Smt. M.Satya Kumari

O.S.No.135 of 2018

JC) Court, Gajapathinagaram COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GAJAPATHINAGARAM

N THE C

PRESENT:SMT.M.SATYA KUMARI

Junior Civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram

Monday, the 21Stday of December, 2020

O.S.No.135 of 2018

yeen: G9vindha, Slo late Appala Swamy, Hindu, Agirculturist, Maradam Village, jeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District

ar5, ....Plaintiff

Sateesh, S/o Janakiram, ars, Hiindu, Employee in Education Department, Siksha Abhayan, District Collector's office premises,

...Defendant

ragaram This suit is coming on 17/12/2020 before me for final hearing in the nce of Sri K.Ramanaji, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri U.Ramesh, ate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over for eration till this day, this court delivered the following:

UD'GIMEN T

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- with

eient interest at 24% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of

ton and for costs of thesuit.

The brief averments of the plaint are that:

n 09.10.2016, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/

plaintiff for domestic expenses in the presence of Sadi Bangari

nd Pothala Arjuna and agreed to repay the same with interest at the

24% per annum to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and

demand promissory note. After receiving consideration in spite of

a

dernandS

made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the

amount and interest and used to postpone the same. On that, the

issueda legal notice to the defendant on 23.10.2018 calling him

Yne amount

due under the

promissory note, and the defendant

M. St

(98

2 0S.No.l135 of 201

|CI Court, Gajapathinagarar

received the same but did not give any reply nor paid any amount. Hence this suit.

After receipt of summons, the defendant appeared before this court and 3 filed his written statement denying all the material averments of the plaint and contended that actually he borrowed an amount of Rs.30,( .000/- from the plaintiff on 10.06.2016 in the presence of K.V.Bala Krishna Rao, jr.Assistant in

Zilla Parishad Ofice, Vizianagaram, and the said Bala Krishna Rao also siicgned as an attester, and the defendant paid an amount of Rs.33,000/- towards

principal and Rs.l,200/- towards interest per month, and accordingly, he na

4 months, and he paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards principal and

Rs.4,800/- towards interest, and he has to pay Rs.18,000/- to the plaintif towards principal, and the defendant never borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.10.2016 and the attestor and scribe of the suit promissory note are the followers of the plaintiff and the suit promisSory note was fabricated with their assistance. He further submitted that he affixed his signature on the earlier promissory note dated 10.06.2016 on the revenue labels only, taking advantage of that, the plaintiff by removing the same from the earlier promissory note and afixed the same on

another blank printed promissory note and brought the present sut

promissory note into existence with the help of the attestor and scribe Wno are henchman of the plaintiff. In the earlier promissory note, K.V.Bala Krisnna

Rao signed as an attestor and he know all the facts about the execution of

the earlier promissory note for Rs.30.000/-only and the defendant is ready pay the balance of Rs.18,000/- together with subsequent interest and co and the defendant never received any cash consideration towards the suit promissory note. After receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff, the defendant raised dispute before elders, namely K.V.Bala Krishna Rao. Then the plaintiff agreed that he would not file any suit for Rs.2,00,000/- and by believing the words, the defendant did not issue any reply to the said legal notice, and the.

M. S

0.S.No.135 of 2018 JC) Court, Gajapathinagaram

fabricated one and the plaintiff never paid

promssory note is a D0,000/-to the defendant on 09.10. .2016, so the plaintiff has no right to the defendant. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit with ne suit agalnst

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been

ad for trial:

Whether the suit promissory note which was executed by the

defendant is supported by consideration and binding on the

defendant?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as praved

for?

3. To what relief?

o hehalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and

amined one Sadi Bangaru Reddy, the attestor of the suit promissory

% PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 original Promissory Note dated

2016 for Rs.2,00,000/-, Ex.A2 Office copy of the legal notice dated

018 and Ex.A3 Relevant Postal Acknowledgement dated 31.10.2018

behalf. On behalf of the defendant, he himself is examined as DW1,

OoCcuments were marked on his behalf.

rd both sides, Perused the material available on record.

SUE Nos, 1 and 2:

MOve due execution of promissory note by the defendant in favour

plaintiff himself Is examined as PW1 and he stated that on

6, the defendant borrowed an amount

domestiC

of Rs.2,00,000/- from the

expenses in the presence of Sadi Bangari Reddy and

agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24%

tsthe

plaintiff or to his order on demand and executed a demand

After recelving

consideration in spite of repeated demands

(99

05.No135 2016

4

|C Court, Gajapathiargararn

made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the principal arnourt and

interest and used to postpone the same. On that, the plaintiff got issued

legal notice to the defendant on 23.10.2018 calling hin to repay the arnount

due under the promissory note, and the defendant received the same but dis not give any reply nor paid any amount. Hence, he filed the presert sut, praying to decree the suit.

PW.2, who is the attestor of Ex.A.1, deposed that the defendart borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from PW.1 on 09/10/2016 for domestic expenses purpose, executed promissory note in favour of pw1 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. He further deposed that he attested the suit promissory note and one P.Arjuna scribed

Ex.Al promissory note and in his presence, the suit promissory note was

executed by defendant by receiving the consideration under Ex.A1.

8 On the other hand, defendant filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. As seen from the chief affidavit, the defendant is an Education

Department employee, working in Sarvasikshya Abhayan Project, and he deposed that, on 10.06.2016, in the presence of one K.V.Bala Krishna Rao, he borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff and in that connection, he executed a promissory note and the said K.V.Bala Krishna Rao acted as an attestor for that, and he paid an amount of Rs.4,200/- per month, le.

Rs.3,000/- towards principal and Rs.1.200/- towards interest for about Tour months, and in total he has paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards principal amount out of his Rs.30,000/- taken from the plaintiff, and he is ready an willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 18,000/-, but he never ree any amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff at any point of time, a receipt of registered lawyer notice, he raiseda dispute in the preseiie K.V.Bala Krishna Rao, who is working as a Junior Assistant in Zilla Parishad,

VIzianagaram, and also acted as Attestor for the transaction beWe 0.S.No.135 of 2018 JCJ Court, Gajapathinagaram wherein, the plaintiff agreed not to file any suit and defendant. by believing the words of the plaintiff, he did not give any deposed that the alleged promissory note is a fabricated further He passed under the alleged suit promissory note. d n0 ConsIderation was he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

counse/ for defendant cross-examined P.Ws.1 and 2 by putting earmed defence of defendant, but nothing- was elicited to disbelieve their he on the material facts. As seen from the contents of the suit which is marked as Ex.A1, the executant signed on the SOY note e stamp affixed on the suit promissory note When the defendant is his signature, but disputing that, the plaintiff affixed the revenue containing his signature in the previous transaction on a printed oy note and fabricated it into Ex.Al, but no consideration has been . tho nlaintiff on Ex.Al, and when one K. V.Bala Krishna Rao, in -p0ence the previous transaction held between the plaintiff and the the burden heavily lies on the defendant to prove his contention.

t his oral testimony, nothing was placed before this Court in # his contention. The defendant did not let in any evidence to the conclusion arrived at by this Court.

e Other hand, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the

EXA1 is found reliable than the defence of the defendant as to

on of suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff. The defendant

tribute any motive to the plaintiff to make fabrication of Ex.Al

false suit to get wrongful gain. Under the facts and and probabilities of this case, this Court believed that the suit

ewas duly executed by defendant on receipt of consideration.

Droved that : defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from

promissory note, but failed to repay the same.

(1o)

0.S.No.135 of 2018

IC) Court, Gajapathinagaram

Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim. The issues are

ansWered

accordingly.

Issue No.3 11.

(To what relief?) proved that the suit promissory note is duly executed Plaintiff defendant, but failed to repay the debt due under suit promissory note.

Hence. the plaintiff is entitled for sUIt Claim. Ihe ISsue is answerod accordingly.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.3,06.000%. 12. with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit tll the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization.

Directly typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 21* day of December, 2020.

M.a

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Defendant: For Plaintif: DW1: Anarapu Sateesh PW-1: Jeeri Govindha PW-2: Sadi Bangaru Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Original Suit Promissory Note dated 09.10.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.Al: Office copy of legal notice dated 23.10.2018 Ex.A2: Relevant Postal Acknowledgement dated 31,10.2018 Ex.A3:

For Defendant:

Nil. JUNIOR CM JÙDGE,

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

O.S.No.135 of 2018

JC) Court, Gajapathinagaram COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GAJAPATHINAGARAM

N THE C

PRESENT:SMT.M.SATYA KUMARI

Junior Civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram

Monday, the 21Stday of December, 2020

O.S.No.135 of 2018

yeen: G9vindha, Slo late Appala Swamy, Hindu, Agirculturist, Maradam Village, jeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District

ar5, ....Plaintiff

Sateesh, S/o Janakiram, ars, Hiindu, Employee in Education Department, Siksha Abhayan, District Collector's office premises,

...Defendant

ragaram This suit is coming on 17/12/2020 before me for final hearing in the nce of Sri K.Ramanaji, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri U.Ramesh, ate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over for eration till this day, this court delivered the following:

UD'GIMEN T

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- with

eient interest at 24% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of

ton and for costs of thesuit.

The brief averments of the plaint are that:

n 09.10.2016, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/

plaintiff for domestic expenses in the presence of Sadi Bangari

nd Pothala Arjuna and agreed to repay the same with interest at the

24% per annum to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and

demand promissory note. After receiving consideration in spite of

a

dernandS

made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the

amount and interest and used to postpone the same. On that, the

issueda legal notice to the defendant on 23.10.2018 calling him

Yne amount

due under the

promissory note, and the defendant

M. St

(98

2 0S.No.l135 of 201

|CI Court, Gajapathinagarar

received the same but did not give any reply nor paid any amount. Hence this suit.

After receipt of summons, the defendant appeared before this court and 3 filed his written statement denying all the material averments of the plaint and contended that actually he borrowed an amount of Rs.30,( .000/- from the plaintiff on 10.06.2016 in the presence of K.V.Bala Krishna Rao, jr.Assistant in

Zilla Parishad Ofice, Vizianagaram, and the said Bala Krishna Rao also siicgned as an attester, and the defendant paid an amount of Rs.33,000/- towards

principal and Rs.l,200/- towards interest per month, and accordingly, he na

4 months, and he paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards principal and

Rs.4,800/- towards interest, and he has to pay Rs.18,000/- to the plaintif towards principal, and the defendant never borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.10.2016 and the attestor and scribe of the suit promissory note are the followers of the plaintiff and the suit promisSory note was fabricated with their assistance. He further submitted that he affixed his signature on the earlier promissory note dated 10.06.2016 on the revenue labels only, taking advantage of that, the plaintiff by removing the same from the earlier promissory note and afixed the same on

another blank printed promissory note and brought the present sut

promissory note into existence with the help of the attestor and scribe Wno are henchman of the plaintiff. In the earlier promissory note, K.V.Bala Krisnna

Rao signed as an attestor and he know all the facts about the execution of

the earlier promissory note for Rs.30.000/-only and the defendant is ready pay the balance of Rs.18,000/- together with subsequent interest and co and the defendant never received any cash consideration towards the suit promissory note. After receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff, the defendant raised dispute before elders, namely K.V.Bala Krishna Rao. Then the plaintiff agreed that he would not file any suit for Rs.2,00,000/- and by believing the words, the defendant did not issue any reply to the said legal notice, and the.

M. S

0.S.No.135 of 2018 JC) Court, Gajapathinagaram

fabricated one and the plaintiff never paid

promssory note is a D0,000/-to the defendant on 09.10. .2016, so the plaintiff has no right to the defendant. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit with ne suit agalnst

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been

ad for trial:

Whether the suit promissory note which was executed by the

defendant is supported by consideration and binding on the

defendant?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as praved

for?

3. To what relief?

o hehalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and

amined one Sadi Bangaru Reddy, the attestor of the suit promissory

% PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 original Promissory Note dated

2016 for Rs.2,00,000/-, Ex.A2 Office copy of the legal notice dated

018 and Ex.A3 Relevant Postal Acknowledgement dated 31.10.2018

behalf. On behalf of the defendant, he himself is examined as DW1,

OoCcuments were marked on his behalf.

rd both sides, Perused the material available on record.

SUE Nos, 1 and 2:

MOve due execution of promissory note by the defendant in favour

plaintiff himself Is examined as PW1 and he stated that on

6, the defendant borrowed an amount

domestiC

of Rs.2,00,000/- from the

expenses in the presence of Sadi Bangari Reddy and

agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24%

tsthe

plaintiff or to his order on demand and executed a demand

After recelving

consideration in spite of repeated demands

(99

05.No135 2016

4

|C Court, Gajapathiargararn

made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the principal arnourt and

interest and used to postpone the same. On that, the plaintiff got issued

legal notice to the defendant on 23.10.2018 calling hin to repay the arnount

due under the promissory note, and the defendant received the same but dis not give any reply nor paid any amount. Hence, he filed the presert sut, praying to decree the suit.

PW.2, who is the attestor of Ex.A.1, deposed that the defendart borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from PW.1 on 09/10/2016 for domestic expenses purpose, executed promissory note in favour of pw1 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. He further deposed that he attested the suit promissory note and one P.Arjuna scribed

Ex.Al promissory note and in his presence, the suit promissory note was

executed by defendant by receiving the consideration under Ex.A1.

8 On the other hand, defendant filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. As seen from the chief affidavit, the defendant is an Education

Department employee, working in Sarvasikshya Abhayan Project, and he deposed that, on 10.06.2016, in the presence of one K.V.Bala Krishna Rao, he borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff and in that connection, he executed a promissory note and the said K.V.Bala Krishna Rao acted as an attestor for that, and he paid an amount of Rs.4,200/- per month, le.

Rs.3,000/- towards principal and Rs.1.200/- towards interest for about Tour months, and in total he has paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards principal amount out of his Rs.30,000/- taken from the plaintiff, and he is ready an willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 18,000/-, but he never ree any amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff at any point of time, a receipt of registered lawyer notice, he raiseda dispute in the preseiie K.V.Bala Krishna Rao, who is working as a Junior Assistant in Zilla Parishad,

VIzianagaram, and also acted as Attestor for the transaction beWe 0.S.No.135 of 2018 JCJ Court, Gajapathinagaram wherein, the plaintiff agreed not to file any suit and defendant. by believing the words of the plaintiff, he did not give any deposed that the alleged promissory note is a fabricated further He passed under the alleged suit promissory note. d n0 ConsIderation was he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

counse/ for defendant cross-examined P.Ws.1 and 2 by putting earmed defence of defendant, but nothing- was elicited to disbelieve their he on the material facts. As seen from the contents of the suit which is marked as Ex.A1, the executant signed on the SOY note e stamp affixed on the suit promissory note When the defendant is his signature, but disputing that, the plaintiff affixed the revenue containing his signature in the previous transaction on a printed oy note and fabricated it into Ex.Al, but no consideration has been . tho nlaintiff on Ex.Al, and when one K. V.Bala Krishna Rao, in -p0ence the previous transaction held between the plaintiff and the the burden heavily lies on the defendant to prove his contention.

t his oral testimony, nothing was placed before this Court in # his contention. The defendant did not let in any evidence to the conclusion arrived at by this Court.

e Other hand, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the

EXA1 is found reliable than the defence of the defendant as to

on of suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff. The defendant

tribute any motive to the plaintiff to make fabrication of Ex.Al

false suit to get wrongful gain. Under the facts and and probabilities of this case, this Court believed that the suit

ewas duly executed by defendant on receipt of consideration.

Droved that : defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from

promissory note, but failed to repay the same.

(1o)

0.S.No.135 of 2018

IC) Court, Gajapathinagaram

Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim. The issues are

ansWered

accordingly.

Issue No.3 11.

(To what relief?) proved that the suit promissory note is duly executed Plaintiff defendant, but failed to repay the debt due under suit promissory note.

Hence. the plaintiff is entitled for sUIt Claim. Ihe ISsue is answerod accordingly.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.3,06.000%. 12. with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit tll the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization.

Directly typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 21* day of December, 2020.

M.a

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Defendant: For Plaintif: DW1: Anarapu Sateesh PW-1: Jeeri Govindha PW-2: Sadi Bangaru Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Original Suit Promissory Note dated 09.10.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.Al: Office copy of legal notice dated 23.10.2018 Ex.A2: Relevant Postal Acknowledgement dated 31,10.2018 Ex.A3:

For Defendant:

Nil. JUNIOR CM JÙDGE,

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

O.S.No.135 of 2018

JC) Court, Gajapathinagaram COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GAJAPATHINAGARAM

N THE C

PRESENT:SMT.M.SATYA KUMARI

Junior Civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram

Monday, the 21Stday of December, 2020

O.S.No.135 of 2018

yeen: G9vindha, Slo late Appala Swamy, Hindu, Agirculturist, Maradam Village, jeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District

ar5, ....Plaintiff

Sateesh, S/o Janakiram, ars, Hiindu, Employee in Education Department, Siksha Abhayan, District Collector's office premises,

...Defendant

ragaram This suit is coming on 17/12/2020 before me for final hearing in the nce of Sri K.Ramanaji, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri U.Ramesh, ate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over for eration till this day, this court delivered the following:

UD'GIMEN T

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- with

eient interest at 24% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of

ton and for costs of thesuit.

The brief averments of the plaint are that:

n 09.10.2016, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/

plaintiff for domestic expenses in the presence of Sadi Bangari

nd Pothala Arjuna and agreed to repay the same with interest at the

24% per annum to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and

demand promissory note. After receiving consideration in spite of

a

dernandS

made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the

amount and interest and used to postpone the same. On that, the

issueda legal notice to the defendant on 23.10.2018 calling him

Yne amount

due under the

promissory note, and the defendant

M. St

(98

2 0S.No.l135 of 201

|CI Court, Gajapathinagarar

received the same but did not give any reply nor paid any amount. Hence this suit.

After receipt of summons, the defendant appeared before this court and 3 filed his written statement denying all the material averments of the plaint and contended that actually he borrowed an amount of Rs.30,( .000/- from the plaintiff on 10.06.2016 in the presence of K.V.Bala Krishna Rao, jr.Assistant in

Zilla Parishad Ofice, Vizianagaram, and the said Bala Krishna Rao also siicgned as an attester, and the defendant paid an amount of Rs.33,000/- towards

principal and Rs.l,200/- towards interest per month, and accordingly, he na

4 months, and he paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards principal and

Rs.4,800/- towards interest, and he has to pay Rs.18,000/- to the plaintif towards principal, and the defendant never borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.10.2016 and the attestor and scribe of the suit promissory note are the followers of the plaintiff and the suit promisSory note was fabricated with their assistance. He further submitted that he affixed his signature on the earlier promissory note dated 10.06.2016 on the revenue labels only, taking advantage of that, the plaintiff by removing the same from the earlier promissory note and afixed the same on

another blank printed promissory note and brought the present sut

promissory note into existence with the help of the attestor and scribe Wno are henchman of the plaintiff. In the earlier promissory note, K.V.Bala Krisnna

Rao signed as an attestor and he know all the facts about the execution of

the earlier promissory note for Rs.30.000/-only and the defendant is ready pay the balance of Rs.18,000/- together with subsequent interest and co and the defendant never received any cash consideration towards the suit promissory note. After receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff, the defendant raised dispute before elders, namely K.V.Bala Krishna Rao. Then the plaintiff agreed that he would not file any suit for Rs.2,00,000/- and by believing the words, the defendant did not issue any reply to the said legal notice, and the.

M. S

0.S.No.135 of 2018 JC) Court, Gajapathinagaram

fabricated one and the plaintiff never paid

promssory note is a D0,000/-to the defendant on 09.10. .2016, so the plaintiff has no right to the defendant. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit with ne suit agalnst

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been

ad for trial:

Whether the suit promissory note which was executed by the

defendant is supported by consideration and binding on the

defendant?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as praved

for?

3. To what relief?

o hehalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and

amined one Sadi Bangaru Reddy, the attestor of the suit promissory

% PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 original Promissory Note dated

2016 for Rs.2,00,000/-, Ex.A2 Office copy of the legal notice dated

018 and Ex.A3 Relevant Postal Acknowledgement dated 31.10.2018

behalf. On behalf of the defendant, he himself is examined as DW1,

OoCcuments were marked on his behalf.

rd both sides, Perused the material available on record.

SUE Nos, 1 and 2:

MOve due execution of promissory note by the defendant in favour

plaintiff himself Is examined as PW1 and he stated that on

6, the defendant borrowed an amount

domestiC

of Rs.2,00,000/- from the

expenses in the presence of Sadi Bangari Reddy and

agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24%

tsthe

plaintiff or to his order on demand and executed a demand

After recelving

consideration in spite of repeated demands

(99

05.No135 2016

4

|C Court, Gajapathiargararn

made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the principal arnourt and

interest and used to postpone the same. On that, the plaintiff got issued

legal notice to the defendant on 23.10.2018 calling hin to repay the arnount

due under the promissory note, and the defendant received the same but dis not give any reply nor paid any amount. Hence, he filed the presert sut, praying to decree the suit.

PW.2, who is the attestor of Ex.A.1, deposed that the defendart borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from PW.1 on 09/10/2016 for domestic expenses purpose, executed promissory note in favour of pw1 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. He further deposed that he attested the suit promissory note and one P.Arjuna scribed

Ex.Al promissory note and in his presence, the suit promissory note was

executed by defendant by receiving the consideration under Ex.A1.

8 On the other hand, defendant filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. As seen from the chief affidavit, the defendant is an Education

Department employee, working in Sarvasikshya Abhayan Project, and he deposed that, on 10.06.2016, in the presence of one K.V.Bala Krishna Rao, he borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff and in that connection, he executed a promissory note and the said K.V.Bala Krishna Rao acted as an attestor for that, and he paid an amount of Rs.4,200/- per month, le.

Rs.3,000/- towards principal and Rs.1.200/- towards interest for about Tour months, and in total he has paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards principal amount out of his Rs.30,000/- taken from the plaintiff, and he is ready an willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 18,000/-, but he never ree any amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff at any point of time, a receipt of registered lawyer notice, he raiseda dispute in the preseiie K.V.Bala Krishna Rao, who is working as a Junior Assistant in Zilla Parishad,

VIzianagaram, and also acted as Attestor for the transaction beWe 0.S.No.135 of 2018 JCJ Court, Gajapathinagaram wherein, the plaintiff agreed not to file any suit and defendant. by believing the words of the plaintiff, he did not give any deposed that the alleged promissory note is a fabricated further He passed under the alleged suit promissory note. d n0 ConsIderation was he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

counse/ for defendant cross-examined P.Ws.1 and 2 by putting earmed defence of defendant, but nothing- was elicited to disbelieve their he on the material facts. As seen from the contents of the suit which is marked as Ex.A1, the executant signed on the SOY note e stamp affixed on the suit promissory note When the defendant is his signature, but disputing that, the plaintiff affixed the revenue containing his signature in the previous transaction on a printed oy note and fabricated it into Ex.Al, but no consideration has been . tho nlaintiff on Ex.Al, and when one K. V.Bala Krishna Rao, in -p0ence the previous transaction held between the plaintiff and the the burden heavily lies on the defendant to prove his contention.

t his oral testimony, nothing was placed before this Court in # his contention. The defendant did not let in any evidence to the conclusion arrived at by this Court.

e Other hand, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the

EXA1 is found reliable than the defence of the defendant as to

on of suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff. The defendant

tribute any motive to the plaintiff to make fabrication of Ex.Al

false suit to get wrongful gain. Under the facts and and probabilities of this case, this Court believed that the suit

ewas duly executed by defendant on receipt of consideration.

Droved that : defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from

promissory note, but failed to repay the same.

(1o)

0.S.No.135 of 2018

IC) Court, Gajapathinagaram

Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim. The issues are

ansWered

accordingly.

Issue No.3 11.

(To what relief?) proved that the suit promissory note is duly executed Plaintiff defendant, but failed to repay the debt due under suit promissory note.

Hence. the plaintiff is entitled for sUIt Claim. Ihe ISsue is answerod accordingly.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.3,06.000%. 12. with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit tll the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization.

Directly typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 21* day of December, 2020.

M.a

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Defendant: For Plaintif: DW1: Anarapu Sateesh PW-1: Jeeri Govindha PW-2: Sadi Bangaru Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Original Suit Promissory Note dated 09.10.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.Al: Office copy of legal notice dated 23.10.2018 Ex.A2: Relevant Postal Acknowledgement dated 31,10.2018 Ex.A3:

For Defendant:

Nil. JUNIOR CM JÙDGE,

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

1OS 17/2020 JCJ Court, Gajapathinagaram

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Present: Smt.M.Satya Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram.

Tuesday, the 15th day of December, 2020.

O.S.No.17 of 2020

Between:

Segella Lakshmi, W/o.Krishna, Hindu, 49 Years, House Wife, Mahalakshmi Nagar Colony, D.No.12-03-27, Srikakulam Town & District … Plaintif

A n d

01. Nadupuru Annapurna, W/o late Gunnayya, Hindu, 50 years, Household duties, T Burjavalsa village, Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District

02.Nadupuru Satyanarayana, S/o late Gunnayya, 26 Years, Cultivation, T Burjavalsa Village, Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District … Defendants

This suit is coming on 11.12.2020 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri U.Ramesh, Advocate for plaintif and the defendants having remained exparte on 16.03.2020, and the matter is 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 filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property, and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintif is a permanent resident of Srikakulam and she is having dry landed property of an extent of Ac.3.29 cents in Survey No.70 and 79(A) in

Timiteru Burjavalasa village of Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District. She purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 26.07.2016 vide document No.1814/2016 from Mithireddi Saraswathi for a valuable consideration, and since then, said land is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintif without any interruption. The revenue authorities also recognized her title, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property, and issued E-Pass book by mutating her name in the revenue records. She is the absolute owner of 2O.S.No.17 of 2020 JCJ Court, Gajapathinagaram the same and she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property till today to the knowledge of one and all in the village including the defendants, and the defendants, having no manner of right, title or possession over the said property and they are the rustic persons, having no respect towards law and order, and with the support of some rowdy elements, tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property without having any manner of right, taking advantage of the plaintif residing at Srikakulam making hectic eforts to trespass into the property, and if they succeed in their attempts, the plaintif will be put to wrongful loss and the defendants gain wrongfully, and hence, the present suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property situated at T.Burjavalasa village.

3. Summonses to the defendants through court were served personally on 27.02.2020, and the defendants are called absent, no representation and also not filed their written statement, and hence, the defendants were set exparte on 16.03.2020.

4. In order to establish the claim of plaintif, she herself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A3.

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

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against defendants as prayed for?

7. Point: According to plaintiff, she is the absolute owner of dry land of an extent of

Ac.3.29 cents in Survey No.70 and 79(A) in Timiteru Burjavalasa village of

Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District. She purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 26.07.2016 vide document No.1814/2016 from 3O.S.No.17 of 2020 JCJ Court, Gajapathinagaram

Mithireddi Saraswathi for a valuable consideration, and since then, said land is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintif without any interruption. The revenue authorities also recognized her title, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property, and issued E-Pass book by mutating her name in the revenue records. She is the absolute owner of the same and she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property till today to the knowledge of one and all in the village including the defendants, and the defendants, having no manner of right, title or possession over the said property and they are the rustic persons, having no respect towards law and order, and with the support of some rowdy elements, tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property without having any manner of right, taking advantage of the plaintif residing at Srikakulam making hectic eforts to trespass into the property, and if they succeed in their attempts, the plaintif will be put to wrongful loss and the defendants gain wrongfully, and hence, the present suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property situated at T.Burjavalasa village.

8.In order to establish her claim, as already noted, on behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff filed her chief-examination affidavit as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A.3 were marked. In her evidence affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, plaintiff as P.W.1 has reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint. Ex.A1 is Registered sale deed dated 26.07.2016 executed by one Mithireddi

Saraswathi in favour of plaintif, Ex.A2 is 1-B copy obtained from Meeseva dated 15.02.2020 and Ex.A3 is two Adangal copies obtained from Mee Seva dated 11.09.2019. As already noted, defendants though served with summonses, failed to appear

before the Court and remained ex parte and thereby, the evidence of P.W.1 remains

unchallenged.

9.On a perusal of the unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A.3, this

Court is of the view that plaintiff has established that she is in possession of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and that defendants without any manner of right 4O.S.No.17 of 2020 JCJ Court, Gajapathinagaram over the schedule property are trying to interfere with her possession over plaint schedule property. Since plaintiff has established that defendants without any manner of right are interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff over plaint schedule property, this Court is of the view that plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against defendants as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and servants from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 15th day of December, 2020.

Sd/- M. Satya Kumari

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJAPATHINAGARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif:For Defendants:

PW1 – Segalla Lakshmi -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Registered Sale Deed executed by one Mithireddi Saraswathi in favour of plaintif on 26.07.2016

Ex.A2:1-B copy obtained from Meeseva dated 15.02.2020

Ex.A3:Two Adangal copies obtained from Mee Seva dated 11.09.2019

DEFENDANTS: -Nil-

Sd/- M. Satya Kumari

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

5O.S.No.17 of 2020 JCJ Court, Gajapathinagaram