M.s Bharathi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA

Present: Smt. M.S.Bharathi,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pattikonda

Wednesday, the 04 th day of December, 2024

O.S.No.151/2022

A.Linga Reddy, S/o. A.Venkata Reddy, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Merchant, Residing at H.No.17/148-2B, Pattikonda Post, Kurnool District.

...... Plaintiff

Versus

1. Smt.Nirmala Devi, W/o. Late K.Srinivasulu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Teacher, residing at H.No.15-50-3-1B, Pattikonda Post, Kurnool District.

2. Lekana, D/o. Late K.Srinivasulu, Hindu, aged about 23 years, Student, residing at 15-50-3-1B, Pattikonda Post, Kurnool District.

3. Thusara, D/o. Late K.Srinivasulu, Hindu, aged about 21 years, student, residing at H.No.15-50-3-1B, Pattikonda Post, Kurnool District.

4. Chakridhar, S/o.Late K.Srinivasulu, Hindu, aged about 19 years, Student residing at H.No.15-50-3-1B, Pattikonda Post, Kurnool District.

...... Defendants

This suit coming on this day i.e., on 27-11-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Y.R.Mallikarjuna, Advocate, for the plaintiff and Sri.Y.Madhu Babu, Advocate for the defendant Nos1 to 5; and the matter 2 having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01. The suit was filed by the plaintiff praying this Hon’ble Court to grant decree in his favour for recovery of suit amount of Rs.14,30,000/- with subsequent interest and costs thereon.

02. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

That on 01-3-2021, late K.Srinivasulu who is husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 4 have borrowed an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff in cash agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum by executing the suit ‘A’ promissory note in favour of plaintiff.

That again on the same day i.e., on 1-3-2021 said K.Srinivasulu borrowed another amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff in cash agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum by executing the suit ‘B’ promissory note in favour of plaintiff.

That now said K.Srinivasulu is no more and died in road accident leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs and the defendants 1 to 4 are in custody of all movable assets of Late K.Srinivasulu. It is further submitted that during the life time of K.Srinivasulu, he demanded him to repay the promissory notes debts, but the deceased Srinivasulu promising to repay the 3 promissory notes amount but he did not pay any amount to him. It is further submitted that even after the death of K.Srinivasulu, the plaintiff orally demanded the defendants, but they also promised to repay the amount, but they failed to repay the same.

In spite of oral demands made by the plaintiff to the defendants 1 to 4 and on issuance of legal notice dated 6-6-2022, they failed to repay the promissory note amount. Hence, the suit.

03. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and the same is adopted by the defendants 2 to 4 by denying the plaint averments and further submitted that late K.Srinivasulu who is the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants 2 to 4 never borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01-3-2021 and did not execute any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

He further admitted that said K.Srinivasulu is no more and died in road accident leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs and denied that during the life time of K.Srinivasulu, the plaintiff demanded him to repay the above said promissory notes. He further denied that even after the death of K.Srinivasulu, the plaintiff orally demanded him, but the defendants also promised to repay the same as soon as the entire things were set right, but they also failed to repay the same.

4

He further submitted that in fact, the defendant K.Srinivasulu and she both are the government teachers and the said K.Srinivasulu was not having any bad habits, both are having sufficient salaries to spent for the education of their children and both of them no need to borrow any amount from anybody.

He further admitted that the said K.Srinivasulu died in a road accident and after demise of K.Srinivasulu, the defendant No.1 who is wife of the deceased

K.Srinivasulu is looking after the welfare of the defendants 2 to 4 by doing job and the plaintiff well known to the deceased K.Srinivasulu and after demise of said K.Srinivasulu, the plaintiff created the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ promissory note by forging the signatures of the deceased K.Srinivasulu with a bad intention to get wrongful gain with the help of his henchmen. He further submitted that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and hence, he prayed this

Hon’ble Court to dismiss the suit.

04. Based on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial?

1. Whether the two suit promissory notes dated 1-3-2021 for Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plantiff is entitled to the relief against the estate of

deceased by name K.Srinivasulu from L.Rs.D1 to D4?

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

4. To what relief?

5

05. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff PW1 and 2 are examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. On behalf of defendant, Dw1 was examined and no documents are marked.

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

06. To prove the same plaintiff himself examined as PW1 he filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and stating that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- from him on 1-3-2021 in cash for his family necessities and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed a demand ‘A’ and ‘B’ promissory notes under Exs.A1 and A2 in favour of him on the same day in the presence of one B.Nagaraju and

E.Venkatesulu. He further stated that the suit promissory notes scribed by the said K.Srinivasulu and said K.Srinivasulu received the amount and executed promissory notes in his favour and the said K.Srinivasulu was a government teacher and borrowed the amounts from him.

He further stated that said K.Srinivasulu is no more and died leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs and during the life time of

K.Srinivasulu, he demanded him to repay the above promissory notes debts but he goes on promising to repay the same. He further stated that even after the death of K.Srinivasulu, he orally demanded the defendants to repay the 6 amount, but they also promised to repay the same as soon as the entire thing were set right, but they also failed to repay the same.

He further stated that even he got a legal notice dated 6-6-2022 and filed with acknowledgments filed under Ex.A4 to A7.

07. To prove the same he examined PW2 he filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he also deposed the same lines of PW1 and he stated that at the time of execution of promissory notes, himself and one

E.Venkateswarlu attested the said promissory notes and the said

K.Srinivasulu himself scribed the said two promissory notes i.e., Exs.A1 and

A2 and said K.Srinivaslu received amount and executed two promissory notes in their presence.

08. Hence, plaintiff proved by examining P.W.2 by marking Exs.A1 and A2 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- and executed pronotes in favour of him and nothing was elicited during cross examination of Pws.1 and P.W.2 except denials.

09. Now, the burden shifts on the defendant to prove that deceased

Srinivasulu did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff nor executed any promissory note in favour of him. To prove the same, he examined D.1. She filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination stating that he reiterated the facts of written statement and during cross examination he stated that “It is 7 false to state that on 01-3-2021 late K.Srinivasulu, S/o.K.Sasaiah who is her husband and father of the defenants 2 to 4 was borrowed an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and ‘A’ promissory note in favuor of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and it is false to state that again on the same day i.e., on 1-3-2021 said deceased K.Srinivasulu was borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff in cash, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed ‘B’ promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. He admitted that deceased K.Srinivasulu is was a Government Teacher. It is true that K.Srinivasulu is no more and died in road accident and she and defendants 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased K.Srinivasulu and they never promised to repay the promissory notes amounts to the plaintiff. In fact, she and deceased K.Srinivasulu are the Government Employees and they are working as Teachers and said said K.Srinivasulu was not having any bad habits. It is true that the said K.Srinivasulu was died in a road accident. After demise of said K.Srinivasulu, the plaintiff created the suit promissory notes ‘A’ and ‘B and forged the signatures of the deceased K.Srinivasulu with a bad intention to get wrongful gain with the help of his henchmen”.

10. When the signature contains is rank of forgery, what prevented her to send the same to Expert, but not send as such, an adverse inference can be drawn against her and during cross examination of D.W.1, he stated that, “It is 8 true I am residing in D.No.15-50-3-1B and the signature contain in acknowledgment dated 8-6-2022 belongs to her. I do not know whether I issued reply notice or not. It is true herself and deceased husband Srinivasulu purchased a plot on 1-8-2007 under registered document and also constructed a house in that plot jointly. It is true there are three cases are pending against her and her children and the same are pending before this

Court. It is admitted by the defendant No.1 that the signature in the relinquishment deed belongs to her husband and her husband got marked the signature as Ex.A4. received the notice from the plaintiff and I did not gave any reply to him and I did not gave any Police complaint against the plaintiff.”

When he received the notice from the plaintiff, why she did not gave any reply notice to him and not gave any police complaint against the plaintiff. So, whatever stated by the defendant is not believable. In view of the above foregoing discussion, this court viewed that plaintiff proved the case against the defendant as such he is entitled for the relief. Issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.4:

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant Nos.1 to 4 to pay an amount of Rs.14,30,000/- together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree 9 to till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and

Rs.5,00,000/- respectively which is lying in the hands of D1 to D4 from estate of deceased K.Srinivasulu.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 04 th day of December, 2024.

Sd/-(Smt.M.S.Bharathi)

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Pattikonda.

Appendix of Evidence

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: A.Linga Reddy D.W.1: K.Nirmala PW2:B.Nagaraju

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Original ‘A’ Promissory note dated 1-3-2021 in the name of Plaintiff for Rs.6,00,000/- executed by the defendant.

Ex.A2: Original ‘B’ Promissory note dated 1-3-2021 in the name of Plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant.

Ex.A3: Office copy of the legal notice dated 6-6-2022.

Ex.A4: Served postal acknowledgment.

For Defendant: Nil.

Sd/-(Smt.M.S.Bharathi)

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Pattikonda.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ALUR

C.C.NO.20/2024

1 Date of offence07-11-2023 2 Date of complaint08-11-2023 3 Date of apprehension of accused41(A) Cr.P.C. notice 4 Date of release on bail of accused- 5 Date of commencement of trial03-07-2024 6 Date of close of trial03-07-2024 7 Date of Judgment 03-07-2024

ComplainantSub-Inspector of Police, Aspari PS in Cr.No.149/2023 of Aspari PS AccusedMalli Batti Raghavendra, aged 26 years, S/o M.Murali Mohan, r/o Mantralayam village and mandal, Kurnool District, Driver of Toyota Innova Car bearing No.AP21 TW 8889. OffenceCausing death by negligence, Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.

Section of Law U/Sec.337, 304-A of IPC FindingAccused is found not guilty Sentence or As a result, the accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable order under sections 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Pattikonda

FAC Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Alur

Sd/- M.S.Bharathi

Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Pattikonda

FAC Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Alur

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-cum- Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ALUR

Present:-Smt.M.S.Bharathi,

Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Pattikonda

FAC Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Alur

Wednesday, the 3rd day of July, 2024

C.C.No.20/2024

The State repd. by Sub Inspector of Police,

Aspari P.S. .....Complainant

AND Malli Batti Raghavendra, aged 26 years, S/o M.Murali Mohan, r/o Mantralayam village and mandal, Kurnool District, Driver of Toyota Innova Car bearing

No.AP21 TW 8889. ...... Accused

This case is coming on 03-07-2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri B.Lakshmi Kanth, Sri C.Praveen Kumar, Advocates for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Aspari Police Station laid Charge Sheet in Cr.No.149/2023 for the offence punishable U/Sec.337, 304-A of IPC.

2.The case of the police, in brief is as follows:

On 07-11-2023 L.W.1/Yedri Nagaraju along with his son Edri Yuvaraju and deceased Bata Linganna of the same village went to Adoni market in an auto to sell the yielding of groundnuts grown in their land. After completion of work they returned in the evening along with L.W.8/Manukinda Raju and some others catched the Ape auto bearing No.AP39 TX 8818 belongs to L.W.7/Agraharam

Veeresh. While driving the auto on Adoni-Pattikonda main road after crossing

Chigili cross road at about 06-00 hours the accused being driver of Toyota Innova car bearing No.AP21 TW 8889 from Aspari drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed when going extreme left side of the road their auto got flipped. Resulting which, the deceased sustained bleeding injury over right hand, pressure injury over left chest, scratched blood injury over the left arm and received pressure dumb injuries over the body and died on the spot. L.W.1 received swelling injuries over forehead, left shoulder and blood injuries over right leg and L.W.7 received bleeding injuries over the right side cheek, right eye and scratched blood injury over right and left hand, L.W.8 also received swelling injuries over forehead and right leg and front portion of the auto got damaged completely.

Based on the complaint of L.W.1, L.W.17/ Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.149/2023 U/Sec.337, 304-A of IPC, against the accused and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, accused was charged for the offence U/Sec.304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code.

3.Case is taken on file against the accused for the offence under Section 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

4.On the appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C., for the accusation levelled against him, read over, and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, L.Ws.1, 2, 7 to 11 were examined as

P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.Ws.3 to 6 and L.Ws.12 to 17.

6.As there was no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor mark any documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

“Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.337, 304-A of IPC ”?

9.P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that7-11-2023 he along with deceased and his son Yuvaraju left the house in the morning in an auto to go to Adoni market to sell the yielding of groundnut crop. After completion of work at Adoni, while they were returning back in the evening in an auto belongs to L.W.7 and

L.W.8 also got up into the auto and while crossing Chigili cross and reached

Jammi chettu at about 6-00 PM one vehicle dashed against auto. Due to that the auto turned turtle, as a result, deceased died on the spot, and he sustained injuries on forehead and other parts and L.W.7 also received bleeding injuries on the right side cheek, scratched blood injuries over the right and left hand and his son did not sustain any injuries. L.W.8 sustained swelling injuries. Later they called 108 ambulance and shifted the deceased to the Govt. Hospital, Adoni, there doctor declared deceased died and they went to the hospital and taken treatment. On the next day, he went to police station and gave Ex.P.1 complaint and that he do not know the contents of complaint and he do not know how accident took place and whose negligence the accident was occurred and police did not examine him.

As he resiled from his earlier statement, learned APP got marked his 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P.2 and his signature on report as Ex.P.1.

10.P.W.2 deposed that on 7-11-2023 the deceased, she along with P.W.1 and his son Yuvaraju left the house in the morning in an auto to go to Adoni market to sell the yielding of groundnut crop. After completion of work, while they were returning back in the evening in an auto, while crossing Chigili cross and reached Jammi chettu at about 6-00 PM one vehicle dashed against auto, due to that the auto turned turtle and the deceased died on the spot and other persons also sustained injuries. She came to know about the fact through P.W.1, except this she do not know anything about the case and police did not examine him.

As she resiled from her earlier statement, learned APP got marked her 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P.3.

11.P.W.3 deposed that on 7-11-2023 the deceased along with P.W.1 and another person got up into his auto, while crossing Chigili cross and reached

Jammi chettu at about 6-00 PM one vehicle dashed against auto, due to that the auto turned turtle and the deceased died on the spot and he sustained scratched blood injuries over the right and left hand and that he do not know how the accident took place and whose negligence accident occurred and police did not examine him.

As he resiled from his earlier statement, learned APP got marked their 161

Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P.4.

12.P.W.4 deposed that on 7-11-2023 he got up into the auto at Adoni, at that time 3 to 4 persons also present in the auto, while crossing Chigili cross and reached Jammi chettu at about 6-00 PM one vehicle dashed against auto, due to that the auto turned turtle and the deceased died on the spot and he sustained swelling injuries and that he do not know how the accident took place and whose negligence accident occurred and police did not examine him.

As he resiled from his earlier statement, learned APP got marked their 161

Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P.5.

13. P.Ws.5 and 6 deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they are not the eye witnesses of the accident and they have not examined by police.

As they resiled from their earlier statements, learned APP got marked their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P.6 and P.7.

14.P.W.7 deposed that on 7-11-2023 while he was present in his village,

Aspari police came there and obtained his signature on a written paper and he do not know the contents on it. Ex.P.8 is his signature on inquest panchanama and he signed on it.

As the material witnesses turned hostile, learned APP given up the evidence of L.Ws.3 to 6 and L.Ws.12 to 17.

15.Considering the entire evidence available on record, Prosecution by virtue of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 could establish that the cause of death of deceased is due to accident. However, in order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution should establish that the cause of accident is due to rash and negligent act of accused and that accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of commission of offence. Hence, this court viewed that prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused present, as such he is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

16.In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable under section 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 3 rd day of July, 2024.

Sd/- M.S.Bharathi

Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Pattikonda

FAC Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Alur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: Y.NagarajuNone P.W.2: B.Sujathamma P.W.3: Veeresh P.W.4: Manukinda Raju P.W.5: Boya Rangaswamy P.W.6: Sathyanna P.W.7: Sreenivasulu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on report Nil Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.8: Signature of P.W.7 on inquest panchanama

M.Os MARKED

-Nil- // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Pattikonda

FAC Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Alur

Sd/- M.S.Bharathi

Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Pattikonda

FAC Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Alur

1

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

PATTIKONDA

Present: Smt M.S. Bharathi,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Pattikonda.

Wednesday, the 4 th day of December, 2024

O.S. No. 222 OF 2018

Kenchugundu Ramalingamma

W/o Siddappa, Hindu, aged about 45 years,

H.No. 2/13, Peddamarriveedu village,

Gonegandla mandal, Kurnool District. …Plaintiff -Versus-

Vadla Narasimhulu, S/o Vadla Eranna,

Hindu, aged about 43 years, H.No. 1/218,

B.C. Colony, H.Khairawadi village,

Gonegandla mandal, Kurnool District. …

Defendant

This suit is coming up before me on 23rd day of December, 2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.D. Mallikarjuna Advocate for plaintiff and Sri A. Myramudu Advocate for defendant and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,20,200/- being the principal and interest due under pronote dt.4-11-2015 for Rs.70,000/- and for costs.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:- 2

The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.70,000/- from him on 4-11-2015 in cash for his family expenses and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and exe- cuted a demand promissory note in favour of him on the same day.

He further stated that in spite of oral demands made by him, but defendant failed to repay the amount and issued legal notice dt.

24-3-2018 along with postal receipt but he did not turn up. Hence, the suit.

3. Defendant filed written statement and denied the allegations contain the plaint and stated that he never borrowed a sum of Rs.

70,000/- from the plaintiff on 4-11-2015 and nor executed any pronote due to ill feelings between him and plaintiff, he created pronote with the help of scribe and attestor and filed the suit for wrongful gain and no consideration was passed under the pronote.

There is a old transaction between him and plaintiff with regarding to the house of his daughter, during the said transaction plaintiff ob- tained the signature before the year 2015 not on the alleged date

I.e,. 4-11-2015. The year portion on the pronote clearly appeared as materially altered by the plaintiff and also the suit is barred by limitation and plaintiff created fabricated and material altered the pronote for getting wrongful gain. Hence,the suit is dismissed with costs.

3

4. Basing on pleading on document, this court framed the following issues for trial.

Issues:

1. Whether the suit pronote was executed prior to 2015 as the alleged by the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed for?

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff PW1 to 3 are examined and got marked Ex.A1 and A2. On behalf of defendant

DW1 was examined and no document was marked.

6. Heard arguments both sides, beside oral arguments, plaintiff counsel also filed written arguments.

7.At the time of arguments though the counsel for defendant stated in written statement that Ex.A1 year column is materially altered one but my predecessor did not framed the issue. Hence, this

Court framed the additional issues.

ADDITIONAL ISSUE:

4.Whether the suit pronote is materially altered one as pleaded by the defendant?

4

5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation or not?

Issues NO. 1, 2 and Additional issues 4 and 5 :-

8.To prove the same plaintiff himself examined as PW1 he filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and stating that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from him on 4-11-2015 in cash for his family expenses and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed a demand promissory note under

Ex.A1 in favour of him on the same day. He further stated that in spite of oral demands made by him, but defendant failed to repay the amount and issued legal notice dt.24-3-2018 along with postal receipt under ExA2 but he did not turn up.

9.To prove the same he examined PW2 who is the scribe he filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he also deposed the same lines of PW1 and he stated that promissory note was scribed by him at the instance of plaintiff and defendant and in the presence of attestors by name Nazeer and V.C. Narsanna. There is over writing in the 2nd line with regarding to the year 2015 at the time of writing in the suit pronote . Defendant duly signed in the presence of attestors in the promissory note after receiving the amount form the plaintiff.

10.To prove the same he examined as PW3 who is the attestor he filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he also deposed the same lines of PW2.

5 11.Hence, plaintiff proved by marking Ex.A1 and by examining

Pws. 2 and 3 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.

70,000/- and executed promissory note in favour of him. Nothing was elicited during cross examination of PW1 to PW3 except denials.

12.Now the burden shift on the defendant to prove he did not borrowed any amount nor executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. To prove the same defendant himself examined as

DW1 he filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination he stated that he never borrowed a sum of Rs. 70,000/- from the plaintiff on 4-11-2015 and nor executed any pronote due to ill feelings between him and plaintiff, he created pronote with the help of scribe and at- testor and filed the suit for wrongful gain and no consideration was passed under the pronote. There is a old transaction between him and plaintiff with regarding to the house of his daughter, during the said transaction plaintiff obtained the signature before the year 2015 not on the alleged date I.e,. 4-11-2015. The year portion on the pronote clearly appeared as materially altered by the plaintiff and also the suit is barred by limitation and plaintiff created fabricated and materially altered the pronote for getting wrongful gain.

13.But the counsel for defendant stated that PW2 and 3 who are the scribe and attestor stated that there is a over writing in the 2nd line with regarding to the year 2015 is there at the time of writing 6 pronote in the presence of plaintiff and defendant and also with attestors. But, the plaintiff did not stated about the over writing nei- ther in plaint nor in chief affidavit. On perusing the plaint and chief affidavit plaintiff did not stated about the over writing in the year in

Ex.A1. Where in cross examination of PW2 he stated that it is true there is correction in the year column 2015 in Ex.A1. It is true there is differences in ink between contents column and in scribe column of month, date and year. Where in cross examination of PW3 he stated that it is true 2014 is altered as 2015 in Ex.A1 by scribe. On perus- ing of Ex.A1 year column is materially altered as 2015. So PW2 and PW3 also admitted about the said fact in their cross examination and year column in Ex.A1 is materially altered as 2015. But the suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 2018 as such the suit is also barred by limitation. Hence, defendant proved that Ex.A1 is materially altered one and barred by limitation . Hence this issue were an- swered against the plaintiff and infavour of the defendant.

I ssue No. 3:-

In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed by the Typist on my dictation directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 th day of December, 2024 .

Sd/-(Smt.M.S.Bharathi)

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Pattikonda.

7

Appendix of evidence.

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff :- For Defendant :-

PW.1: K. RamalingammaDW1: Vadla Narasimhulu

PW2: C.P. Linganna

PW3: V.C. Narsanna

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF.

Ex.A1: Original pronote dt:4-11-2015 for an amount of Rs. 70,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of me.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt. 24-3-2018 along with postal re- ceipt issued by to to the defendant.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT.

-NIL-

Sd/-(Smt.M.S.Bharathi)

CJ(JD) Pattikonda.

8

1

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

PATTIKONDA

Present: Smt M.S. Bharathi,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Pattikonda.

Wednesday, the 4 th day of December, 2024

O.S. No. 127 OF 2021

K. Peddi Reddy, S/o Kuruva Devireddy,

Aged about 55 years, Hindu, agriculturist,

Resident of Kulumala village of Gonegandla mandal,

Kurnool District. …Plaintiff -Versus-

Chakali Hanumanthu, S/o Chakali Santenna,

Aged about 49 years, Hindu, Agriculturist and

Business, Resident of Kulumala village,

Gonegandla mandal, Kurnool District. …Defendant

This suit is coming up before me on 27th day of November,2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A.Sekhar and Smt G. Saraswathi Advocates for plaintiff and Sri P. Harinatha Reddy, Advocate for defendant and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking for recovery of an amount of Rs.70,993/- being the principal and interest due under two pronotes dt. 4-3-2018 and 29-8-2019 for Rs.33,000/- and Rs.

20,000/- and for costs.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed a sum of 2

Rs.33,000/- on 4-3-2018 in cash for his family necessities and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed ‘A’ promissory note. Again on 29-8-2019 defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs. Rs.20,000/- on 29-8-2019 in cash for his family necessities and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed ‘B’ promissory note. In spite of oral demands made by him defendant paid an amount of Rs. 17,160/- towards interest on A’ ‘ pronote and same was endorsed no the back side of ‘A’ pronote. Inspite of oral demands made by him to the defendant to repay the pronote of ‘A’ and ‘B’ he did not turn up and got issued legal notice to the de- fendant on 8-3-2021, but he did not turn up. Hence, the suit.

3. Defendant filed written statement and denied the allegations contain the plaint and stated that he never borrowed a sum of Rs.

33,000/- on 4-3-2018 nor executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff nor paid any interest amount of Rs. 17,160/- under ‘A’ pronote and also denied that he never borrowed an amount of Rs.

20,000/- on 29-8-2019 nor executed ‘B’ promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and there is no cause of action and he is agriculturist labour and prays to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on pleading on document, this court framed the following issues for trial.

Issues:

3

1. Whether two suit promissory notes dt.4-3-2018 and 29-8- 2019 are true valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether part endorsement dt. 4-5-2020 on the promissory

note dt. 4-8-2018 is true valid and binding on the defendant.

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed for?

4. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff PW1 alone examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 marked. On behalf of defendant no one was examined and no document was marked.

6. Heard.

Issues NO. 1 and 2 :-

7.To prove the same plaintiff himself examined as PW1 he filed chief affidavit in view of chief examination and stating that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.33,000/- on 4-3-2018 in cash for his family necessities and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed ‘A’ promissory note. Again on 29-8-2019 defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. Rs.20,000/- on 29-8-2019 in cash for his family necessities and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed ‘B’ promissory note. In spite of oral de- mands made by the plaintiff, defendant paid an amount of Rs.

4 17,160/- under Ex.A3 towards interest on ‘A’ pronote and same was endorsed no the back side of ‘A’ pronote. Inspite of oral de- mands made by the plaintiff to the defendant to repay the pronote of ‘A’ and ‘B’ he did not turn up and got issued legal notice to the de- fendant on 8-3-2021 under Ex.A4 , but he did not turn up .

8. Hence plaintiff proved by marking Exs.A1 and A2 that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 33,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- in different date under two promissory notes and executed the same in favour of him, as there is no representation on behalf of defendant, this court treated cross examination ‘nil’.

9. On behalf of defendant, no one was examined and no document was marked. Inspite of conditional order, defendant did not choose to lead the evidence as such this court closed the evidence of defendant. On perusing the written statement filed by the defendant except denying the amount he did not taken any other plea as such what ever stated by the defendant in his written state- ment is not at all believable. Hence, plaintiff proved that defendant borrowed the amount of Rs. 33,000/- and Rs.20,000/- under two promissory notes and executed promissory note in favour of him as such, he is entitled for relief. Hence these issues were answered, as such accordingly. .

5

I ssue No. 3:-

In the result, suit is decreed with cost and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.70,993/- from the defen- dant with future interest on principal amount of Rs.33,000/- and Rs.

20,000/- at 12 % p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6 % p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realiza- tion.

Typed by the Typist on my dictation directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 th day of December, 2024 .

Sd/-(Smt.M.S.Bharathi)

C ivil Judge(Junior Division),

Pattikonda.

Appendix of evidence.

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff :- For Defendant :-

PW.1: K. Peddi Reddy --

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF.

Ex.A1: Original ‘A’ pronote dt. 4-3-2018 for an amount of Rs. 33,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of me. Ex.A2: Original ‘B’ pronote dt. 29-8-2019 for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of me. Ex.A3: Part payment endorsement dt. 4-5-2020 for Rs. 17,160/- un- der Ex.A1. Ex.a4: office copy of legal notice dt. 8-3-2021 along with postal re- ceipt issued by me to the defendant.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT.

-NIL- 6

Sd/-(Smt.M.S.Bharathi)

CJ(JD)

Pattikonda.

1

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

PATTIKONDA

Present: Smt M.S. Bharathi,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Pattikonda.

Wednesday, the 4 th day of December, 2024

O.S. No. 196 OF 2021

D. Lakshmi Narayana S/o D. Narayanappa,

Aged about 65 years, Hindu, Retired employee,

Residing in H.no. 16/2, Patha peta, Pattikonda village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

…Plaintiff -Versus-

Dasari Suryanarayana, S/o Dasari Anjinaiah,

Aged about 46 years, Hindu, agriculturist and

Business, Resident of Chennampalli village of

Tuggali mandal, Kurnool District.

…Defendant

This suit is coming up before me on 8th day of November, 2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. B.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri V.Eranna, Advocate for defendant and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,47,500/- being the principal and interest due under pronote dt. 24-12-2018 for Rs.1,50,000/- and for costs.

2

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- from him on 24-12-2018 in cash for his family neces- sities and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed a demand promissory note in the presence of attestor by name B. Jaya Ramudu and scribe by name Nettekantaih. In spite of oral demands made by the plaintiff. Later defendant failed to repay the amount and not turn up. Hence, the suit.

3. Defendant filed written statement and denied the allegations contain the plaint and stated that he never borrowed a sum of Rs.

1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 24-12-2018 and nor executed any pronote in favour of him. The signature contain in pronote is forged one and created for wrongful gain. No demand notice given by the plaintiff to him only to harass him both physically and mentally he filed the suit.

4. Basing on pleading on document, this court framed the following issues for trial.

Issues:

1. Whether the suit pronote dt. 24-12-2018 is true valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed for?

3

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff PW1 and PW2 examined and got marked Ex.A1. On behalf of defendant DW1 was examined and no document was marked.

6. Heard .

Issues NO. 1 and 2 :-

7.To prove the same plaintiff himself examined as PW1 he filed chief affidavit in view of chief examination and stating that defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him on 24-12-2018 in cash for his family necessities and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed a pronote in favour of the him. He fur- ther stated that in spite of oral demands made by the him he did not paid the amount,

8.To prove the same plaintiff examined as PW2 who is the scribe he filed the chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he also deposed the same lines of PW1 and stated that the defendant signed the signature in promissory note after receiving cash consideration at the time of execution of pronote he plaintiff and defendant and one attestor were present.

9. So plaintiff proved by marking Ex.A1 and by examining PW2 that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from him and 4 executed pronote in favour of him and nothing was elicited during cross examination of Pws.1 and PW2 except denials.

10. Now the burden shift on the defendant to prove he did not borrowed the amount nor executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff . To prove the same defendant himself examined as DW1 he filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and stated thathe never borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 24-12-2018 and nor executed any pronote in favour of him. The signature contain in pronote is forged one and created for wrongful gain. No demand notice given by the plaintiff to him only to harass him both physically and mentally he filed the suit . When signature contains in Ex.A1 is rank of forgery, what prevented by the defendant to send Ex.A1 for expert opinion but not send and during cross examination himself admitted that I did not send Ex.A1 for expert opinion. As the defendant did not send Ex.A1 for expert opinion as such an adverse inferance can be drawn against him.

Though the defendant not send Ex.A1 for expert but as per Sec. 73 of Indian Evidence Act the Court can compare the signature. On perusing Ex.A1 the signature contain in it and the signature contain in written statement and chief affidavit of DW1, Vakalat are one and the same. Hence this Court viewed that, plaintiff proved the defendant borrowed the amount from him as such he is entitled for relief. Hence, this issues were answered, accordingly.

5

I ssue No. 3:-

In the result, suit is decreed with cost and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.2,47,500/-/- from the de- fendant with future interest on principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- at 12 % p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6 % p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed by the Typist on my dictation directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 th day of December, 2024 .

Sd/-(Smt.M.S.Bharathi)

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Pattikonda.

Appendix of evidence.

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff :- For Defendant :-

PW.1: D. Lakshminarayana

PW2: B.Nettekantaiah DW1: D.Suryanarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF.

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dt: 24-12-2028 executed by the de- fendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 1,50,000/-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT.

-NIL-

Sd/-(Smt.M.S.Bharathi)

CJ(JD)

Pattikonda.

6