Sri M.Ramakrishnam Raju

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

PRESENT:SRI M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, 

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

(FAC)PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Thursday, this the 9th day of November,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.619/2011

Between:

Adapa Suresh, son of late Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged 34 years, R/o.D.No.85­16­2, All Bank Colony, Near: J.K.Kalyana Mandapam, JN Road, Rajamahendravaram. 

.. Plaintiff

And

1. Smt.Adapa Satyavathi, wife of Suryanarayana @ China Kapu, Hindu, Aged 52 years, House Hold, R/o.D.No.2­30, Koti Village, Korukonda Mandal.

2.Smt.Adapa Srilakshmi Pavani, wife of late Srimanikyam, D/o.Pragada Trimurthulu, Hindu, Aged 27 years, House Hold, R/o.Narendrapuram Village, Rajanagaram Mandal.

.. Defendants

The suit coming on 07.11.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.V.S.Prasad, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri N.V.Suryanarayana Murthy, advocate for first defendant, and the 2nd defendant remained set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery a sum of Rs.3,03,104/­ together with subsequent interest and costs from the defendants personally and out of the mortgaged plaint schedule property.

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

One Adapa Srimanikyam, borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 16.07.2009 for the purpose of family expenses and investment on agricultural lands etc., agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of

Rs.2/­ per hundred per month either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. After receiving the entire consideration, he executed an equitable mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on the even date by mortgaging the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The said mortgage deed was registered before the Sub Registrar,

Korukonda on 16.07.2009 (Document No.1980/2009) in favour of the plaintiff. The original registered settlement deed, dated 30.06.2001 (Document No.1108/2001 was deposited with the plaintiff towards security for the aforesaid debt with an intention to create simple mortgage of the plaint schedule property. As per the terms of mortgage deed, the said Srimanikyam has to pay the interest at the rate of Rs.2/­ per hundred per month till the discharge of the debt and he has further agreed to repay the amount borrowed and interest accrued by then on it, on or before 15.07.2011, promising to pay the interest by every month. If he fails to repay the entire debt together with interest within the stipulated time i.e. on or before 15.07.2011, interest at the rate of 24%p.a.

would be added into principal amount and the same will be charged till realization of the debt. And in case of failure to do so, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the debt from the defendant by taking necessary action against the mortgaged property. At the time of the execution of the mortgage deed, it is mentioned specifically that there are no charges or encumbrances over the mortgaged property. The first defendant is the mother and 2nd defendant is the wife of late Adapa Srimanikyam and both of them constitute a Hindu joint family. The plaintiff from time to time has been insisting the defendants for repayment of the said loan amount as per the terms of the mortgage debt. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants used to postpone the payment on some pretext or other. So, the plaintiff got issued a registered notice dated 13.08.2011 to the defendants through his counsel demanding them to repay the mortgage debt together with interest, but the defendants did not respond. Hence, the suit.

3.The first defendant filed written statement contending as under:

The main and material averments in the plaint are all false and the suit is not maintainable either under law or on facts. It is true that the first defendant is the mother of the deceased Srimanikyam. The allegation in the plaint that Srimanikyam borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ from the plaintiff for his family necessities and agricultural expenses by executing a registered mortgage deed dated 16.07.2009 is absolutely false. The deceased Srimanikyam was never married and the second defendant is not his wife. He did not possess any land and never did agriculture. So the question of he borrowing money from the plaintiff does not arise. The allegation that Srimanikyam deposited the settlement deed dated 30.06.2001 is also false and the person from whom the settlement deed was obtained has no right or title over the property to execute the said registered settlement deed. As such, the alleged mortgage deed executed by Srimanikyam is not valid under law. The property covered under the settlement deed dated 30.06.2001 is quite different from that of the plaint schedule property. Srimanikyam did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and did not execute any mortgage deed and the mortgage deed filed by the plaintiff is a rank forged and fabricated one. The defendants and Srimanikyam do not constitute a Hindu joint family. The allegation that the plaintiff demanded the first defendant to repay the loan amount is false. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff in collusion with and under the guidance of one Nadapa Veerababu of Korukonda and the second defendant.

The first defendant did not inherit any property from the deceased Srimanikyam. She also issued a reply notice to the notice given by the plaintiff on 29.08.2011, but the plaintiff conveniently suppressed the same. There is no cause of action for filing this suit and the alleged cause of action is false.

4.The second defendant was set ex parte as she did not put up any appearance before the court in spite of due service of summons. Therefore, she was set ex parte.

5.Based on the pleadings and the documents filed by the both sides the court has framed following issues for trial:

1) Whether the mortgage deed, dated 16.07.2009 is executed by Adapa Srimanuikyam(late) and it is supported by consideration and binding on the defendants 1 and 2?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree and final decree against the mortgaged property for realization of debt under mortgage deed dated 16.07.2009?

3) To what relief?

6.Both sides failed to submit arguments.

7.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:

In her written statement, the first defendant contended that the registered mortgage deed dated 16.07.2009 alleged to have been executed by Srimanikyam is a forged and fabricated one. It was also contended by her that neither Srimanikyam nor the person who executed the settlement deed dated 30.06.2001 in his favour has any right or title over the plaint schedule property. At the same time, the first defendant did not claim title to herself over the plaint schedule property. Since the first defendant has failed to make any independent claim over the plaint schedule property, she has no right to challenge the title of either her son Srimanikyam or his predecessor in title.

The only question that has to be decided by the court is whether the mortgage deed,

dated 16.07.2009 is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not?

8.The burden to prove the mortgage deed, dated 16.07.2009 is on the plaintiff. In order to discharge the burden cast upon him, the plaintiff has got examined himself as P.W.1. In his chief examination affidavit, the plaintiff reiterated the same facts, which he has averred in the plaint. Since those facts were already discussed at length their repetition is avoided here. In support of his oral assertions, the plaintiff has got marked as many as six documents on his behalf. On these documents Ex.A.1 is the registered mortgage deed said to have been executed by the deceased Srimanikyam, dated 16.07.2009. Ex.A.2 is the registered settlement deed,

dated 30.06.2001 under which the plaint schedule property was gifted to

Srimanikyam. Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 are the legal notice issued by the plaintiff dated 13.08.2011 and its postal receipts. Ex.A.5 is the marriage receipt pertaining to the marriage of the deceased Srimanikyam and the second defendant. Similarly Ex.A.6 is the certificate issue by Tahsildar, Korukonda stating that the second defendant is the wife of late Srimanikyam. Among these documents filed by the plaintiff Ex.A.5 and

Ex.A.6 have no relevancy to the dispute involved herein. The second defendant who according to the plaintiff is the wife of the deceased Srimanikyam did not put up any contest and remained ex parte. It is only the first defendant who denied the relationship between the deceased Srimanikyam and second defendant. In this regard, the first defendant has no locus­standi to deny the relationship between the second defendant and Srimanikyam for the reason that even if the plaintiff’s contention that the second plaintiff is the wife of deceased Srimanikyam is believed it does not any way affect the interest of the first defendant. The entire controversy no revolves around

Ex.A.1, which is said to have been the mortgage deed executed by deceased

Srimanikyam.

9.Ex.A.1 is a mortgage deed where under the principal money secured is more than Rs.100/­ and according to the plaintiff the said mortgage is a simple mortgage. Therefore, by virtue of Section 59 of Transfer of Property Act,1882 it requires registration and must be attested by at least two witnesses. It was already noted in the above that it was the specific contention of the first defendant that Ex.A.1 is a forged and fabricated document. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A.1. As per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, a document which is required by law to be attested shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called and examined for the purpose of proving its execution provided that such attesting witness is alive and subject to the process and capable of giving evidence. In the present case in hands the plaintiff instead of examining any of the attestors as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act has examined the scribe as P.W.2. However, the proviso to Section 68 says that if such document is registered under the registration Act,1908 it is not necessary to prove its attestation unless it is a will or the executant of the document denies its execution. In the present case in hands Ex.A.1 is a registered document and the first defendant who alleges it to be a forged document is not its executant. Therefore, non examination of attestors is not fatal to the plaintiff’’ case. The scribe who was examined as P.W.2 in his chief examination affidavit clearly stated that Ex.A.1 was executed by the deceased Srimanikyam in his presence and in the presence of attestors. The learned counsel for the first defendant has cross examined both P.Ws.1 and 2 at length. During the cross examination no discrepancies or contradictions were elicited from their evidence. Both of them stuck to the versions deposed by them in their chief examination and stood to the test of cross examination. Therefore, by examining P.Ws.1 and 2, the plaintiff has discharged the burden cast upon him and proved the execution of Ex.A.1.

10.On the other hand, the first defendant has got examined D.Ws.1 and 2.

Among them D.W.1 is no other than the first defendant. In her chief examination affidavit she just reiterated the same facts, which were stated in the written statement.

She got marked the reply notice, dated 29.08.2011 and its postal acknowledgments as

Exs.B.1 and B.2 respectively. The contents of Ex.B.1 are also similar to that of the written statement filed by first defendant. However, the first defendant did not file any other document which contains the signature of the deceased Srimanikyam to show that the signature on Ex.A.1 does not belong to him. There is also no explanation from her as to on what basis she was alleging that Ex.A.1 is a forged document. So far as

D.W.2’s evidence is concerned it has nothing to do with Ex.A.1. From his evidence it is clear that he has no knowledge about Ex.A.1. There is no reason as to why the first defendant has examined him as D.W.2. The evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 does not in any way challenge Ex.A.1 or creates any doubt on its execution by the deceased

Srimanikyam. Further as already pointed out Ex.A.1 is a registered document and its stands on a higher footing than other documents. The first defendant did not choose to examine the registration authorities or summoned their registers to show that Ex.A.1 is a forged document. Therefore, Ex.A.1 stands proved and consequently the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the plaint schedule property as well as the estate of the deceased Srimanikyam, which is in the hands of the defendants. However, the plaintiff is not entitled for personal decree against the defendants as they are not parties to

Ex.A.1. Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 are answered.

11.ISSUE No.3:

In the result, the suit is decreed preliminarily in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.3,03,104/­ with subsequent interest at 24%p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% till the date of realization. Time for redemption is six months from the date of the Judgment. 

Typed to dictation to the Steno­Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 9th day of November,2017.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC)Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :

P.W.1: Adapa Suresh Venkata Kumar D.W.1: Adapa Satyavat P.W.2: Kakarlapudi Venkata Suryanarayana Raju D.W.2: P.N.Subrahmanyam P.W.3: Oduri Musalayyha D.W.3: Kamisetti Rambabu P.W.4: Sabbella Suri Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1: Registered mortgage deed, dt:16.07.2009 Ex.A.2: Registered title deed, dt:30.06.2001 Ex.A.3: Office copy of legal notice, dt:13.08.2011 Ex.A.4: Two postal receipts with acknowledgments Ex.A.5: Marriage receipt Ex.A.6: No objection certificate issued by Tahsildar, Korukonda, dt:01.12.2010 

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B.1: Reply notice, dt:29.08.2011 Ex.B.2: Postal acknowledgment, dt:05.09.2011

I ASCJ

(FAC)PSCJ 

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

PRESENT:SRI M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, 

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Thursday, this the 9th day of November,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.619/2011

Between:

Adapa Suresh, son of late Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged 34 years, R/o.D.No.85­16­2, All Bank Colony, Near: J.K.Kalyana Mandapam, JN Road, Rajamahendravaram. 

.. Plaintiff

And

1. Smt.Adapa Satyavathi, wife of Suryanarayana @ China Kapu, Hindu, Aged 52 years, House Hold, R/o.D.No.2­30, Koti Village, Korukonda Mandal.

2.Smt.Adapa Srilakshmi Pavani, wife of late Srimanikyam, D/o.Pragada Trimurthulu, Hindu, Aged 27 years, House Hold, R/o.Narendrapuram Village, Rajanagaram Mandal.

.. Defendants

Plaint presented on 23.08.2011 and filed on 21.09.2011 

Suit to pass a usual mortgage preliminarily decree declaring amount due under the mortgage deed with subsequent interest at 24%p.a. on Rs.2,96,000/­ from the date of suit till the date of redemption and also at the same date from the date of redemption till the date of realization and to direct the defendants to deposit the amount within the time specified by the Court and in case of failure to do so, to deposit the amount declared, to pass a final decree for sale of the suit schedule land and to pass a personal decree against the defendant in case of the sale proceeds are found to be insufficient for the discharge of the debt and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit:

Principal amount borrowed Rs.2,00,000.00

Add Interest from 16.07.2009 to 15.07.2011 at 24%p.a. 96,000.00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 2,96,000.00

Add: Interest from 16.07.2011 to 22.08.2011 at 24%p.a. 7,104.00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Total Rs.3,03,104.00 =============

On this, a court fee of Rs.5,526/­is paid U/Sec.20 r/w Sec.31(1) and Sch.I, Art.I(c) of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 16.07.2009 when Adapa Srimanikyam borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ from the plaintiff for the purpose of meeting his family expenses and investment on lands etc., agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at Rs.2/­ per hundred per month either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and executed a registered equitable mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on 26.07.2009 by mortgaging the plaint schedule property in favour of the petitioner and by depositing the original title deed i.e. registered settlement deed towards security in favour of the plaintiff for the aforesaid debt and on subsequent dates when Srimanikyam failed to repay the debt together with interest despite repeated demands and 28.09.2009 when Adapa Srimanikyam, the mortgagor died intestate, leaving behind him his mother and wife as legal heirs and the entire schedule property was devolved upon the defendants and on 13.08.2011 when the plaintiff got issued a registered notice through his counsel demanding the defendants to discharge the mortgage debt, but the defendants did not respond and at Koti village where the defendants permanently resides and at Korukonda where mortgage deed was executed by late Srimanikyam in favour of plaintiff and the entire transaction took place and at Koti village where the plaint schedule property situate within the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court. 

 The suit coming on 07.11.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.V.S.Prasad, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri N.V.Suryanarayana Murthy, advocate for first defendant, and the 2nd defendant remained set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated upto this 9th day of November,2017 [date of decree] is the sum of Rs.3,03,104/­ for principal, the sum of Rs.2,46,394/­ for interest on the said principal, the sum of Rs.Nil for costs, charges and expenses (other than the costs of the suit properly incurred by the plaintiff in respect of the mortgaged security) and the sum of Rs.20,044/­ towards costsof the suit awarded to the plaintiff making in all the sum of Rs.5,69,542/­.

2] And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:

i] that, the defendants do pay into the Court on or before 9th day of February,2018 or any later date upto which time for payment may be extended by the Court, the said sum ofRs.5,69,542/­ with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ from the date of decree i.e. from 09.11.2017 till realization; ii] that on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the Court may fix or such amount as the Court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses, as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned, and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant or to such person as he appoints, and the plaintiff shall if so required, re­convey or retransfer the said property free from the aid mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall if so required, deliver upto the defendants quite and peaceable possession of the said property.

3] And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that in default of payment as aforesaid the plaintiff may apply to the Court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property, and on such application being made, the mortgaged property or a sufficient thereof shall be directed to be sold and for the purpose of such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the Court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

4] And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realised in such sale shall be paid into Court and shall be duly applied [after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale] in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the Court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit, and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule­10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the balance, if any shall be paid to the defendant or other person entitled to receive the same.

5 And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that if the money realised by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid, the plaintiff shall be at liberty [where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force] to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance; and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the Court from time to time as they may have occasion, and on such application or otherwise the Court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

6. Failing which the plaintiff is entitled to seek final decree for realization of the decretal amount by sale of immovable property. 

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 9th day of November,2017. Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram 

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: 

Stamp on plaint5526.00Stamp on vakalat2.00 Stamp on vakalat2.00Advocate fee(Sr)4000.00 Stamp on process125.00Advocate fee(Jr)1300.00 Advocate fee(Sr)10793.00 Advocate fee(Jr)3598.00 Costs allowed Rs.20044.00 Costs taxed Rs.5302.00

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram 

1

CALENDER

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE::AT

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:- SRI M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,

I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Tuesday, the 31st day of October, 2017.

SESSIONS CASE No.363/2015

(PRC.No.14/2012 of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Bhadrachalam in Cr.No.45/2011 of Chintoor Police Station)

Name of the complainant::Name of the accused: The State:- Represented byChichadi Muntaz, W/o.Nazeer, 42 years, The Sub-Inspector of Police,Koya, ANM, Godlagudem village of Chintoor P.S. Chinthuru Mandal, R/o.Quarter No.6- D/71, Mothugudem, Chintoor Mandal. Prosecution conducted by:Accused is defended by

Additional Public Sri. K.V.V.S.Prasad, Advocate,

Prosecutor,Rajamahendravaram. Rajamahendravaram

Offence:U/Section. 306 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of accused:Not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:Found not Guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER:: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for offence U/Section.306 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, she is acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C.

DATES OF

Offence:10.10.2011

Complaint:11.10.2011

Apprehension of accused:12.10.2011

Commencement of trial:04.05.2017

Close of Trial:07.09.2017

Sentence/Order:31.10.2017 2

Explanation for Delay:

The entire record was made over to this court by Hon'ble Prl. Sessions

Judge's Court, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram for disposal according to law on

15.12.2015. Charges were framed against the Accused. Trial of the case was commenced on 04.05.2017 and ended on 07.09.2017. The accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 22.09.2017. It is submitted that the Office of the I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge's Court, Rajamahendravaram had been kept vacant since 03.04.2016, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Rajamahendravaram was placed in Full Additional Charge of the post of I Addl. Asst., Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram and the regular Officer of this court took the charge on the F.N. of 08.05.2017. Hence, there is no unavoidable delay.

Sd/- M.Ramakrishnam Raju

I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Copies submitted to:

1.The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of Andhra Pradesh.

2.The Hon'ble District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

3.The Directorate of Prosecution, Hyderabad, DGP Complex, Hyderabad.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Rajamahendravaram Urban.

5.The Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.

6.The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bhadrachalam.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:: AT

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:- SRI M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,

I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Tuesday, the 31st day of October, 2017.

SESSIONS CASE No.363/2015

(PRC.No.14/2012 of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Bhadrachalam in Cr.No.45/2011 of Chintoor Police Station)

Between:

The State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Chintoor P.S. ... Complainant

AND

Chichadi Muntaz, W/o.Nazeer, 42 years, Koya, ANM, Godlagudem village of Chinturu Mandal, R/o.Quarter No.6-D/71, Mothugudem, Chintoor Mandal. … Accused.

This Sessions Case coming on 25.10.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri K.V.V.S.Prasad, Learned Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chintoor P.S. filed charge-sheet against the accused in crime No.45/2011 indicting her of the offence punishable U/Sec.306 of

Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows:

On 11.10.2011 at about 9:00 hours the de facto complainant Nayudu

Seshagiri Rao resident of Moddulagudem, Khammam District came to Chintoor police station and lodged a report. As per the report his son Nayudu Murali

Krishna works as JCB Operator at Chintoor for one Neelam Balreddy. The accused

Muntaz working as ANM at Mothugudem, Chintoor Mandal developed illicit intimacy with his son for the past three years and has been harassing him mentally. When the issue came to their notice they admonished both of them to 4 discontinue their relationship. In spite of that the accused continued to harass the deceased for money to purchase jewelery and constructing her house. Unable to bear her harassment on 10.10.2011 at about 12 hours he committed suicide by hanging him to the slab hook in the quarters of Forest Range Officer. The report also raised suspicion over the death of the deceased and requested to take necessary action. On receipt of the report a case in Cr.No.45/2011 under Section 306 of I.P.C. was registered and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chintoor visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses recorded their statements, took photographs of the scene of offence and the dead body of the deceased with the help of a private photographer, conducted inquest in the presence of two mediators and sent the corps to the Government Tribal Hospital, Chintoor for autopsy. On 12.10.2011 at about 12 hours the accused was arrested and during interrogation she confessed her guilt, later she was produced before the court for judicial remand.

The medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued detailed postmortem examination report opining that the death of the deceased due to asphyxia on account of hanging. The investigation established that the accused who is older in age than the deceased developed illicit intimacy with the deceased and has been harassing him mentally by demanding huge amounts.

Three months prior to the incident on one day the accused telephoned to the mother of the deceased and demanded them for money threatening that she is having sexual contacts with her son and if they do not pay the money she will file a false case against them. One week after that the accused and the deceased went to the house of the parents of the deceased at Moddulagudem wherein his parents and other elders admonished them and tried to convince the accused to leave the deceased. But the accused did not stop her illicit affair with the deceased and continued to harass him mentally. On knowing the same the parents of the deceased came to Chintoor admonished the deceased and accused and went away.

Thereafter the accused increased her harassment by demanding the deceased to provide huge amounts for constructing her house and purchasing jewelery. She threatened to file a false case against him if he failed to comply with her demands.

Unable to bare the harassment of the accused and being vexed with life the deceased committed suicide. Therefore the accused is liable for the punishment for the offence U/Sec.306 of I.P.C.

5

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam, based on the charge-sheet and other material on record, took the case on file for the offence

U/Section.306 of Indian Penal Code furnished the case copies to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and duly committed the case as

P.R.C.No.14/2012 to the Hon'ble District Court, Rajamahendravaram. The Hon'ble

Principal Sessions Judge, made over the same to this court for disposal according

to law.

4.On hearing and consideration, charges were framed U/Section.306 of Indian

Penal Code against the accused, read over and explained to her in Telugu, Mother tongue of the accused for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To substantiate its case the prosecution has examined twelve witnesses i.e.,

P.Ws 1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P10.

6.After the closure of prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances that appearing in the testimony of prosecution witnesses were explained to the accused as mandated by Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused flatly denied them and stated that she did not commit any offence.

7.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts?”

POINT:-

9.It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused developed illicit intimacy with the deceased and taking advantage of that relationship harassed the deceased mentally by demanding huge amounts of money for purchasing jewelery and construction of her house and threatened to foist a false case against him if he failed to oblige her demands and thereby forced the deceased to commit suicide. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses on its behalf. In the charge sheet the prosecution has cited fourteen witnesses but by the time of trial L.W.2 who is the mother of the 6 deceased passed away, so she could not be examined as a witness. The evidence of

L.W.14 who was the inspector of police that filed the charge sheet in this case was given up by the learned A.P.P. as he had no role in the investigation except mere filing of the charge sheet.

10.Among the witnesses that were examined by the prosecution P.W.1 is the father of the deceased as well as the de facto complainant in this case. He deposed that the deceased Murali Krishna is his son and he used to work as JCB Operator at Chintoor. The accused who used to work as A.N.M. at Chintoor seduced his son and developed an illicit affair with him. She used to harass him for money and other things. Upon coming to know about it he called both his son and the accused and warned them to discontinue their relationship as there is huge age gap between them. In spite of that the accused continued to harass his son for gold and money by threatening to give complaint against him to the police. Unable to bare her torture his son committed suicide on 10.10.2011 by hanging himself at the quarters of the Forest Range Officer.

11.P.W.s 2 to 4 are the relatives of the deceased as well as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the maternal uncle of the deceased. He deposes that the accused used to work as Nurse at Chintoor. The deceased used to operate a JCB at that place. The accused developed an affair with the deceased and both of them used to come to

Moddulagudem now and then to the house of P.W.1. Later his sister Satyavathi used to tell him that the accused has been harassing the deceased for money. He also came to know that the family members of the deceased gave money to the accused. Finally they were informed by P.W.1 that the deceased committed suicide unable to bear the torture of the accused.

12.It could be seen that the evidence of P.W.2 is totally hearsay in nature. It is clear that he has no personal knowledge about the relationship between the deceased and accused and all the information was passed on to him by the mother of the deceased. Same is the case with the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 who are also the relatives of the deceased. Their evidence is also purely hearsay in nature and they do not have any personal knowledge about the relationship between the accused and the deceased and the harassment of the deceased by the accused.

13.P.W.5 is an independent witness who is a resident of Chintoor and has 7 known the deceased as well as the accused. But he deposed that he does not know the reason why the deceased committed suicide. Since he did not support the prosecution’s case the learned A.P.P. cross examined him after obtaining permission from the court by treating him as a hostile witness. But even during the cross examination he did not divulge any information which would support the prosecution.

14.P.W.6 is the photographer who took the photographs of the scene of offence.

However the prosecution could not get the photographs taken by him marked as

Exhibits as they were not having the negative or the C.D. of the photographs.

Therefore in essence the evidence of P.W.6 is of no use to the prosecution. P.Ws 7 and 8 are said to be the witnesses for inquest panchanama. However both of them have turned hostile by stating that their signatures were obtained by police on some documents without explaining their contents. Same is the case with P.Ws 10 and 11 who are also cited as mediators in the charge sheet. They too turned hostile stating that they do not know anything about the facts of this case and the police obtained their signatures on some documents without explaining their contents.

15.The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased was examined as P.W.9. He deposed that on 11.10.2011 at about 10:00 A.M. he received a requisition from SHO, Chintoor P.S. to conduct the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased by name Nayudu Murali accordingly he conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and found the injuries that were mentioned in the postmortem report. According to him the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging.

16.P.W.12 is the investigation officer in this case. He deposed about receiving the report given by P.W.1, registering the F.I.R., visiting the scene of offence along with mediators, preparing rough sketch, taking photographs, examining the witnesses, conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and filing of the charge sheet after receiving the postmortem report. Through him the prosecution has got marked the crime details form and the inquest report dt.11.10.2011 as

Exs.P9 and P10.

17.From the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that the 8 deceased died by committing suicide. There is no dispute in this regard and it is an established fact that the deceased Nayudu Murali Krishna died by hanging himself at the quarters of the Forest Range Officer, Chintoor on 10.10.2011. The only issue that has to be decided here is whether his suicide was abetted by the accused? In this regard the deceased has not left any suicide note giving the reasons for his suicide. Therefore the reasons for his death have to be ascertained from the circumstantial evidence. In this regard except P.W.1 who is the father of the deceased the other witnesses examined by the prosecution have no personal knowledge regarding the relationship between the deceased and the accused. It is only P.W.1 who says that the deceased committed suicide unable to bare the harassment of the accused as she used to extract money from him by threatening to foist a false case taking advantage of their physical relationship. Admittedly

P.W.1 is a resident of Moddulagudem whereas the deceased and accused were residing at Chintoor. The prosecution has not produced any witness from Chintoor to show that the deceased and accused had an affair and taking advantage of that affair the accused used to harass the deceased for money. Apparently P.W.1 is the parent of the deceased and he does not like the accused having an affair with his son who is younger in age. His evidence is biased as well as interested. Based on his sole testimony no conclusions can be reached regarding why the deceased committed suicide. Moreover the evidence of P.W.3 who is no other than the brother of P.W.1 shows that there is a pattern of committing suicide in the family of the deceased. During his cross examination he admitted that the sister and mother of deceased also died by committing suicide. Though the defense attributes the cause behind their suicide is the attitude of P.W.1 there is nothing to believe the same. However this fact establishes that there is a pattern in the family of the deceased, not only him but his sister and mother also committed suicide. It appears these people have some psychological problem or that they are too sensitive.

Adding to this there is no convincing evidence except the evidence of P.W.1 to show that the accused was the real reason behind the suicide of the deceased. In a criminal trial the court cannot proceed on mere presumptions and assumptions.

There shall be some solid basis and evidence to come to any conclusion against the accused. In the present case in the hands except the tainted evidence of P.W.1 there is no other evidence pointing the accused as the reason behind the suicide of the deceased. In view of the weak circumstantial evidence placed by the prosecution, it is highly improper for the court to come to any conclusion against 9 the accused. Based on such bleak evidence it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence

U/Sec.306 of I.P.C. Therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for offence U/Section.306 of

Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, she is acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer (Gr.III), corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31st day of October, 2017.

Sd/- M.Ramakrishnam Raju

I ADDL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECTUION:

P.W.1/27.07.2017:Nayudu Seshagiri Rao.

P.W.2/27.07.2017:Gandham Ramaiah.

P.W.3/28.07.2017:Nayudu Rathaiah.

P.W.4/28.07.2017:Nayudu Bapuji.

P.W.5/28.07.2017:Madakam Appa Rao.

P.W.6/01.08.2017:Chinta Srinivasa Rao.

P.W.7/01.08.2017:Nakka Srinu.

P.W.8/01.08.2017:Dasari Venkata Surya Ramana Reddy @ Chitti Babu.

P.W.9/02.08.2017:Dr. Y.Joshna Dhavanam.

P.W.10/2.08.2017:Tallapureddy Srinivas Reddy.

P.W.11/2.08.2017:Dakarapu Sagar.

P.W.12/7.9.2017:N.Sagar.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

10

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 :Original Report.

Ex.P2 :161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P3 :Signature on Inquest report, dt.11.10.2011 of P.W.7.

Ex.P4 :Signature on Inquest report, dt.11.10.2011 of P.W.8.

Ex.P5 :P.M.Certificate.

Ex.P6 :Signature on crime details form of P.W.10.

Ex.P7 :Signature on crime details form of P.W.11.

Ex.P8 :F.I.R.

Ex.P9 :Crime Details form.

Ex.P10:Inquest report.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

Sd/- M.Ramakrishnam Raju

I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT RAJAHMUNDRY.

PRESENT: Sri M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THE 27th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.63/ 2016

Between:

State Bank of India, Korukonda Branch, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Korukonda, East Godavari District.

-- Plaintiff.

And

Sri Sairam Mahila Sakthi Sangham rep.by itsPresident and other members.

1.Gokarikonda Veera Kumari (president) 2.Singaturi Ammani (Secretary) 3.Gokarakonda Nagamani 4.Pasupuleti Subba Lakshmi 5.Mamidipalli Suryavathi 6.Inti Veera Raghava 7.Inti Subba Lakshmi 8.Mamillapalli Durga Malleswari 9.naga Chantiamma 10.Malipireddy Naga Devi -- Defendants 1 to 10.

The suit coming on 25-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri V.Koteswara Rao, advocate for the plaintiff and sole defendants 1 to 10 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit is filed for recovery of Rs.3,60,095/-along with subsequent interest and for costs.

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

The defendants formed a SELF HELP GROUP in the name and style of Sri Sairam Mahila Sakthi Sangham at Korukonda. Being the authorized representatives of the SHG they applied to the plaintiff bank for sanction of SHG loan of Rs.4,50,000/- on 21.8.2012. The said application was accepted and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the same under loan A/C No.32491714542 on 21.8.2012 and the loan documents pertaining to this SHG facility were executed all the required documents on the same day were duly executed by the all the defendants. And the defendants agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the loan and all members are jointly and severally liable for all the debts contracted by the SHG. As per the terms and conditions the SHG loan amount is repayable on demand with interest 12.85% per annum with monthly rests. Each member should pay the weekly or monthly installments directly or through the president or secretary.

3. On 21.8.2012 the defendants deposited with the plaintiff bank the arrangement letter, articles of Agreement, Inter-se-agreement and resolutions passed by self help group with an intention to create equitable mortgage against schedule property covered by their respective documents in faovur of plaintiff bank towards collateral security for their loan facility availed from them.

4. After availing the entire loan amount defendants committed default in payment of the loan amount in spite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank. The loan become a NPA. So the plaintiff bank issued a legal notice DT.17.8.2015 demanding the defendants to discharge the loan amount and the same was received by all the defendants but they did not respond.

5.The defendants are not entitled for any debt relief Act like Act 4 of 1938, Act 7 of 1977 and Act 45 of 1987 and 2/1990.

5. Inorder to substantiate its case, the plaintiff bank has examined its Manager as PW.1. In his chief examination affidavit he reiterated the same facts which were stated in the plaint. In support of his oral assertions he got marked Loan application submitted by all the defendants DT.21.8.2012 as Ex.A.1, Arrangement letter DT. 21.8.2012 as Ex.2, Articles of agreement DT.21.8.2012 as Ex.A.3, 3 Inter-Se agreement DT. 21.8.2012 as Ex.A.4, Resolution passed by Self Help Group DT.21.8.2012 as Ex.A.5, Revival letter executed by President and Secretary

Dt. 24.9.2014 as Ex.A.6, Copy of Registered legal notice Dt. 17.8.2015 as Ex,.A.7

and Cretified extract of SHG loan account bearing No. 342491714542 as Ex.A.8, respectively.

6. The above oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff shows that the defendants 1 to 10 availed a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 12.85% per annum with monthly rests. As per the terms of agreement each member should pay the weekly or monthly installments directly or through the president or secretary. After availing the loan the defendants failed to repay the debt amount. It is also clear that the plaintiff got issued a letter Dt.17.08.2015 and demanding the defendants to discharge the loan amount. The defendants 1 to 10 received the same and did not respond. As the defendants remained exparte the above evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum Rs.3,60,095/-with costs.

7. In the result, preliminary decree is passed with costs for Rs. 3,60,095/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty thousand ninety five only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit, till the date of realisation. Time for redemption is 3 months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of April, 2017 .

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT :

P.W.1 : Dwarapudi Venkata Krishna Reddy None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.: Loan application submitted by all the defendants DT.21.8.2012

Ex.A.2: Arrangement letter DT. 21.8.2012.

Ex.A.3: Articles of agreement DT.21.8.2012.

Ex.A.4: Inter-Se agreement DT. 21.8.2012

Ex.A.5:, Resolution passed by Self Help Group DT.21.8.2012

Ex.A.6: Revival letter executed by President and Secretary Dt. 24.9.2014

Ex.A.7: Copy of Registered legal notice Dt. 17.8.2015

Ex.A.8: Certified extract of SHG loan account bearing No. 342491714542 .

FOR DEFENDANT :

Nil. PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT RAJAHMUNDRY.

PRESENT: Sri M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THE 27th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.63/ 2016

Between:

State Bank of India, Korukonda Branch, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Korukonda, East Godavari District.

-- Plaintiff.

And

Sri Sairam Mahila Sakthi Sangham rep.by itsPresident and other members.

1.Gokarikonda Veera Kumari (president), W/o Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged 42 years, D.No.7-65, Korukonda, Korukonda mandal.

2.Singaturi Ammani (Secretary)W/o Dharmarao, Hindu, D.No.7-67, Korukonda, Korukonda mandal, E.G.Dt..

3.Gokarakonda Nagamani, W/o Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged 22 years, D.No.7-65, Koruonda, Korukonda mandal, E.G.dt.

4.Pasupuleti Subba Lakshmi, W/o Venkanna, Hindu, aged 32 years,Dr.No.7- 51,Korukonda, Korukonda mandal, E.G.Dt.

5.Mamidipalli Suryavathi, W/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 55 years, D.No.7-55, Korukonda, Korukonda mandal, E.G.Dt.

6.Inti Veera Raghava, S/o Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 55 years, D.No.1-211, Korukonda, Korukonda mandal, E.G.Dt.

7.Inti Subba Lakshmi, W/o Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 20 years, D.No.1-211, Korukonda, Korukonda mandal, E.G.Dt.

8.Mamillapalli Durga Malleswari,W/o Apparao, Hindu, aged 22 years, D.No.7- 55, Korukonda, Korukonda mandal, E.G.Dt.

9.Naga Chantiamma,W/o Ramarao, Hindu, aged - years, D.No.7-100, Korukonda, Korukonda mandal, E.G.Dt.

10.Malipireddy Naga Devi, W/o Durga Vara Prasad, Hindu, aged 22 years, D.No.7-67, Korukonda, Korukonda mandal, E.G.Dt.

-- Defendants 1 to 10.

Plaint presented on 16.11.2015 and filed on 03.02.2016

Suit to pass preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.3,60,095/- with subsequent interest from the date of suit till realization

b) for costs of the suit and such other reliefs;

Value of the suit

Amount due as per the statement of account inclusive interest debited upto 11.08.2015 is Rs.3,60,095/-.

Total court fee paid Rs.6,126/-is paid U/Sec.31 Sch-II, Art.1(b & c) of APCF and S.V Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 21.08.2012 before the plaintiff bank for the account for sanction of the SHG loan under SHG loan limit A/c No.32491714542 of the limit of Rs.4,50,000/- was sanctioned on 21.8.2012 and the loan documents pertaining to this SHG facility were executed all the required documents on 21.8.2012 duly executed by all the defendants and all the defendants were executed the inter-se-agreement undertaking to adhere to the terms and conditions contained therein including arrangement letter, articles of agreement, inter-se agreement resolutions passed by Self Help Group with the plaintiff bank with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the plaint schedule property towards security for the loan availed by them and on the demand of plaintiff bank defendants executed revival letter acknowledging the liability of loan account by their authorized signatures but failed to discharge the loan due and on 17.8.2015 plaintiff bank got issued a legal notice to pay entire amount and the same was received by the defendants and not responded and whre the plaintiff bank is situated and where the transactions took place at Korukonda and where the defendants are residing within the jurisdiction of this court.

The suit coming on 25-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Koteswara Rao, advocate for the plaintiff and sole defendants 1 to 10 remained exparteand the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows::

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated upto this 27th day of April, 2017 [date of decree] is the sum of Rs.3,60,095/- towards principal and a sum of Rs. 53,274/- towards interest from the date of filing of suit till date of decree is in total a sum

of Rs.4,13,389/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirteen thousand three hundred and

eighty nine only) and a sum of Rs.6078/-(Rupees Six Thousand seventy eight only) towards institutional costs the sum of Rs.Nil for costs, charges and expenses [other than the costs of the suit properly incurred by the plaintiff in respect of the mortgaged security] and the sum of Rs.Nil/- ( as no cost memo filed) towards proportionate costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff making in all the sum of

Rs.4,13,389/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirteen thousand three hundred and eighty

nine only) 2] And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:

i] that, the defendants do pay into the Court on or before 26th day of July , 2017 or any later date upto which time for payment may be extended by the Court, the said sum of Rs.4,13,389/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirteen thousand three hundred and eighty nine only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,60,095/-(Rupee three lakhs sixty thousand and ninety five only) from the date of decree i.e. from 27-04-2017 till realization; ii] that on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the Court may fix or such amount as the Court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses, as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned, and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant or to such person as he appoints, and the plaintiff shall if so required, re-convey or retransfer the said property free from the aid mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall if so required, deliver upto the defendants quite and peaceable possession of the said property.

3] And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that in default of payment as aforesaid the plaintiff may apply to the Court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property, and on such application being made, the mortgaged property or a sufficient thereof shall be directed to be sold and for the purpose of such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the Court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

4] And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realised in such sale shall be paid into Court and shall be duly applied [after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale] in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the Court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit, and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule-10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the balance, if any shall be paid to the defendant or other person entitled to receive the same.

5 And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that if the money realised by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid, the plaintiff shall be at liberty [where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force] to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance; and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the Court from time to time as they may have occasion, and on such application or otherwise the Court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

6. Failing which the plaintiff is entitled to seek final decree in accordance with procedure of law;

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this 27th day of April , 2017.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. COSTS:

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT

NO COST MEMO FILED ON EITHER SIDE

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram Institutional costs: Vakalath Rs. 2-00 Plaint Fee: Rs. 6076-00 ------------------- Rs. 6078-00 -------------------

PSCJ

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT RAJAHMUNDRY.

PRESENT: Sri M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

FRIDAY, THE 7th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.301/ 2016

Between:

Adari Sivababu, S/o Sitaramaswamy, Hindu, aged 52 years, Cultivation, D.No.55-7-37/1, Suviseshapuram, Tolat school, Rajamahendravaram . -- Plaintiff.

And

Garugu Chakradhar , S/o Raja Lingacharyulu @ Ramachari, aged 52 years, Business, D.No.61-1-68, Besides Sarangadhara temple, Rajahmundry. RJCJ.

-- Defendant.

Suit for recovery of sum of RS. 11,34,000/-

b) for costs of the suit and such other reliefs;

Value of the suit

Amount due under promissory note: Rs.9,00,000/-

Interest from 6.6.2015 to 6.7.2016 at 24% p.a. on Rs.9,00,000/- Rs.2,34,000/- ------------------------

Total: Rs.11,34,000/- -------------------------

Total court fee paid Rs.13,826/-is paid U/Sec.20, SCh-1, Art.1(b & c) of APCF and S.V Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 6.6.2015 when the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his business purpose on executing a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. On 11.6.2016 when plaintiff got issued regd. Notice through his advocate to the defendant demanding to discharge the debt due and the same was received by the defendant and acknowledged the same at Rajahmundry where suit promissory note transaction was taken place is within the jurisdiction of this court.

The suit coming on 03-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.V.Bhaskara Rao, advocate for the plaintiff and defendant being exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this Court DOTH DECREE AND ORDER as follows:

i) that the plaintiff do recover a sum of Rs. 11,34,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs thirty four thousand only) from the defendant with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% p.a. till realisation; ii) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.31,753/-(Rupees thirty one thousand seven hundred and fifty three only)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 7th day of April, 2017.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiffs: For Defendant:

Vakalat Rs. 2-00

Plaint fee Rs. 13,826-00

Process fee: Rs. 65-00 No cost memo filed.

Advocate fee: Rs. 17,860 -00

-------------------- ------------------

Costs awarded Rs.31,753-00 ---------------------------------------

Prl.Senior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram.

1

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

PRESENT:SRI M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, 

 PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Tuesday, this the 14th day of November,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.579/2011

Between:

Veerapaneni Shivaji, son of Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Business, Gandhipuram­4, Rajamahendravaram 

.. Plaintiff

And

1. Manne Dheerendranadh Chowdary, son of Sri Naidu Babu, Hindu, Aged 25 years, Business, D.No.75­10­3/2/C, Karkatta North, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

2.Manne Chilakamma, wife of Sri Naidu Babu, Hindu, Aged 44 years, House Wife, D.No.75­10­3/2/C, Karkatta North, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

.. Defendants

 The suit coming on 09.11.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Kumar, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P.Rama Raju, advocate for defendants 1 aned 2 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 to recover a sum of Rs.8,47,000/­ being the amount of

principal and interest due on the promissory note, dated 01.06.2009 said to have been

executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, for subsequent interest and costs.

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

The defendants 1 and 2 are mother and son and they both jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 01.06.2009 for the purpose of their family expenses having agreed to repay the same together with interest at 24%p.a. and executed an on demand promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, several demands were made by the plaintiff for repayment of the amount due under the suit promissory note, but the defendants did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a registered notice, dated 29.01.2011 calling upon them to repay the amount. The defendants received the said notice and gave a reply dated 05.02.2011 with false allegations. Hence, the suit.

2

3.The defendants filed written statement contending as under:

The main and material averments in the plaint are all false and the suit is not maintainable either under law or on facts. It is true that the defendants 1 and 2 are mother and son. The allegation in the plaint that both the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 01.06.2009 for the purpose of family expenses having agreed to repay the same together with interest at 24%p.a. and executed an on demand promissory note are false. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is a relative to the defendants and few years back, the plaintiff occupied the defendants property at Vijayawada as a tenant to do his coal business and that the plaintiff had very good relations with the family of the defendants. The defendants are having valuable properties in the urban area of Vijayawada, the plaintiff and his wife approached the defendants and requested them to provide their properties towards guarantee the proposed bank loans from M/s.ICICI Bank, Rajamahendravaram and from M/s.Axis Bank Ltd., Nellore for the business of the plaintiff. The allegation that after sanction of bank term loans, the plaintiff and his wife never paid the bank loan instalments properly, and that, the loans obtained by the plaintiff were became NPA.

M/s.Axis Bank Ltd., Nellore filed an application before the DEBT RECOVERY

TRIBUNAL, VIZAG for recovery of the loan amount against the plaintiff and the defendants also, and in the said circumstances, the defendants have not supported the mischievous acts of the plaintiff and his wife in evading the repaying of the bank loans, on that, the plaintiff and his wife developed enmity and bore grudge against the defendants. The allegation that the defendants never borrowed any amount nor executed any promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and they had no necessity to borrow any amounts from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such amount to the defendants. There is no cause of action for filing this suit and the alleged cause of action is false.

4.Based on the pleadings and the documents filed by the both sides the court has framed following issues for trial:

3

1) Whether the promissory note dated 01.06.2009 is true, correct and supported by consideration?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendants 1 and 2?

3) To what relief?

5.During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

6.Heard arguments submitted by counsel for plaintiff. The counsel for defendants failed to submit arguments.

7.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:

In their written statements, the defendants contended that they never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one. It was also specifically contended by them that he has no capacity to lend money to them. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the suit promissory note. In order to discharge the burden cast upon him, the plaintiff has got examined himself as P.W.1. In his chief examination affidavit, he reiterated the same facts which were stated in the plaint. According to him, the defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/­ from him on 01.06.2009 for their family expenses, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24%p.a. and evidencing the same they executed the suit promissory note on the even date in the presence of the attestors Neelapala Satish and Pasikanti Narasimha Rao as well as the scribe. Thereafter, in spite of the repeated demands made by him, the defendants did not choose to discharge the debt. Therefore, he got issued a notice on 29.01.2011 demanding the defendants to discharge the amount due under the promissory note.

The defendants received the said notice and issued reply with false allegations on 05.02.2011. Therefore, he was constrained to file the suit.

4

8.In support of his oral allegations, the plaintiff has got marked the original suit promissory note said to have been executed by the defendants as Ex.A.1. The notices exchanged by him and the defendants and their postal acknowledgments were marked as Exs.A.2 to A.5.

9.Apart from examining himself as P.W.1, the plaintiff has also got examined both the attestors of the suit promissory note as P.Ws.2 and 3. They have clearly deposed that the defendants 1 and 2 executed the suit promissory note in their presence on 01.06.2009 after borrowing a sum of Rs.5,50,000/­ from the plaintiff by agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24%p.a.

10.All these witnesses were cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendants at length. During the cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that both the defendants stood as guarantors for a term loan of Rs.80,00,000/­ availed by him from

Axis Bank, Nellore by depositing their title deeds. It was also admitted that the defendants also stood as guarantors for his firm before ICICI Bank,

Rajamahendravaram. It was also admitted that both these loans remained un­paid and the Axis Bank has initiated recovery proceedings by filing O.A.No.23/2010 before

D.R.T., Visakhapatnam and the same is pending. P.W.1 further admits that he gave a representation to Axis Bank, Nellore that he is not in a position to pay even a small amount till August,2009. The intention of the learned counsel for the defendants in eliciting this information appears to be to show that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend a sum of Rs.5,50,000/­ to the defendants. The suit transaction took place in the month of June,2009. There is no explanation from the plaintiff as to how he secured the required money to lend to the defendants when he has no money to clear his debts. It is really a fishy and doubtful circumstance, which the plaintiff has to explain.

Though, the plaintiff says that he has withdrew money from his bank account and lent it to the defendants, nothing is filed before this Court to show that he was having

Rs.5,50,000/­ in his bank account on the date of suit transaction. The circumstances 5 elicited by the learned counsel for the defendants from the cross examination of

D.W.1 clearly shows that he was not in a position to lend money to the plaintiff.

11.Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, both of them in their cross examination categorically admitted that they worked under the plaintiff. In particular P.W.3 says that he does the bank work from the plaintiff. However, he states that the plaintiff did not withdraw any money from the bank on the date of suit transaction for the purpose of lending to the defendants.

12.On the other hand, the defendants have got examined themselves as D.Ws.1 and 2. Even in their chief examination affidavits, they specifically contended that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend money to them and the signatures on the suit promissory note are forged. It could be seen from the above, that the plaintiff though examined himself as P.W.1 and the attestors as P.Ws.2 and 3 failed to discharge the initial burden cast upon him. In spite of the specific defence taken by the defendants, he failed to show that he has the financial capacity to lend money to the defendants by the date of the suit transaction. On the contrary his own evidence discloses that he was not having the financial capacity to lend money to the defendants during the relevant period. If it was not so, he would have cleared the loans availed by him from Axis Bank and ICICI

Bank in stead of lending money to the defendants. Further, the defendants filed an application and sent Ex.A.1 to the handwriting expert. Though, the expert was not examined his report, which is available in record shows that the signatures on the suit promissory note does not belong to the defendants. Therefore, taking all these aspects into account, this Court feels that the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of the suit promissory note and he is not entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 are answered.

6

14.ISSUE No.3:

In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Typed to dictation to the Steno­Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14th day of November,2017.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :

P.W.1: Veerapaneni Shivaji D.W.1: M.Dheerendranadh Chowdary P.W.2: Neelapala Satish D.W.2: Manne Chilakamma P.W.3: Pasikanti Narasimha Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1: Original promissory note executed by D.1 and D.2, dt:01.06.2009 Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice, dt:29.01.2011 Ex.A.3: Reply issued by D.1 and D.2, dt:05.02.2011 Ex.A.4: Postal acknowledgment of first defendant Ex.A.5: Postal acknowledgment of second defendant 

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B.1: Attested copy of pattadar pass book. 

PSCJ 7

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

PRESENT:SRI M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, 

 PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Tuesday, this the 14th day of November,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.579/2011

Between:

Veerapaneni Shivaji, son of Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Business, Gandhipuram­4, Rajamahendravaram 

.. Plaintiff

And

1. Manne Dheerendranadh Chowdary, son of Sri Naidu Babu, Hindu, Aged 25 years, Business, D.No.75­10­3/2/C, Karkatta North, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

2.Manne Chilakamma, wife of Sri Naidu Babu, Hindu, Aged 44 years, House Wife, D.No.75­10­3/2/C, Karkatta North, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

.. Defendants

Plaint presented on 05.09.2011 and filed on 05.09.2011 

Suit to recover Rs.8,47,000/­ being the amount of principal and interest due on promissory note, dated 01.06.2009 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,50,000/­, agreeing to repay with interest at 24%p.a. for subsequent interest and costs. 

Value of the suit:

Principal amount borrowed under the 

suit promissory note dt:01.09.2009Rs.5,50,000.00

Add: Interest thereon at 24%p.a. from 01.06.2009 to 01.09.2011Rs.2,97,000.00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Rs.8,47,000.00 =============

On this a Court fee of Rs.10,926/­ is paid under Sec.20, Sch.I, Art.1(c) of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 01.06.2009 the date of borrowing and execution of suit promissory note, and on 29.01.2011 when the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to both the defendants and on 05.02.2011 when both the defendants issued a reply with false allegations and at Rajamahendravaram where the suit transaction is situated is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

The suit coming on 09.11.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Kumar, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P.Rama Raju, advocate for defendants 1 aned 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

8

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 14st day of November,2017. 

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram 

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: 

Stamp on vakalat2.00Stamp on vakalat2.00

Stamp on process100.00Stamp on petition 2.00

Stamp on plaint10826.00Advocate fee 15500.00

Advocate fee(Sr)27110.00

Advocate fee(Jr)5000.00 Costs taxed Rs.43038.00Costs taxed Rs.15504.00

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram 

1

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

PRESENT:SRI M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, 

 PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Tuesday, this the 14th day of November,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.579/2011

Between:

Veerapaneni Shivaji, son of Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Business, Gandhipuram­4, Rajamahendravaram 

.. Plaintiff

And

1. Manne Dheerendranadh Chowdary, son of Sri Naidu Babu, Hindu, Aged 25 years, Business, D.No.75­10­3/2/C, Karkatta North, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

2.Manne Chilakamma, wife of Sri Naidu Babu, Hindu, Aged 44 years, House Wife, D.No.75­10­3/2/C, Karkatta North, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

.. Defendants

 The suit coming on 09.11.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Kumar, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P.Rama Raju, advocate for defendants 1 aned 2 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 to recover a sum of Rs.8,47,000/­ being the amount of

principal and interest due on the promissory note, dated 01.06.2009 said to have been

executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, for subsequent interest and costs.

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

The defendants 1 and 2 are mother and son and they both jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 01.06.2009 for the purpose of their family expenses having agreed to repay the same together with interest at 24%p.a. and executed an on demand promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, several demands were made by the plaintiff for repayment of the amount due under the suit promissory note, but the defendants did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a registered notice, dated 29.01.2011 calling upon them to repay the amount. The defendants received the said notice and gave a reply dated 05.02.2011 with false allegations. Hence, the suit.

2

3.The defendants filed written statement contending as under:

The main and material averments in the plaint are all false and the suit is not maintainable either under law or on facts. It is true that the defendants 1 and 2 are mother and son. The allegation in the plaint that both the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 01.06.2009 for the purpose of family expenses having agreed to repay the same together with interest at 24%p.a. and executed an on demand promissory note are false. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is a relative to the defendants and few years back, the plaintiff occupied the defendants property at Vijayawada as a tenant to do his coal business and that the plaintiff had very good relations with the family of the defendants. The defendants are having valuable properties in the urban area of Vijayawada, the plaintiff and his wife approached the defendants and requested them to provide their properties towards guarantee the proposed bank loans from M/s.ICICI Bank, Rajamahendravaram and from M/s.Axis Bank Ltd., Nellore for the business of the plaintiff. The allegation that after sanction of bank term loans, the plaintiff and his wife never paid the bank loan instalments properly, and that, the loans obtained by the plaintiff were became NPA.

M/s.Axis Bank Ltd., Nellore filed an application before the DEBT RECOVERY

TRIBUNAL, VIZAG for recovery of the loan amount against the plaintiff and the defendants also, and in the said circumstances, the defendants have not supported the mischievous acts of the plaintiff and his wife in evading the repaying of the bank loans, on that, the plaintiff and his wife developed enmity and bore grudge against the defendants. The allegation that the defendants never borrowed any amount nor executed any promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and they had no necessity to borrow any amounts from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such amount to the defendants. There is no cause of action for filing this suit and the alleged cause of action is false.

4.Based on the pleadings and the documents filed by the both sides the court has framed following issues for trial:

3

1) Whether the promissory note dated 01.06.2009 is true, correct and supported by consideration?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendants 1 and 2?

3) To what relief?

5.During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

6.Heard arguments submitted by counsel for plaintiff. The counsel for defendants failed to submit arguments.

7.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:

In their written statements, the defendants contended that they never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one. It was also specifically contended by them that he has no capacity to lend money to them. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the suit promissory note. In order to discharge the burden cast upon him, the plaintiff has got examined himself as P.W.1. In his chief examination affidavit, he reiterated the same facts which were stated in the plaint. According to him, the defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/­ from him on 01.06.2009 for their family expenses, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24%p.a. and evidencing the same they executed the suit promissory note on the even date in the presence of the attestors Neelapala Satish and Pasikanti Narasimha Rao as well as the scribe. Thereafter, in spite of the repeated demands made by him, the defendants did not choose to discharge the debt. Therefore, he got issued a notice on 29.01.2011 demanding the defendants to discharge the amount due under the promissory note.

The defendants received the said notice and issued reply with false allegations on 05.02.2011. Therefore, he was constrained to file the suit.

4

8.In support of his oral allegations, the plaintiff has got marked the original suit promissory note said to have been executed by the defendants as Ex.A.1. The notices exchanged by him and the defendants and their postal acknowledgments were marked as Exs.A.2 to A.5.

9.Apart from examining himself as P.W.1, the plaintiff has also got examined both the attestors of the suit promissory note as P.Ws.2 and 3. They have clearly deposed that the defendants 1 and 2 executed the suit promissory note in their presence on 01.06.2009 after borrowing a sum of Rs.5,50,000/­ from the plaintiff by agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24%p.a.

10.All these witnesses were cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendants at length. During the cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that both the defendants stood as guarantors for a term loan of Rs.80,00,000/­ availed by him from

Axis Bank, Nellore by depositing their title deeds. It was also admitted that the defendants also stood as guarantors for his firm before ICICI Bank,

Rajamahendravaram. It was also admitted that both these loans remained un­paid and the Axis Bank has initiated recovery proceedings by filing O.A.No.23/2010 before

D.R.T., Visakhapatnam and the same is pending. P.W.1 further admits that he gave a representation to Axis Bank, Nellore that he is not in a position to pay even a small amount till August,2009. The intention of the learned counsel for the defendants in eliciting this information appears to be to show that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend a sum of Rs.5,50,000/­ to the defendants. The suit transaction took place in the month of June,2009. There is no explanation from the plaintiff as to how he secured the required money to lend to the defendants when he has no money to clear his debts. It is really a fishy and doubtful circumstance, which the plaintiff has to explain.

Though, the plaintiff says that he has withdrew money from his bank account and lent it to the defendants, nothing is filed before this Court to show that he was having

Rs.5,50,000/­ in his bank account on the date of suit transaction. The circumstances 5 elicited by the learned counsel for the defendants from the cross examination of

D.W.1 clearly shows that he was not in a position to lend money to the plaintiff.

11.Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, both of them in their cross examination categorically admitted that they worked under the plaintiff. In particular P.W.3 says that he does the bank work from the plaintiff. However, he states that the plaintiff did not withdraw any money from the bank on the date of suit transaction for the purpose of lending to the defendants.

12.On the other hand, the defendants have got examined themselves as D.Ws.1 and 2. Even in their chief examination affidavits, they specifically contended that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend money to them and the signatures on the suit promissory note are forged. It could be seen from the above, that the plaintiff though examined himself as P.W.1 and the attestors as P.Ws.2 and 3 failed to discharge the initial burden cast upon him. In spite of the specific defence taken by the defendants, he failed to show that he has the financial capacity to lend money to the defendants by the date of the suit transaction. On the contrary his own evidence discloses that he was not having the financial capacity to lend money to the defendants during the relevant period. If it was not so, he would have cleared the loans availed by him from Axis Bank and ICICI

Bank in stead of lending money to the defendants. Further, the defendants filed an application and sent Ex.A.1 to the handwriting expert. Though, the expert was not examined his report, which is available in record shows that the signatures on the suit promissory note does not belong to the defendants. Therefore, taking all these aspects into account, this Court feels that the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of the suit promissory note and he is not entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 are answered.

6

14.ISSUE No.3:

In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Typed to dictation to the Steno­Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14th day of November,2017.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :

P.W.1: Veerapaneni Shivaji D.W.1: M.Dheerendranadh Chowdary P.W.2: Neelapala Satish D.W.2: Manne Chilakamma P.W.3: Pasikanti Narasimha Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1: Original promissory note executed by D.1 and D.2, dt:01.06.2009 Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice, dt:29.01.2011 Ex.A.3: Reply issued by D.1 and D.2, dt:05.02.2011 Ex.A.4: Postal acknowledgment of first defendant Ex.A.5: Postal acknowledgment of second defendant 

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B.1: Attested copy of pattadar pass book. 

PSCJ 7

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

PRESENT:SRI M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, 

 PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Tuesday, this the 14th day of November,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.579/2011

Between:

Veerapaneni Shivaji, son of Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Business, Gandhipuram­4, Rajamahendravaram 

.. Plaintiff

And

1. Manne Dheerendranadh Chowdary, son of Sri Naidu Babu, Hindu, Aged 25 years, Business, D.No.75­10­3/2/C, Karkatta North, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

2.Manne Chilakamma, wife of Sri Naidu Babu, Hindu, Aged 44 years, House Wife, D.No.75­10­3/2/C, Karkatta North, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

.. Defendants

Plaint presented on 05.09.2011 and filed on 05.09.2011 

Suit to recover Rs.8,47,000/­ being the amount of principal and interest due on promissory note, dated 01.06.2009 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,50,000/­, agreeing to repay with interest at 24%p.a. for subsequent interest and costs. 

Value of the suit:

Principal amount borrowed under the 

suit promissory note dt:01.09.2009Rs.5,50,000.00

Add: Interest thereon at 24%p.a. from 01.06.2009 to 01.09.2011Rs.2,97,000.00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Rs.8,47,000.00 =============

On this a Court fee of Rs.10,926/­ is paid under Sec.20, Sch.I, Art.1(c) of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 01.06.2009 the date of borrowing and execution of suit promissory note, and on 29.01.2011 when the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to both the defendants and on 05.02.2011 when both the defendants issued a reply with false allegations and at Rajamahendravaram where the suit transaction is situated is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

The suit coming on 09.11.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Kumar, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P.Rama Raju, advocate for defendants 1 aned 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

8

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 14st day of November,2017. 

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram 

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: 

Stamp on vakalat2.00Stamp on vakalat2.00

Stamp on process100.00Stamp on petition 2.00

Stamp on plaint10826.00Advocate fee 15500.00

Advocate fee(Sr)27110.00

Advocate fee(Jr)5000.00 Costs taxed Rs.43038.00Costs taxed Rs.15504.00

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram