 39 years, Office at 4/13, Brodipet, Guntur, A.P. … Plaintiff.

And

1. Sirisha Mahila Podupu Sangham, Rep. by it's President Raavi Sirisha, W/o. Krishna & Secretary, Mirivala Bhagva Lakshmi, W/o. Venkata Mohana Rao, R/o. Door No. 4-8-32, 8/8 Lane, Brodipet, Guntur

2) Raavi Sirisha. W/o. Krishna, R/o. Door No.4-8-32, 8/8 Lane, Brodipet, Gunturu.

3). Miriyala Bhagya Lakshmi, W/o. Venkata Mohana Rao, R/o. Door No.9-13-65, 5/2 Lane, Brodipet, Guntur 4). Srungarapati Mary, W/o. Babu, R/o. Door No.2-42-2, 5/2 Lane, Brodipet, Guntur.

5). Barma Mani, W/o. Kranthi Kumar, R/o. Door No.2-29-9, 9/2 Lane, Brodipet, Guntur 6). Kukkamalli Amala, W/o. Jocob, R/o. Door No.2-11-7/1, 7/2 Lane, Brodipet, Guntur 7). Paleti Ajitha, W/o. Babu Rao, R/o. Door No.2-22-2, 5/2 Lane, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District-522002.

8). Kukkamalla Yemelamma, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, R/o. Door No.2-12-3, 3/2 Lane, Brodipet, Guntur, 2 9). Kuraganti Shalini D/o. Vijaya Babu, R/o. Door No.10-4-5, 4/5 Lane, Brodipet, Guntur, 10). Bulla Jyothi, W/o. Anil, R/o. Door No.2-12-2, 5/2 Lane, Brodipet, Guntur.

11). Bandila Desitha, W/o. Guravaiah, R/o. Door No.8-19-1, 9/2 Lane, Brodipet, Guntur. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 7.4.2026 in the presence of Sri E.Nagendra Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendants remained exparte and upon perusing the material 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.The suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of an amount of

Rs.7,68,405/- with subsequent interest over the suit amount @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and other reliefs with costs.

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

The Plaintiff is Unioin Bank of India, a body of corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, having head Office at Mumbai and having branch offices in different locations including a Branch Office at 4th line,

Brodipet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Branch Manager. The

Defendant No.2 to 11 formed as Sirisha Mahila Podupu Sangham (Self

Help Group), and the defendants among themselves resolved on 15.01.2021 and elected D2 and D3 as President and Secretary of the 3

Group and authorized D2 and D3 to apply for the loan on behalf of the D1 group and execute necessary agreements/documents on behalf of the D1

Group and it's members and the defendants approached the plaintiff

Bank for the purpose of Loan and the plaintiff Bank sanctioned Loan after executing and submitting the relevant applications by the

Defendant No.s 2 to 11 on behalf of Defendant No.1 and it's members.

On 15.01.2021 the plaintiff Bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- under loan Account No.005213100002069, which is renewal cum enhancement of earlier loan limit of Rs.6,00,000/-, which is repayable with interest @ 7.30% and to be repaid within 36 equal monthly installments. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 jointly accepted and executed

Loan Sanction Letter, dt.15.01.2021, Inter-se-agreement and Articles of

Loan Agreement for said group and Demand Promissory note and Letter of continuity dt. 15-01-2021, in the capacity of President and Secretary of the D1 group infavour of the plaintiff's Bank. The representatives of the defendants accepted for repayment of all the amounts then granted and agreed to be granted by the plaintiff Bank from time to time together with interest at the rate of 7.30% p.a. or at such other rates as fixed by the Reserve Bank of India and the defendant No.2 & 3 on behalf of D1 group and it's members, were agreed to repay the loan. The defendant

Nos. 2 to 11 had availed the said loan on the name of Defendant No.1 on 15.01.2021 and the Defendants executed the necessary documents to pay the loan amount together with interest. The representatives of the plaintiff Bank demanded the defendants 2 to 11 for the discharge of the said debt after the stipulated time, but in vain. On 18.04.2023 the plaintiff Bank got issued legal notice, but the said legal notices returned with an endorsement "No Such Door Numbers", but the defendants did not repay the loan amount. The plaintiff bank averred that as per the copy of statement of account and other documents including demand 4 promissory note, the defendants are jointly and severally liable an amount of Rs.7,68,405/-. The plaintiff seeks recovery of the said amount along with future interest at 7.30% per annum from the date of suit till realization. Hence, the suit.

03.On 24.11.2025 summons were served by way of substituted service of summons by way of paper publication, but the defendants did not appear before this court, as such, the defendants set exparte.

04. On behalf of the Plaintiff Bank, represented by its Chief

Manager/S.Ajith Kumar was examined as P.W.1 and Exs. A.1 to A.8 were marked on his behalf.

05.Heard.

06.Now the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled for decree as prayed

for ?”

Point :

07.The Union Bank of India represented by its Chief Manager

P.W.1/ S.Ajith Kumar filed his chief affidavit as PW1. He reiterated the contents of plaint in his chief affidavit and he got marked Ex.A1 to A8,

Ex.A1 is the original loan sanction letter, dt.15.1.2021, Ex.A2 is the original inter-se agreement, dt.15.1.2021, Ex.A3 is the original articles of loan agreement, dt.15.1.2021, Ex.A4 is the original demand promissory note, dt.15.1.2021, Ex.A5 is the original letter of continuity, dt.15.1.2021,

Ex.A6 is the computerized account statement along with Sec.65B IEA 5 certificate, dt.22.12.2023, Ex.A7 is the office copy of Regd. Legal notice issued to the defendant, dt.18.4.2023 along with postal receipts and

Ex.A8 is the returned postal covers of D1 to D11, dt.6.5.2023.

08. On the other hand, inspite of having opportunity, the defendants

No.1 to 11 did not appear before this court, nor filed their written statement, not contested the suit. It can be said that the defendants failed to discharge their burden. On considering the material on record, this court is of the opinion on one hand, the plaintiff bank has proved the case, on the other hand, the defendants failed to disprove the case of the plaintiff bank, therefore, the plaintiff bank is entitled for the relief as prayed.

09. The material on record, clearly established that the defendants indebted for an amount of Rs.7,68,405/- with interest 7.30% per annum, the plaintiff bank claimed interest @ 7.30% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization. As per Ex.A1 the agreed rate of interest is 7.30% per annum. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank is entitled for interest at the rate of 7.30 % per annum on the suit amount from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

principal amount.

10. In view of the facts and circumstances and other material on record, this court is of the opinion that this suit has merits and deserves to be allowed as discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants.

6

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank and against the defendants, directing the defendants No.1 to 11 to pay to the plaintiff bank an amount of Rs.7,68,405/- together with interest @ 7.30% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.7,68,405/-.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer grade-III and corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the day of 15th day of May, 2026.

sd/- M.Jagadeeswari,

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1 : S.Ajit Kumar, Exparte

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 is the original loan sanction letter, dt.15.1.2021,

Ex.A2 is the original inter-se agreement, dt.15.1.2021,

Ex.A3 is the original articles of loan agreement, dt.15.1.2021,

Ex.A4 is the original demand promissory note, dt.15.1.2021,

Ex.A5 is the original letter of continuity, dt.15.1.2021,

Ex.A6 is the computerized account statement along with Sec.65B IEA certificate, dt.22.12.2023, 7

Ex.A7 is the office copy of Regd. Legal notice issued to the defendant, dt.18.4.2023 along with postal receipts,

Ex.A8 is the returned postal covers of D1 to D11, dt.6.5.2023.

For Defendants: -NIL-

sd/- M.Jagadeeswari,

I ACJ (J.D), GNT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Present : Smt. Jagadeeswari Meesala, I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No.924 of 2025.

Between:

Velaga Kamalamma W/o Velaga Kistaiah, age 65 years, R/o Narakoduru, Chebrolu mandal, Guntur. … Plaintiff.

And

Koduri Joseph S/o Subba Rao, R/o Kottareddypalem village, Chebrolu mandal, Guntur District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 11.5.2026 in the presence of Sri A.Srinivasa Sai and A.Gopala Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendants remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,83,600/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization, costs of the suit and other reliefs as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

02.The averments of the plaint in nut shell are that :-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- on 30.6.2022 from the plaintiff for his family expenses and that the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff’s client house in the presence of attestors and scribe at Narakodru, in favour of the plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or her order on demand. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and 2 through mediators to the defendant, but the defendant failed to discharge the debt due under the above said promissory note to the plaintiff. Later, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.3.6.2025 to the defendant by demanding to repay the promissory note, but the defendant received the said notice and kept quiet without discharging the debt due under the promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

3.On 30.12.2025 the suit summons served to the defendant. Inspite of service of summons, the defendant did not appear before this court, service is held sufficient, hence right to file written statement is forfeited.

4.During the course of trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and and Ex.A1 to A3 are got marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

6.Now the point that arises for determination is:

"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim amount as prayed for?"

POINT:

7.In order to prove the case the plaintiff, she deposed evidence as

PW.1 by filing her chief examination affidavit, Ex.A1 to A3 are marked through her. PW1 in her evidence reiterating the contents of the plaint. The suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,08,000/-, dated 30.6.2022 is marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.3.6.2025 and Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgments, dt.5.6.2025. Though, the defendant set exparte the plaintiff not automatically obtained relief as he claimed. He has to prove his contention by adducing the evidence. The PW.1 is plaintiff in the present suit supported his 3 contention by adducing the evidence of himself as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A3.

8. This court minutely gone through the contents of the plaint, evidence of PW.1 contents of Ex.A1 and other material on record. After considering the material on record, it is clearly established from the material on record, that the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- under

Ex.A1 from the plaintiff, inspite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not repaid the amount to the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed by her.

9. On the other hand, inspite of having opportunity, the defendant did not appear before this court, nor filed his written statement, not contested the suit. It can be said that the defendant failed to discharge his burden. On considering the material on record, this court is of the opinion on one hand, the plaintiff proved his case, on the other hand, the defendant failed to disprove the case of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed by him.

10. The material on record, clearly established that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,08,000/- covered under promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 with interest 24% per annum, the plaintiff claimed interest @ 24% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization. As per Ex.A1 the agreed rate of interest is at the rate of 24% per annum. However, the plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the suit amount from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances and other material on record, this court is of the opinion that this suit has merits and deserves to be allowed as discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

4

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff suit amount of Rs.1,83,600/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% per anum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal amount Rs.1,08,000/-.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer grade-III and corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the day of 15th day of May, 2026.

sd/- M.Jagadeeswari,

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant :

P.W.1: V.Kamalamma Exparte

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- dated 30.6.2022.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt.3.6.2025.

Ex.A3: Postal Acknowledgment, dt. 5.6.2025.

For Defendants: -NIL-

sd/- M.Jagadeeswari,

I A.C.J(J.D), GNT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Present : Smt. M Jagadeeswari, I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No.97 of 2026.

Between:

Ontipuli Ankamma W/o Lakshmaiah, age 39 years, R/o D.no.18-41-59, Vadiyarajula gudem, Sangadigunta, 1st lane, Guntur … Plaintiff.

And

Uppu Srinivasa Rao S/o Subba Rao, age 33 years, R/o D.No.41-29/1-47, Ranigari thota, Vijayawada, NTR District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 13.5.2026 in the presence of Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.5,14,600/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and costs of the suit.

02.The averments of the plaint in nut shell are that :-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.12.2022 for his family expenses and the defendant executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same with 2 interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or her order on demand.

Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and through mediators to discharge the debt amount due under the said promissory note, but the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or other. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit.

03.Inspite of service of summons the defendant did not appear before this court and right to file written statement is forfeited on 3.3.2026.

04.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 is marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

05.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

06.Now the point that arises for determination is:

"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim

amount as prayed for?" POINT:

07. In order to prove the case the plaintiff, she deposed evidence as

PW.1 by filing her chief examination affidavit, Ex.A1 is marked through her.

PW.1 in her evidence reiterating the contents of the plaint. The suit promissory note dated 17.12.2022 is marked as Ex.A1. Though, the defendant set exparte the plaintiff not automatically obtained relief as she claimed. she has to prove her contention by adducing the evidence. The PW.1 is plaintiff in the present 3 suit supported her contention by adducing the evidences of herself as PW1 and Ex.A1.

08.This court minutely gone through the contents of the plaint, evidence of PW1, contents of Ex.A1 and other material on record. After considering the material on record, it is clearly established, that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under Ex.A1 from the plaintiff, inspite of repeated requests the defendant has not repaid the amount to the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed by him.

09.On the other hand, inspite of having opportunity, the defendant did not appear before this court, nor filed his written statement, not contested the suit. It can be said that the defendant failed to discharge his burden. On considering the material on record, this court is of the opinion on one hand, the plaintiff proved his case, on the other hand, the defendant failed to disprove the case of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed by him.

10.The material on record, clearly established that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- covered under promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 with interest 24% per annum, the plaintiff claimed interest @ 24% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization. As per Ex.A1 the agreed rate of interest is @ 24% per annum. However, the plaintiff is entitled for interest at 4 the rate of 12% per annum on the suit amount from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances and other material on record, this court is of the opinion that this suit has merits and deserves to be allowed as discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff suit amount of Rs.5,14,600/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree thereafter 6% per anum on the principal amount Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of decree to till the date of realization.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer grade- III and corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the day of 15th day of May, 2026.

sd/- M.Jagadeeswari,

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Ontipuli Ankamma, Exparte 5

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original Suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 17.12.2022.

For Defendant: -NIL-

sd/- M.Jagadeeswari,

I A.C.J( J.D), GNT.