1
: Fair copy :
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WANAPARTHY
Tuesday, the 18 th day of December, 2018
PRESENT:- Sri M. Yesuratnam,
Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.
O.S.No.108 of 2013.
Between:
M.Venkat Swamy S/o M.Narasimha, 40 Yrs, Occ: Driver, R/o: H.NO.42-112/A, Sainagar Colony, Wanaparthy town.
...Plaintiff.
And
P.Dhanujay Goud S/o P.Raman Goud, 36 Yrs, Occ: Business, R/o: H.NO.42-231, New Gunj, Wanaparthy town.
...Defendant.
Claim:-Suit for recovery of amount for Rs.8,68,533/- from the defendant.
-*-*-*-*-
This suit coming before me for hearing on 12-12-2018 in the presence of Sri B.Chandrasekhar Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of
Sri B.Venkateshwar Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:
J U D G M E NT
This is a suit for recovery of money of Rs. 8,68,533/- with future interest from the defendant.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
The plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other since long time and having necessity the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on 24-12-2012 for his necessities and executed a promissory note on the same day and was scribed by
K.Ram Kumar and stipulating to pay with interest @ 12% per annum after availing the said loan the defendant did not repay the loan amount on the demand of the plaintiff on 01-09-2013. The defendant 2 obtained the above said amount in the presence of N.Srinivasulu and
A.Rangaswamy both are Government Employees and they attested the promissory note and receipt as witnesses to the said transaction. The defendant is not a professional money lender and as such no money lending license is required. The defendant to escape the liability trying to sold his landed property. Hence the suit.
3.The defendant filed his written statement, denying all the plaint allegations except those which are herein after specifically admitted to be true and correct. The real facts of the case are that previously one
Parandhamaiah and the defendant herein have jointly did real estate business and there were several monetary transactions between them, in this regard the defendant given a blank promissory note to the said
Parandhamaiah, and later after the final settlement of the dealings between them, the defendant has demanded him for return of the blank promissory note given to him by the defendant, at that time the said Parandhamaiah has stated that the said promissory note was misplaced, thereupon on insisting by the defendant he executed a document in favour of the defendant acknowledging the issuance of blank promissory note by the defendant in his favour and as the same was misplaced he has undertaken not to misuse the said pronote and not claim any amount in future from the defendant. In that contrary to the undertaking, subsequently as some differences arose between the defendant and said Parandhamaiah. The said Parandhamaiah conspired with the plaintiff and another person by name K.Ramkumar, the alleged scribe of the promissory note and witnesses against the defendant for having illegal and wrongful gain he got filed the present suit against the defendant alleging that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff in the presence of alleged witnesses by executing the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.
3
The said Parandhamaiah and K.Ramkumar are business partners and they also did real estate business jointly. That the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount to the defendant and the defendant has no need of such huge amount for any purpose. On enquiry the plaintiff is not resident of the house mentioned in the suit, even he is not residing in the said locality and no further enquiry it is revealed that there is no house in the Wanaparthy Municipality limits with
H.No.42-112/A and to that extent the Commissioner Municipality,
Wanaparthy issued a certificate. After issuance of legal notice by the defendant to the plaintiff and the said Parandhamaiah and alleged scribe K.Ram Kumar, the plaintiff got issued reply notice stating that the legal notice was served to K.Ram Kumar and said Ramkumar handed over the same to the plaintiff and the same is placed in the hands of his counsel and thereby he got issued reply notice with false allegations. The said Ramkumar did not chose to give reply to the legal notice got issued by the defendant dated: 15-10-2013 and the said
Parandhamaiah also not give any reply to the notice got issued by the defendant.
4.The efforts made requesting the plaintiff and said Parandhamaiah and K.Ramkumar to take steps for withdrawal of the false suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant herein, but they started threatening the defendant with dire consequences, thereupon the defendant approached the police, Wanaparthy, but the police under the influence of plaintiff and Parandhamaiah, K.Ramkumar did not take any action against them, hence the defendant has approached the Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar on 13-12-2013 narrating the entire facts, who in turn referred the matter to the CI of Police, Wanaparthy vide
No.SYG/1125/MBNR/2013, and the CI of police, Wanaparthy was enquired into the matter and recorded the statement of the scribe 4
K.Ram Kumar wherein the said K.RamKumar has categorically admitted that at the request of plaintiff he filled the blank promissory note, as the plaintiff is his villager. Hence the suit of the plaintiff is false, not supported by consideration and the plaintiff is not entitled for suit amount, the plaintiff is liable to pay the exemplary costs for malicious prosecution and the defendant is taking steps to initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiff, Parandhamaiah, K.Ramkumar and witnesses. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with exemplary costs.
5.Basing on the pleadings of the plaint and written statement and the counter claim, the following issues are settled for trial.
1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid, and binding on the defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.8,68,533/- with future interest from the date of suit till the date of realization from the defendant?
3) To what relief?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES:
1) Whether the address of the plaintiff mentioned in the plaint is in existence or not?
2) Whether the plaintiff has capacity to lend such consideration amount under suit pronote to the defendant?
3) Whether the panchayats held in the office of the counsel for plaintiff and one Parandhamaiah confessed that he got filed the present suit through plaintiff to take revenge against the defendant?
4) Whether the document executed by one Parandhamaiah, dt.08-02-2013 is concern with the suit pronote?
5) To what relief?
6.On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined as Pw1 and got produced and examined as Pw2 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A4. On behalf of the defendant, he himself examined as Dw1 and got produced and examined as Dws2 and 3 and got marked Ex.B1 to B13.
7.Heard arguments from the learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendant. While advancing the arguments the learned counsel for the 5 plaintiff relied and filed citations reported in 1) 2018 (6) ALD 516. 2)
SECTION 20 AND SECTION 118 (a) OF N.I. ACT, 3) 2001 (6) ALT
95 (D.B.), 4) 1941 MADRAS 417 (FULL BENCH), 5) AIR 1941
PATNA 504, 6) 1972 An.W.R.7, 7) AIR 1975 GOA, DAMAN & DUI
29, 8) 1996 (4) ALD 1035 AND AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 180.
8.ISSUE NOs.1 AND 2:-
On perusal of the evidence from the side of the defendant who examined as DW1 and got adduced the evidence of Dw2 and 3, the contention of the defendant he being a business man apart from his real estate business for the last 15 to 18 years, he never obtained a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on 24-12-2012 from the plaintiff/Pw1 for his necessities and did not execute the suit promissory note coupled with receipt which are marked as Ex.A1 and A2 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the amount along with the interest at 12% per annum. Further, it is the contention of the defendant, it is false to say that he obtained the above said amount in the presence of
N.Srinivasulu (Pw2) and A.Ranga Swamy who attested Ex.A1 and A2 as a witnesses. And further Dw1 denied that the so-called scribe of Ex.A1 and A2 by name K.Ramkumar not known to him and he never asked him to scribe Ex.A1 and A2 between him and plaintiff. Further, Dw1 contended that the plaintiff never demanded him particularly on 01-09- 2013 for repayment of the Ex.A1 promissory note amount and that he postponed the same on one pretext or other stating that he did not borrowed the amounts from several persons and offered his property for sale to escape from the liability and to avoid the repayment of the creditors.
9.On further perusal of the contention of the defendant that previously he and one Parandhamaiah has jointly did real estate 6 business and there were several money transaction between them, in that regard he gave a blank promissory note to the said
Parandhamaiah and later after the final settlement of the dealings between them he demanded the said Parandhamaiah for return of the blank promissory note give to him by him. Instead of returning the blank promissory note the said Parandhamaiah has stated that the promissory note was misplaced beyond his trace out, thereupon on insisting by the defendant, the said Parandhamaiah executed a document in favour of the defendant acknowledging the issuance of blank promissory note by him to the defendant and the same was misplaced, and undertaken not to misuse the promissory note and not claim any amount in future after trace out of the said promissory note.
The so-called document/undertaken said have been executed by the
Parandhamaiah in favour of the defendant is marked as Ex.B1 which is marked to subject to objection for nature of the document to decide the judgment. The so-called Parandhamaiah was not at all examined by the defendant to ascertain the real facts which he took for his defence against the suit promissory note by mentioning the name of the
Parandhamaiah. On perusal of the contents of Ex.B1 which is marked as exhibit after collecting the stamp duty and penalty, it appears as an agreement which was scribed on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper by an Advocate/Notary who examined as Dw2. The recitals of the Ex.B1 shows that on 08-02-2013 the defendant and his real estate business partner Parandhamaiah appeared before Dw2 and the said
Parandhamaiah got executed Ex.B1 stating that previously he and defendant did real estate business, on account of their real estate business they settled their financial accounts, since one year prior to the date of the Ex.B1 the Parandhamaiah executed a promissory note, but the said promissory note was misplaced beyond his recovery. As 7 such in order to create belief on the defendant, the said
Parandhamaiah promised through this agreement Ex.B1 stating that from the date of Ex.A1 between both of them, no business dealings were there and also no cases are there. As such, the Parandhamaiah executed Ex.B1 to the defendant.
10.On careful perusal of the Ex.B1 agreement contents there is no whisper with regard to the blank promissory note was given by defendant to his business partner Parandhamaiah during the real estate business dealings and by virtue of Ex.B1 it clearly indicates that the defendant got executed a promissory note and handed over the same to the Parandhamaiah but not the defendant gave a blank promissory note. So, whatever the stand taken by the defendant for contention of Ex.A1 promissory note that he gave a blank promissory note to his partner Parandhamaiah is not one and the same of Ex.A1.
In that connection on perusal of the evidence of Dw2 the scribe and notary of Ex.B1 stated that between the defendant and Parandhamaiah he scribed nearly ten documents and with regard to the Ex.B1 no entry was made in the notary register and it does not containing the name of the plaintiff. So, in pursuance of the version of Dw2 between defendant and his partner so many documents were executed by Dw2 and Ex.B1 does not containing any amount or date about the so-called blank promissory note. In that connection the learned counsel for plaintiff relied the facts and circumstances observed by their lordships in the rulings filed by the learned counsel for plaintiffs which are reported in AIR 1941 MADRAS 417 and AIR 1941 PATNA 504 and AIR 1975 GOA DAMAN AND DIEU 29. As per section 27 and 28 of
Negotiable Instruments Act maker of the promissory note whether executing personal liability, court cannot look into the surrounding circumstances when deciding whether the maker of a promissory note 8 has executed it as the agent or the representative of another. It is the instrument alone which has to be looked at. So, the facts and circumstances of the above noted rulings are clearly applicable to the facts of this present case. Because, Ex.B1 the so-called agreement is not at all concerned to the Ex.A1 and A2 suit promissory note and receipt, the so-called Parandhamaiah the executant of Ex.B1 and the business partner of defendant is nothing to do with the plaintiff and
Ex.A1 and A2.
11.On further perusal of the version of Dw1 contrary to the contents of Ex.B1, subsequently as some differences arose between him and his partner Parandhamaiah, taking advantage of blank promissory note the said Parandhamaiah deliberately stated that the promissory note was misplaced, he conspired with the plaintiff and another person by name
K.Kumar the alleged scribe of Ex.A1 and A2 and also with the witnesses for getting wrongful gain from him, the said Parandhamaiah got filed this suit through the plaintiff against him. In order to substantiate the above said contentions of Dw1 no proof of evidence was adduced
before court except by got examining his close friend who is working as
a police constable examined as Dw3. As per the versions of Dw1 and
Dw3 on one day the defendant has convened a panchayat by taking
Dw3, one Venkateshwarlu, one G.Ramulu and one B.Ravinder along with the Parandhamaiah in the office of the Sri Man Mohan Rao,
Advocate. On further perusal of the version of Dw3 shows that in his presence the said Parandhamaiah confessed to settle the scores between him and the defendant during their real estate business and he got filed the present suit through the plaintiff and got filled the blank promissory note through K.Ramkumar and the entire conversation Dw3 himself videographed and C.Ds filed before the court which are marked subject to objection as Ex.B12. In that connection 9 the learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon a ruling which is reported in
AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 180, where his lordship observed that electronic records as secondary evidence is in admissible unless requirements of section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act are satisfied. In the present case the defendant could not satisfied the requirements under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act by filing any authorization or recording proof of CDs (Ex.B12) by any competent person. On perusal of the cross-examination of Dw3 he categorically admitted that he voluntarily videographed the conversation taken place between defendant and his business partner Parandhamaiah in the office of the
Advocate Man Mohan Rao which is situated opposite to the RTC Bus stand, Wanaparthy by the time he does not know the particulars of the plaintiff and he is not sure whether the plaintiff was present or not at the time. Further, Dw3 admitted that he did not obtain any permission from the Advocate to videograph the conversation of the parties in the advocate office and his chief evidence affidavit is totally silent about through which instrument he got videographed the conversation.
However, Ex.B12 video conversation is nothing to do with the suit promissory note transactions between plaintiff and defendant and the role of the Parandhamaiah is not found placed for money transaction between plaintiff and defendant towards Ex.A1 and A2. As such, the evidence of Dw3 and Ex.B12 CDs are not at all connecting to the suit promissory note transaction between the plaintiff and defendant.
12.On perusal of the evidence of PWs1 and 2 on 24-12-2012 Dw1 obtained an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from Pw1 for his necessities and executed the suit promissory note which is marked as Ex.A1 and also the receipt which is marked as Ex.A2, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. Further, Pws1 and 2 stated that the above said money transaction between the plaintiff and defendant was taken 10 place in the presence of N.Srinivasulu (Pw2), N.Krishnaiah and
A.Rangaswamy who attested the Ex.A1 and A2 as witnesses. Ex.A1 and A2 scribed by one E.Ramkumar but not K.Ramkumar whose name is referred by the defendant. After obtaining Ex.A1 and A2 from defendant, the plaintiff demanded the defendant several times for repayment. However, without repayment he postponed the same at last on 01-09-2013 the plaintiff demanded the defendant for the pronote amount but the defendant refused to pay the amount. As such, the plaintiff got filed the suit against the defendant. On further perusal of the evidence of Pw1 in order to escape his liability the defendant hatched a cunning plan with the aid of anti social elements and got filed his written statement with false contents and also manipulated and created documents and one false CD. The total evidence of plaintiff shows that is no way concerned with one
Parandhamaiah whose name brought on by the defendant in his written statement and evidence affidavit, but the plaintiff, the scribe of the pronote E.Ramkumar and the so-called Parandhamaiah are belongs to
Edutla Village, but they came out from their native place due to their job and business purposes. The plaintiff settled at Hyderabad being a cab driver, the scribe of pronote E.Ramkumar and Parandhamaiah settled in Wanaparthy. Basing on the comments made by the defendant through his written statement, the plaintiff stated that the defendant is a accused in one of the criminal case in crime No.165 of 2011 of Wanaparthy police station and in that connection he got filed the CC of FIR copy and CC of charge-sheet which are marked as Ex.A3 and A4 subject to objection for proof and relevancy of those two documents in this suit. But, in the cross-examination Dw1 also admitted that against him a criminal case was registered by the
Wanaparthy police and the same was acquitted against him and the CC 11 of judgment got filed and marked as Ex.B13 on his side. Even though,
Ex.A3, A4 and Ex.B13 are not concern to the pronote transaction. But, to know the demonour of the defendant those documents are filed by the both parties.
13.In his cross-examination Dw1 categorically admitted that he studied upto degree discontinued and he is running a school under the name and style of “Gomathi Grammar School” which is situated in the middle of the Wanaparthy town. Apart from that about three years back the defendant started a super market business, for establishing the super market business he and his partners invested an amount of
Rs.18,00,000/- by availing the personal loans. Further, Dw1 admitted that he purchased the landed property at Chityala village of
Wanaparthy Mandal in the month of January, 2013 for an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/-. In the month of September, 2012 he purchased the landed property at Chityala village of Wanaparthy Mandal for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, similarly in the same month of September, 2012 he purchased another landed property at Chityala village of
Wanaparthy Mandal for a sum of Rs.80,000/-. In the same month
September, 2012 he purchased another landed property at Wanaparthy for Rs.1,70,000/-. He clearly admitted that all the above said properties purchased by him for commercial purpose only. Further,
Dw1 manifestly admitted that one Parandhamaiah is his business partner, in his Super Market business he took the four partners their names are Hariprasad Goud, Sreedhar Goud his one of Brother
Govardhan Goud and himself. Further, Dw1 admitted that
Parandhamaiah and Ramkumar whose names are referred in the written statement are business partners. Further, Dw1 very clearly admitted that the signatures appears on Ex.A1 and A2 promissory note and receipt and across the revenue stamps belongs to him. He 12 voluntarily stated that he handed over the blank promissory note to his business partner Parandhamaiah and he do not know the plaintiff, between him and plaintiff no money transactions under Ex.A1 and A2 was taken place. In that connection already the detailed discussion was made about Ex.B1 which is relied by the defendant stating that under which his business partner Parandhamaiah executed the same with regard to the a promissory note which was given by the defendant to him, but not the suit promissory note Ex.A1 and its receipt Ex.A2. In that connection the learned counsel for plaintiff relied the judgments which are noted supra and reported in 2018 (6) ALD 516, 2001 (6) ALT 95 D.B., in respect of the Section 20 and Section 118 (a) of Negotiable
Instrument Act wherein their lordships held that presumption arises in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the promissory note that the instrument was made or drawn for consideration. The burden therefore lies on the defendant to rebut that presumption if he pleads impersonation. But, in this suit the defendant utterly failed to establish that the suit promissory note Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 receipt in blank condition handed over to his business partner Parandhamaiah, who in turn gave to the plaintiff and got filed the suit against the defendant for extracting the amount illegally. So, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence by the defendant, the statutory presumption under section 118 (a) of N.I. Act safely be drawn in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances, it clearly appears that the defendant executed Ex.A1 and A2 in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of the witnesses and scribe after obtaining the cash amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on 24-12-2012. As such, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit pronote amount with interest as prayed for.
Accordingly, issue NOs.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.
14.ADDITIONAL ISSUE NOs.1 TO 4:- 13
On perusal of the evidence of defendant that after receipt of the suit summons in this suit, he enquired about the plaintiff in the given address in the suit and also caused enquiries about the scribe and witnesses, to his utter surprise the plaintiff is not residing of the house mentioned in the suit, even he is not residing in the said locality. On his further enquiry he came to know that there is no any such house in the Wanaparthy Municipality limits with house No.42-11/2/A and in that connection he obtained a certificate from the Municipality
Commissioner Wanaparthy. Further, the defendant stated that after causing due enquiry about the plaintiff and his residence he got issued a legal notice to the plaintiff and to the Parandhamaiah and also to the alleged scribe of pronote K.Ramkumar. The postal cover which was sent to the plaintiff was returned by an endorsement that the house number of the addressee is in correct. The office copy of legal notice, the postal receipts, the postal acknowledgments, the returned postal cover and reply notice got marked as Ex.B2 to B6. As such, he supposed that the plaintiff is not residing in the house number which he got mentioned in the plaint. In that connection Pw1 clarified that he was resided at H.No.42-11/2/A at Srinagar Colony, Wanaparthy town for a period of two and half years before filing the suit as a tenant in the house of Pw2 N.Srinivasulu. Thereafter, after filing the suit he vacated the said rented house and shifted his family to Hyderabad for convenient of his job as cab driver. So, the legal notice and other postal information sent by the defendant to the plaintiff on the address where he was vacated from the said address.
15.It is the contention of the defendant he never obtained any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time, and no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note to him by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is a stranger to him and he have no acquaintance with the 14 plaintiff or with witnesses or scribe of pronote and moreover the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the defendant. In that respect Pw1 in his cross-examination stated that he is owner cum driver to his hire car. For the last ten years he has been maintaining his cab. Through his work used to earn the amount of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. Previously, when he stayed in
Wanaparthy for a period of six months by making up and downs from his native place Edutla, he used to get income through his agricultural landed properties from his native village, so from 2014 onwards is residing in Hyderabad. Further Pw1 stated that when he was maintaining the cab in Wanaparthy the defendant took his car for hire 22 times to travel to Kurnool, Hyderabad and in local. In that connection the defendant got acquaintance with the plaintiff on that acquaintance he borrowed the amount from the plaintiff. The defendant further contended that the witnesses and scribe of Ex.A1 and A2 not known to him and they are working in teaching profession as Government Employees and their presence in that so-called pronote transaction day is very doubtful. In that respect, Pw2 stated that he got acquaintance with the plaintiff through his father-in-law who belongs to the Edutla village and the plaintiff also same village, so on the day of pronote transaction i.e., on 24-12-2012 at about noon hours in between 12 -00 to 1-00 pm in the house of the plaintiff the pronote transaction was taken place between the plaintiff and defendant.
16.With regard to the conducting a panchayat in the office of the Sri
Man Mohan Rao, Advocate by the defendant along with
Parandhamaiah, one Venkateshwarlu, G.Ramulu, S.Raja Goud (Dw3) and one B.Ravinder, the partner of the defendant by name
Parandhamaiah executed Ex.B1 and the panchayat was videographed by Dw3 through Ex.B12. In that respect, Dw1 in his cross-examination 15 admitted that he do not have any case in the office of Sri Man Mohan
Rao, Advocate and his brother Sree Ram Rao, Advocate at initially those two advocates have filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. In that connection the defendant made a complaint to the bar council of the State against the above said two advocates but he does not know whether his complaint to the Bar Council was dismissed or not.
Whatever the so-called panchayat other than plaintiff presence by the defendant and his associates is no way concerned to the suit pronote transaction and Ex.B1 which said have been executed by the
Parandhamaiah in favour of the defendant also not concern to the suit pronote transactions. Further, the defendant contended that against
Parandhamaiah and his business partner K.Ramkumar, he approached the police, when the local police not taken any action against them, the defendant approached the Superintendent of Police wherein on the directions of the Superintendent of Police, the Circle Inspector of Police,
Wanaparthy caused enquiries by recording the statements of the
K.Ramkumar and others without registering any crime against them which is not at all helpful to the defendant and also not concern to the suit pronote transaction. Ex.B11 is the certified copy which was given by K.Ramkumar before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Wanaparthy. But, the evidence of Pw1 reveals that the scribe of Ex.A1 and A2 is
E.Ramkumar but not K.Ramkumar. So, on perusal of the entire scenario of the facts and circumstances of the suit the defendant failed to adduce the evidence of his partner Parandhamaiah or the partner of
Parandhamaiah K.Ramkumar. And also he failed to bring the necessary parties to the suit prove his defence. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion the additional issue NOs.1 to 4 are answered against the defendant.
17.ISSUE NO.3 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO:5:- 16
In view of the findings issue NOs.1 and 2 and also 4 additional issue NOs.1 to 4 the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed as prayed for.
18.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 8,68,533/- (Rupees eight lakhs sixty eight thousand five hundred and thirty three only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) till the date of realization.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I, IX ADJ Court,
Wanaparthy, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of December, 2018.
Senior Civil
Judge,
Wanaparthy .
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined For Plaintiff:
Pw-1 M.Venkatswamy Pw-2 N.Srinivasulu
For Defendant:
Dw1 P.Dhanunjay Goud Dw2 K.Ramchandra Reddy Dw3 S.Raja Goud
Exhibits marked
For Plaintiff
Ex.A1 is promissory note dated: 24-12-2012 for Rs.8,00,000/- Ex.A2 is receipt corresponding with promissory note. Ex.A3 is CC of FIR in crime NO.165 of 2011, dated: 24-11-2011 Ex.A4 is CC of charge-sheet in CC No.102/2011, dated: 30-12-2011 (Ex.A1 to A4 are marked subject to proof and relevancy to decide in the judgment as objected by other side learned counsel).
For Defendant:
Ex.B1 is original agreement dated:08-02-2013 (subject to objection for nature of the document to decide in the judgment) 17
Ex.B2 is office copy of legal notice dated: 15-10-2013 Ex.B.3 is postal receipts (3 in numbers) Ex.B4 is postal acknowledgments (2 in numbers) Ex.B5 is returned postal cover Ex.B6 is reply notice dated: 04-11-2013 Ex.B7 is application to SP., Mahabubnagar dated: 13-12-2013 Ex.B8 is RTI application dated: 02-01-2014 Ex.B9 is intimation letter of Municipality, dated: 21-10-2013 Ex.B10 is RTI receipt dated: 13-01-2014 Ex.B11 is CC of copy which was given by K.Ramkumar before the SI of police, Wanaparthy dated: 20-12-2013 Ex.B12 is two CDs (subject to objection for maintainable) Ex.B13 is CC of judgment in CC No.375 of 2011 on the file of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Senior Civil
Judge,
Wanaparthy.