Mohammad Rahamtulla

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: TENALI

Present :: Sri Mohammed Rahamtulla. I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali.

Wednesday, the 19th day of April, 2023.

CALENDAR CASE No.763/2020

Between :

Velaga Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged 53 years, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District. … Complainant

And

Tadiboina Mohana Krishna, S/o.Sree Ramaiah, Hindu, aged 35 years, D.No.10-75-21, Opp : Road of Chava’s Grand, Temple Street, Amaravathi Plots, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District. ….Accused

This case is coming up before me on 6.4.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Rama Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri Y.Ramesh,

Advocate for the Accused and upon perusal of the entire material and on hearing both the counsel the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant against the accused for the offence, punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881. [ Hereinafter it is referred as Negotiable Instruments Act]

02.The case of complainant is as follows :-

On 15.12.2017 the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant for his family and business expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the complainant or to his order on demand. Subsequently, the complainant demanded the accused to discharge the above said promissory note debt. However, the accused issued a cheque for

Rs.2,00,000/- bearing No.298682 dt.7.5.2020 drawn on State Bank of India,

Chenchupet Branch, Tenali towards part payment of the above said promissory 2 note debt. The complainant presented the above said cheque in his account in

Coastal Local Area Bank Limited, Tenali on 5.6.2020 for collection and the said cheque was returned for the reason “Funds Insufficient” the same was intimated to complainant by his banker vide it’s memo dt.6.6.2020. The complainant informed the same to the accused, but the accused did not respond properly. The complainant got issued a registered legal notice dt.26.6.2020 to the accused to pay the above said cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

The accused having the knowledge of the above notice got returned the same with false endorsement on 8.7.2020 that “the said person continuously absent in this address” by managing the postal authorities. The accused knowing fully that there are no funds in his account and issued the cheque fraudulently to defraud and cheat the complainant and thereby the accused committed the offence, punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, the complaint.

03.The complaint was taken on file by my learned predecessor in office under Section.138 of N.I. Act against the accused.

04.On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of case documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of the accusation under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act made against him in

Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.To prove his case, the complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined the scribe Vema Sri Anajanaya Prasad as PW.2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P.6. On behalf of accused, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

06.Ex.P.1 is certified copy of promissory note got executed by the accused in favour of complainant dt.15.12.2017. Ex.P.2 is cheque bearing

No.298682 issued by the accused in favour of complainant drawn on State Bank 3 of India, Chenchupet Branch, Tenali, Guntur District dt.7.5.2020. Ex.P.3 is bank return memo dt.6.6.2020. Ex.P.4 is office copy of the registered notice goti issued by the complainant through his advocate to the accused along with postal receipt dt.26.6.2020. Ex.P.5 is returned notice with postal acknowledgment. Ex.P.6 is certified copy of decree in OS.No.79/2021 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s

Court,Tenali.

07.After closure of the complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material stood against him in the evidence of the complainant, to which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

08.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

09.Now, the point for determination are :-

1. Whether the accused issued Ex.P.2 cheque in favour of the

complainant for discharging of legally enforceable debt or

other liability ?

2. Whether the complainant has complied with all the legal

formalities as per the provisions of Sec.138 r/w 142 of

Negotiable Instruments Act for presenting the complaint in the

Court ?

3. Whether the complainant proved the case against the accused

for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 beyond reasonable doubt ?

P O I N T No.1 :-

10.It is the case of the complainant that on 15.12.2017 the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant for his family and business expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum 4 either to the complainant or to his order on demand. Subsequently, the complainant demanded the accused to discharge the above said promissory note debt. However, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- bearing No.298682 dt.7.5.2020 drawn on State Bank of India, Chenchupet Branch, Tenali towards part payment of the above said promissory note debt. The complainant presented the above said cheque in his account in Coastal Local Area Bank Limited, Tenali on 5.6.2020 for collection and the said cheque was returned for the reason “Funds

Insufficient” the same was intimated to complainant by his banker vide it’s memo dt.6.6.2020. The complainant informed the same to the accused, but the accused did not respond properly. The complainant got issued a registered legal notice dt.26.6.2020 to the accused to pay the above said cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The accused having the knowledge of the above notice got returned the same with false endorsement on 8.7.2020 that “the said person continuously absent in this address” by managing the postal authorities.

The accused knowing fully that there are no funds in his account and issued the cheque fraudulently to defraud and cheat the complainant and thereby the accused committed the offence, punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

11.The case of the accused is that, the accused never borrowed any amount from the complainant and that he never executed any promissory note and never issued any cheque in the name of the complainant to discharge the alleged debt. The accused worked as a Clerk in the office of the complainant and complainant got provided a Bike to him on Finance in the year 2010 and the complainant has taken the cheque which was given by the accused to the Finance

Company at the time of purchase of his Bike and filed the present complaint by fabricating the same.

12.Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer the relevant provisions of N.I., Act. Sec.138 of N.I., Act deals with 5 punishment for dishonour of cheques for insufficient funds, etc., in the account of drawer of the cheque. The Concatenation of the following acts would constitute the offence u/Sec.138 of N.I., Act namely, (i) issuance of the cheque on an account maintained by the drawer for discharge of any debt or other liability, (ii) presentation of the cheque within a period of six months (now three months) or within a period of its validity, whichever is earlier, (iii) dishonour of the cheque for “insufficient funds” or exceeding the arrangement made with the banker, (iv) issuance of statutory notice to the drawer within one month of receipt of information of dishonour demanding the cheque amount and (v) failure of the drawer to make the payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice. The explanation appended to Sec.138 of N.I., Act further contemplates that the debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

13.The N.I., Act also contains certain provisions regarding presumptions to be drawn in a case filed thereunder. Under Section 118(a) thereof, until contrary is proved, presumption shall be made that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Similarly, under Section 139 thereof, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any legally enforceable debt or other liability. When once the foundational facts for raising the above presumption is proved by the complainant or the issuance of the cheque is admitted, as the case may be, the Court has no option except to raise the presumption in terms thereof in favour of the complainant and in such case, it is for the accused while rebutting such presumption to prove that he did not issue the cheque for the nature referred to in Section 138 of the N.I., Act.

14. It is in this settled legal background, we have to examine the facts and the evidence adduced before the Court in the case on hand. A perusal of evidence on record, the complainant/P.W.1 in his chief-examination affidavit 6 reiterated the contents of his complaint. In his cross examination, he stated that the father of the accused is his neighbour. He got acquaintance with the accused since 10 years. He purchase Paddy from the Ryots and sell the same to others. He has no license to conduct Paddy business. He, his wife and daughter have got Ac.5.00 of land. He got Ac.1.50 cents in his name. His daughter has got

Ac.0.60 cents in her name. They got yield of 40 bags of Paddy per acre. The accused asked him for the amount prior to 10 days of the execution of the promissory note. He gave the amount to the accused which was available with him after selling Paddy. One V. Anajaneya Vara Prasad is the scribe of the promissory note. He signed on the promissory note as Vemuri Anjaneya Vara

Prasad. The accused signed one signature on the promissory note. Total four persons signed on the promissory note including the accused. The accused is doing business of purchasing old Autos and selling the same to others. On 7.5.2020 the accused gave the cheque. The accused gave the cheque to him after two years of the promissory note. He filed the suit for recovery of money.

He did not present the cheque on the same day in his bank as the accused requested him to present the same within one month. On 5.6.2020 he presented the said cheque in his bank for collection. He got issued legal notice to the accused. The accused did not receive the notice cover by managing the postal people. The bank authorities returned the cheque with the reason that there are no “sufficient funds” in the account of the accused. The accused got filled Ex.P.2 cheque with a person who came along with him.

15.PW.1 during his cross examination, denied that the accused worked for long time under him. He denied the suggestion that the accused is not doing business of purchasing and selling of second hand Autos. He denied the suggestion that he sent legal notice to the accused in his absence. He denied the suggestion that the accused never borrowed any amount from him and that he 7 never executed any promissory note and that he never issued any cheque in his name to discharge the alleged debt. He denied the suggestion that when the accused was working as Clerk in his office he got provided a Bike to him on finance in the year 2010 and he has taken the cheque of the accused which was given by him in the finance company to purchase his Bike and fabricated the same and filed the present complaint.

16.In support of his case, the complainant got examined the scribe Vema

Sri Anajaneya Prasad as PW.2 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief. He stated that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 15.12.2017 from the complainant for his family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant on the same day at Tenali agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. He is the scribe of the said promissory note and the same was attested by one Avula Mahendra Kumar and

Kankanala Chaitanya Babu. The transaction under the promissory note took place in his presence and consideration was passed in his presence.

17.During cross examination, PW.2 stated that he knew the accused since 10 years as he is residing near to his house. The complainant lent the amount to the accused at his house on 15.12.2017 at 11.00 AM. He gave three bundles of

Rs.500/-. He did not count the cash. The accused himself counted the said cash.

At the request of the accused, he scribed the promissory note. The accused came to his house in between 10 AM., and 10.30 AM., on that day. He and the accused went to the house of the complainant. The accused himself brought the promissory note form. The accused borrowed the said amount for his family necessities. He is not in the habit of scribing promissory notes. The accused subscribed his two signatures on promissory note one is on the stamp and another signature is under the stamp. Total four members signed on the promissory note. He signed in Telugu and the other three persons signed in 8

English on the promissory note. He does not know what was happened later. He denied that nothing was happened in his presence and that he worked under the complainant, he was deposing false to help to him. After filling the promissory note, the accused subscribed his signature on the promissory note then the two attestors signed on the promissory note. On the way, near the house of one

Doctor Linga Rao Garu the 2nd attestor joined with them. At the request of the accused, the 2nd attestor accepted to attest the promissory note. By the time, they reached to the house of the complainant, the complainant and 1st attestor

Avula Mahendra Kumar were present in the house of the complainant. He scribed the promissory note with his blue colour ink pen. All the attestors and the accused signed with the same pen on the promissory note.

18.In this case there is no dispute that Ex.P.2 cheque belongs to the bank account of the accused. The accused did not dispute his signatures on Ex.P.2 cheque. When once the accused admitted his signatures on Ex.P.2 cheque, the presumption u/Sec.139 of NI., Act comes in favour of the complainant. The burden is on the accused to rebut the said presumption.

19.To rebut the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I., Act the accused did not examine any witness on his behalf, but he relied on the cross examination of

Pws.1 and 2. As per the cross examination of PW.1, the contention of the accused is that the complainant took the cheque of the accused which was given to the finance company in connection with purchase of his Bike and fabricated the same as Ex.P.2 and filed the present complaint. If really the contention of the accused that the complainant took the cheque of the accused from the finance company, he would have examined the finance company staff or he would have filed some document to prove that he gave the said cheque to the finance company. Further, the accused did not produce any evidence to show that he worked under the complainant. Further, if really the complainant had taken his cheque from the 9 finance company, the accused would have issued a legal notice or he would have taken some legal action against the complainant.

20.It is the contention of the accused that the complainant sent legal notice in his absence and he did not receive the same. As seen from the address shown in the complaint and the address mentioned in Ex.P.5 postal cover are one and the same. As per the endorsement on Ex.P.5, the Post Man visited the house of the accused for seven days and he returned the postal cover to the complainant. The accused received the summons sent by this Court to the same address mentioned in the complaint on Ex.P.5 postal cover. So, the contention of the accused that the legal notice was sent to him in his absence cannot be believed.

21. Further, in this case the complainant by examining himself as PW.1 and by examining the scribe of Ex.P.1 promissory note and by producing Ex.P.6 certified copy of decree, proved that Ex.P.1 promissory note was executed by the accused in favour of the complainant and Ex.P.2 cheque was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant by receiving the consideration of

Rs.1,50,000/- under Ex.P.1 promissory note. Nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW.1 and PW.2 during their cross examination to disbelieve their evidence. No animosity was attributed against PW.2 to speak false against the accused. So, it can be safely conclude that Ex.P.2 cheque was issued for the discharge of Ex.P.1 promissory note debt. When once the accused admitted his signatures on Ex.P.2 cheque it can be presumed that the said cheque was issued for the discharge of

Ex.P.1 promissory note debt in view of the presumption u/Sec.118 of N.I., Act. All these facts and circumstances are clearly showing that the accused has taken formal pleas as his defence. He failed to raise probable defence. Hence, this court is of the opinion the accused failed to rebut the presumption u/Sec.139 of

N.I., Act which is in favour of the complainant.

10

22.At this stage, the learned counsel for the complainant relied on a decision reported in 2004 (1) ALD Cri. 810 Between : B.V. Rangam Vs. B.

Govinda Reddy and another, wherein it was propounded at para No.38, that in the absence of any proof submitted by the accused the presumptions under

Sections 138 and 139 must prevail and that a statutory presumption u/Sec.138 of the Act is made out by the complainant and discharged his initial burden since the issuance of the cheque was not disputed.

23.He further relied on another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in Appeal (Crl.) 1066 of 2001 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 969 of

2001 Between : K.N. Beena Vs. Muniappan and another dt.18.10.2001

wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the judgment erroneously proceeds on the basis that the burden of the proving consideration for a dishonoured cheque is on the complainant. It appears that the learned Judge had lost sight of Sections 138 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

24.At this stage, this Court relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court

of India reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283 Between M/s . Kalamani Tex and

another Vs. P. Balasubramanian wherein at para Nos.15, 16 and 18 it was held,

Para No.15 :- “ Once the 2 nd Appellant had admitted his signatures

on the cheque and the Deed, the trail Court ought to have

presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a

legally enforceable debt. The trial court fell in error when it called

upon the complainant – respondent to explain the circumstances

under which the appellants were liable to pay. Such approach of

the trial Court was directly in the teeth of the established legal

position as discussed above, and amounts to a patent error of

law.”

Para No.16 :- “No doubt, and as correctly argued by senior counsel

for the appellants, the presumptions raised under Section 118 and

Section 139 are rebuttable in nature. As held in MS Narayana

Menon Vs. State of Kerala, which was relied upon in Basalingappa

(supra), a probable defence needs to be raised, which must meet

the standard of “preponderance of probability “, and not mere

possibility. These principles were also affirmed in the case of

Kumar Exports (supra), wherein it was further held that a bare

11

denial of passing of consideration would not aid the case of

accused. “

Para No.18 :- “Even if we take the arguments raised by the

appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank

stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory

presumption cannot be obliterated. It is useful to cite Bir Singh

Vs. Mukesh Kumar, where this court held that :-

“Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed

over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would

attract presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in

the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not

issued in discharge of a debt.”

25.As per the above decision relied on by this Court, once the accused admitted his signatures on the cheque and promissory note, a presumption can be drawn that the cheque was issued as a consideration for legally enforceable debt. Further, the accused need not enter into the witness box but the accused must raise a probable defence which must meet the standard of preponderance of probability and not mere possibility. In this case, the accused did not deny the signatures on Ex.P.1 and P.2. The accused failed to place any material in support of his contentions and failed to dispel the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act and the accused failed to raise probable defence to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant.

26.The learned counsel for the complainant further relied on a decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.Appeal No.803/2018 arising out of

S.L.P. (Crl.) No.10030 of 2016 Between : Kishan Rao Vs. Shankar Gouda,

wherein at para No.19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere denial regarding the existence of the debt shall not serve for any purpose. At para

No.20, it was held the Trial Court and as well as the Appellat court found that the cheque contained the signatures of the accused and it was given to the appellate to present in the bank, the presumption under Section 139 was raised which was not rebutted by the accused.

12

27.As earlier discussed in this case , the accused did not produce any evidence that his cheque was taken by the complainant from the finance company. Even the accused did not state the name of the finance company from which the complainant taken his cheque. So, the above authority is aptly applicable to the case on hand.

28. By examining himself as P.W.1 and the scribe of Ex.P.1 as PW.2 and by exhibiting Ex.P.2 cheque, Ex.P.1 promissory note and Ex.P.6 certified copy of decree, the complainant proved that the accused after borrowing the amount from the complainant under the said promissory note and to make partial discharge of the debt due under the same, he issued Ex.P.2 cheque in favour of

P.W.1.

29.In view of the above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the accused failed to raise probable defence. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the accused failed to rebut the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I., Act which is in favour of the complainant.

The material on record proving that Ex.P.2 cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt due by the accused to the complainant. The point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

30.Point No.2: When once it is proved that the accused issued Ex.P.2 cheque in favour of the complainant to discharge enforceable debt, the next question that has to be decided is, whether the complainant has followed all the provisions laid down u/Sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I., Act for presenting the complaint into the court.

31.A perusal of the material available on record Ex.P.2 cheque is dt.7.5.2020. The complainant presented Ex.P.2 cheque on 5.6.2020 in his account and the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient” under Ex.P.3 endorsement dt.6.6.2020. The complainant got issued legal notice to the accused 13 on 26.6.2020 under Ex.P.4. The same was delivered under Ex.P.5 on 8.7.2020.

The date of completion of 15 days period is 23.7.2020. The complaint filed in the court on 3.9.2020 i.e., within one month of arising cause of action. Considering the dates mentioned above and the material on record, this court is of the opinion the complainant has followed all the provisions of Sec.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable

Instrument Act while presenting the court. Accordingly this point is answered.

32.Point No.3:- In view of the discussion on point Nos.1 and 2 and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the complainant has able to prove his case against the accused for the offence u/Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 beyond all reasonable doubt. This point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

33.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I., Act, 1881 and he is convicted u/Sec.255 (2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-Md.Rahamtulla

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS CUM JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

COURT, TENALI.

Keeping in view of of the nature of the offence that is a financial transaction and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for applying the provisions of Sec.360 Cr.P.C., or the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. He submitted that he is suffering from blood cancer and his daughter also suffering from ill-health and he has to look after them and pleaded mercy of this court. Considering the submissions of the accused, considering his family conditions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court feels that lenient view can be taken in this case and taken lenient view.

The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence u/Sec.1In the result, the petition is 14 dismissed.38 NI., Act. Further, the accused shall pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, being the cheque amount, to the complainant towards compensation u/Sec.357(3)

Cr.P.C., within two months from today, in default of payment of compensation, he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of two months .

The accused is in remand from 17.9.2022 to 22.9.2022. Hence, the said remand period is given set off u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

The accused is appraised of his right of appeal and also availability of free legal aid for the purpose of appeal.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-Md.Rahamtulla

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS CUM JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

COURT, TENALI.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the complainant:

PW.1 : Velaga Srinivasa Rao.

pw.2 : Vema Sri Anjaneya Vara Prasad.

For the Accused : None.

Exhibits marked

For the prosecution:

Ex.P.115.12.2017Certified copy of promissory note got executed by the accused in favour of complainant.

Ex.P.27.5.2020Cheque bearing No.298682 issued by the accused in favour of complainant drawn on State Bank of India, Chenchupet Branch, Tenali, Guntur District.

Ex.P.36.6.2020Bank return memo.

Ex.P.426.6.2020Office copy of the registered notice got issued by the complainant through his advocate to the accused along with postal receipt.

Ex.P.58.7.2020Returned notice with postal acknowledgement.

15

Ex.P.6-Certified copy of decree in OS.No.79/2021 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali.

For the Accused:Nil.

Id/-M.D.R.,

I AJMFC.,

Tenali.

//True copy//

I.A.J.F.C.M., Tenali.

16

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment District of GUNTUR Calendar of cases tried by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali Judgment in Calendar Case No.763/2020 Nature of Offence: U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act: Dishonour of Cheque.

Date of Judgment 19.4.2023

Apprehen-Commence Report ofReleaseClosureSentence or Offencesion ofment of complainanton bailof trialorder accusedtrial 6.6.203.9.2018.11.22-3.2.202324.3.2319.4.2023

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.763/2020 On the file of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Tenali.

Complainant: Velaga Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged 53 years, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District.

Name ofAge Father’sReligion Calling Residence Mandal accused name Tadiboina Mohana Krishna, S/o.Sree Ramaiah, Hindu, aged 35 years, D.No.10-75-21, Opp : Road of Chava’s Grand, Temple Street, Amaravathi Plots, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District.

FINDING: FOUND GUILTY Sentence:

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I., Act, 1881 and he is convicted u/Sec.255 (2) Cr.P.C.

The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence u/Sec.138 NI., Act. Further, the accused shall pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, being the cheque amount, to the complainant towards compensation u/Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C., within two months from today, in default of payment of compensation, he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of two months .

The accused is in remand from 17.9.2022 to 22.9.2022. Hence, the said remand period is given set off u/Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

17

The accused is appraised of his right of appeal and also availability of free legal aid for the purpose of appeal.

Sd/-Md.Rahamtulla

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CUM JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI.

Copy Submitted to:-

The Hon’ble Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

Note:- As per orders in Crl.M.P.No.1367 of 2023, dt.19.4.20232 filed under Section 389 (3) Cr.P.C., the sentenced of accused is suspended temporarily till 10.5.2023.

//True Copy//

I.A.J.F.C.M., Tenali.

18

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TENALI.

Present :: Sri Mohammed Rahamtulla I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Tuesday, the 25th day of April, 2022.

O.S.No.480/2019

Between: Challagundla Ravi Teja, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 29 years, Business, R/o.D.No.1-42-62, Nazerpet, Tenali, Guntur District. … PLAINTIFF. AND

1.Alapati Naga Sai, S/o.Venkata Apparao, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Business, R/o.Angalakuduru Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District.

2.Kota Ramesh, S/o.Raja Gopala Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Business, R/o.16/3, Arundalpet, Guntur-2, Guntur District. … DEFENDANTS.

This suit is coming on 21.3.2023 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri D.Siva Koteswara Rao, Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri

K.K.Ram Babu, Counsel for the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant remained exparte, upon perusal of the entire record and on hearing both the counsel, this court delivered the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

01.The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of Rs.3,08,000/- from the defendants with subsequent interest and costs.

02.THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF:

The defendants offered to sell the plaint schedule property of 300 sq. yards of site in D.No.27, 28/1, 28/2, plot No.16 to the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.5,000/- per sq. yard. An agreement of sale was executed by the defendants on 8.9.2016 by incorporating all the terms and conditions. On the same date, the plaintiff paid Rs.2,00,000/- as advance agreeing to pay the 2 remaining amount within 60 days from the date of agreement and thereafter, 18% interest should be paid. In the said agreement, the defendants mentioned that they obtained sale agreement on 6.2.2012 from Kavuri Venkayamma and others and in view of that agreement, the defendants have got right in the schedule property. The defendants promised that the regular sale deed will be executed through their vendors/land owners Kavuri Venkayamma and others. The defendants did not give copy of any agreement between them and the site owners. The plaintiff was ready to pay the balance amount and to get registration of the schedule property even before 60 days of agreement of sale. But the defendants failed to perform their part of contract and postponing the same on one ground or other. As there is no default on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff need not pay the interest. The plaintiff has been requesting the defendants to execute regular sale deed after taking balance of sale consideration. They stated that their vendors went to

America and after returning from America, they will get register the document and postponing the same on one ground or other. The plaintiff got issued a registered notice on 3.9.2019 requesting them to register regular sale deed through their vendors failing which return the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. 1st defendant received the same and 2nd defendant avoid to take notice and failed to give any reply and failed to perform their part of contract. After receiving the notice, the defendants stated that their vendors are not in India and it is not possible to perform the contract and promised to repay the amount with interest within three months. Hence, the suit.

3

3.2nd defendant remained exparte.

4.THE CASE OF THE 1st DEFENDANT:

On appearance of 1st defendant, he filed his written statement denying the plaint averments, but however he admitted that he sold the plaint schedule property to plaintiff at Rs.5,000/- per sq. yard for the plaint schedule property and agreed to execute a regular sale deed in favour of plaintiff by the vendors of the defendants i.e., Kavuri

Venkayamma and others. He also admitted that they executed contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 8.9.2016 by receiving advance of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. It is also agreed by the plaintiff to pay the balance of sale consideration within two months and if the plaintiff fails to pay the balance of sale consideration within the stipulated time. The plaintiff has to pay interest at 18% per annum on the balance of sale consideration.

4.1) It is further submitted that in spite of several requests and demands made by him personally and through mediators for balance of sale consideration within stipulated time and also after expiry of two months, the plaintiff admitting the same but postponing to pay the balance sale consideration and also for obtaining regular sale deeds in his favour with his expenses. The defendant is always ready to perform his part of contract if the plaintiff is ready to pay the balance of sale consideration with interest at 18% per annum and he is ready to execution of regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with his expenses by the vendors of the defendant.

4 4.2) The defendant further submitted that he performed to the plaintiff at the time of execution of sale deed another piece of property by the vendors of the defendants and requested and demanded the plaintiff to come forward and to pay the balance of sale consideration with interest, but the plaintiff failed to do so and paid Deaf Ear. The plaintiff never requested or never demanded him for receiving balance sale consideration and execution of regular sale deed. The plaintiff never got issued notice and this defendant never received the said notice. He never stated that their vendors are not in India and are in America. The vendors of the defendants are in India and also they are ready to execute regular sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff.

If the plaintiff is ready to pay the balance sale consideration with interest as agreed.

4.3) It is further submitted that at the time of execution of contract of sale, it is agreed that if the plaintiff fails to perform his part of contract, the advance amount paid by him will not be refunded to him. Hence, the defendants did not pay any amount to the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff is not entitled for the claim. The suit is barred by the limitation. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor for trial?

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of earnest money due under agreement of sale dt.8.9.2016 as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

5

5.During trial, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got examined one Sikharam Bala Bhaskar Rao as PW.2 and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.4. The 1st defendant himself examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

6.Heard arguments of learned advocates of both sides.

7.ISSUE No.1:

i). To prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief by reiterating the averments mentioned in the plaint. In support of the plaintiff’s case, he got examined the 1st attestor of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale as PW.2 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief. He supported the case of the plaintiff by stating that on 8.9.2016 the defendants executed

Ex.A.1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff after receiving advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposed about the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A.1 and later the defendants failed to register regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

8.On the other hand, to prove the case of 1st defendant, he himself examined as DW.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief by reiterating the averments mentioned in his written statement.

9.From the pleadings and evidence of both parties, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement. The plaintiff agreed to purchase 300 sq. yards of house site at

Rs.5,000/- per sq. yard. The plaintiff paid advance of Rs.2,00,000/- to the 6 defendants and the defendants received the same. The defendants 1 and 2 executed Ex.A.1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. There is a stipulation that if the plaintiff fails to get register within the stipulated time, the plaintiff has to pay the interest at 18% on the balance of sale consideration.

10.It is the contention of the plaintiff that though he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the defendants failed to perform their part of contract. On the other hand, the contention of the 1st defendant is that the plaintiff failed to get register regular sale deed by paying balance of sale consideration.

11.In view of the rival contentions of both parties, it is to be seen whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the defendants were ready to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by measuring the plaint schedule property.

12.During cross examination of PW.1, he admitted that the agreement was executed between him and defendants on 8.9.2016. In the said agreement, there is a clause that within 60 days from the date of agreement, he has to obtain regular sale deed from the defendants by paying balance of sale consideration. He admitted that if he failed to pay the balance of sale consideration and failed to get register regular sale deed, he has to pay 18 % interest on the balance. He got issued Ex.A.2 legal notice to the defendants on 3.9.2019. He did not request the demands to execute regular sale deed that he is ready to pay the balance amount with interest at 18% per annum. He denied the suggestion that 7 he never the demanded the defendants to execute regular sale deed by stating that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He denied the suggestion that the defendants requested him to get register a regular sale deed within time but he was not ready to get register the sale deed from the defendants. He stated that he demanded the defendants through Ex.A.2 legal notice that he is having balance of sale consideration on hand and register regular sale deed in his name. He denied the suggestion that the defendants requested him to get register the regular sale deed with regard to his plot as other plot owners get registering their respective plots. He admitted that he did not seek the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, he only sought for the refund of earnest money with interest. He admitted that in Ex.A.1 there is no condition that the defendants have to pay the interest to him on the advance amount paid by him in case of failure on the part of the defendants. It was suggested to him that since there is no condition in

Ex.A.1 for refund of the advance paid by him with interest, the defendants have no necessity to pay the suit amount to him.

13.During cross examination of PW.2, he admitted that the plaintiff has got knowledge about the defendants not having any agreement from his vendors i.e., Venkayamma and others. He stated that on behalf of his vendors, the plaintiff obtained agreement of sale from the defendants. After expiry of the stipulated time, he and the plaintiff requested the defendants to register the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but the defendants stated their vendors under agreement or at America and soon after they return, they will execute regular sale 8 deed. He admitted that there is a condition in the agreement of sale if the plaintiff fails to obtain regular sale deed within 60 days, he has to pay interest at 18% per annum on the balance of sale consideration. He admitted that there is no condition in the agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants for return of earnest money in case the defendants failed to fulfill the condition of the sale consideration. He denied the suggestion that the above said amount does not belongs to the plaintiff and the advance amount paid by the plaintiff is of him and that the plaintiff is the friend of his son and he got filed the present suit through him against the defendants by signing on the agreement of sale just prior to filing of the present suit.

14.During cross examination of DW.1, he admitted that they executed Ex.A.1. They have obtained an agreement from the landlord and in turn they converted the land into plots to sell the same to others.

He can file the agreement entered by them with the landlord before this court. He admitted that before filing the present suit, the plaintiff got issued registered legal notice to them demanding them to register the schedule property in the name of the plaintiff failing which to return the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest to the plaintiff. He admitted that he did not issue reply notice to Ex.A.2 legal notice got issued by the plaintiff before filing of the suit. He denied the suggestion that after issuance of Ex.A.2, legal notice also the plaintiff approached them and they stated to him that they cannot register regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as the landlord are residing in Abroad and they will not register the said land in their name even they requested and that 9 for that reason, the plaintiff filed the present suit. He denied the suggestion that even though the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, they failed to perform their part of contract within time. It was suggested to him that since they have no title deed with regard to the plaint schedule property, they have no right to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and that they have to return the advance amount to the plaintiff with interest.

15.As seen from the recitals of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale, the plaintiff has to get execute regular sale deed in his favour by paying the balance of sale consideration within 60 days. As seen from Ex.A.2 legal notice, he got issued the same on 3.9.2019. So, as per Ex.A.1 time is essence of the contract. In Ex.A.2 except mentioning that the plaintiff was ready to pay the balance amount and to get registration of the schedule property even before 60 days of agreement of sale, the plaintiff did not state the date, month and year when he was ready with the balance of sale consideration to perform his part of contract. He did not file any statement of his bank account copy before this court that he was ready with the said amount. He did not issue any notice to the defendants that he is ready to pay balance of sale consideration and to get the regular sale deed from the defendants. PW.2 never stated in his evidence that

PW.1 asked the defendants through him to execute regular sale deed in favour of PW.1. His entire evidence is nothing but replica of the evidence of PW.1. It is pertinent to mention that PW.1 admitted that he did not request the defendants to execute regular sale deed that he is ready to pay the balance amount with interest at 18% per annum. He further 10 admitted that he did not seek the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale and he only sought for the refund of the earnest money with interest. So, from the admissions of PW.1 and as he failed to adduce any cogent evidence, this court is the opinion that PW.1 was failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract within 60 days as stipulated in Ex.A.1. When the time if essence of the agreement of sale of an immovable property and sale deed is not executed by the stipulated deadline date, the agreement comes to an end and it’s specific performance cannot be claimed.

16.Now it is to be seen whether the defendants have any right and tile over the plaint schedule property to execute the agreement of sale in favour of PW.1.

17.Admittedly, either the plaintiff or defendants did not file any document to show that the defendants obtained an agreement from their vendors on 6.2.2012. PW.1 in his chief examination stated that the defendants promised that regular sale deed will be get executed through their vendors, the landowners Kavuri Venkayamma and others. The defendants did not give copy of any agreement between the defendants and site owners of the schedule property and promised that they will get register the documents. As seen from Ex.A.1 there is no such recital that the defendants will get execute regular sale deed through their vendors.

So, the evidence of PW.1 on this aspect is utterly false. Further, it is pertinent to mention that PW.1 even without perusing the documents of the defendants entered into Ex.A.1 of agreement of sale. It is settled 11 principle of law that “buyer beware”. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants have title over the plaint schedule property to execute Ex.A.1 agreement of sale in his favour.

18.Now it is to be seen whether there is any condition that in case of the failure of the defendants, they have to repay the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at 18% per annum. During the cross examination of PW.1, he admitted that he only seek for the refund of the earnest money from the defendants with interest. He categorically admitted that in Ex.A.1 there is no condition that the defendants have to pay interest to him on the advance amount paid by him in case of failure on the part of the defendants. It was suggested to him that since there is no condition in Ex.A.1 for the refund of the advance amount, the defendants have no necessity to pay the suit amount to him with interest. As seen from the recitals of Ex.A.1, there is no refund clause by the defendants in case of their failure to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with interest. In view of the above admission of PW.1 and as there is no clause in Ex.A.1 for the refund of the advance amount to the plaintiff with interest at 18% per annum in case of their failure, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the refund of the earnest money with interest as claimed.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

12

19. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2023.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TENALI.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW-1: Challagundla Ravi Teja

PW-2: Sikharam Bala Bhaskar Rao.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT::

DW-1: Alapati Naga Sai.

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

Ex.A-1: 8.9.2016Contract of sale deed. Ex.A-2: 3.9.2016Office copy of registered notice. Ex.A-3 ;6.9.2019Acknowledgement of 1st defendant. Ex.A-4 : -Postal receipt of 2nd defendant.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT::

-- NIL --

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TENALI.

Present :: Sri Mohammed Rahamtulla I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Wednesday, the 19th day of April, 2023.

O.S.NO.466/2021

Between: Chunduru Pushpa Leela @ Pushpa Leela Vathi, W/o.Leela Mohan, aged 44 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.22-05-43, Sarojini Naidu Street, Kothapet, Tenali, Guntur District. … PLAINTIFF. AND Penugonda Siva Kumar, S/o.Venkat Malleswara Rao, D.No.14-27-5, Uppuluri Vari Street, Marrispet, Tenali-522201, Guntur District. … DEFENDANT.

This suit is coming on 6.3.2023 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri D.Siva Koteswara Rao, Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri

Sk.Kalesha, Counsel for the defendant, upon perusal of the entire record and on hearing both the counsel, this court delivered the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

01.The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of Rs.3,07,150/- from defendant basing on promissory note with subsequent interest and costs.

02.THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF:

On 28.8.2018, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his business purpose and executed ‘A’ marked suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.

On 29.8.2018, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his business purpose and executed ‘B’ marked suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.

2

After several repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay any amount under the promissory notes or any part thereof and finally on 1.7.2021 the defendant issued a cheque for an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Tenali Branch, Tenali vide cheque No.000031 dt.1.7.2021 to the plaintiff towards part payment of the above said debt due by him and the said cheque was dishonoured on 2.7.2021 with an endorsement that “insufficient funds in the account’, the same was informed to the plaintiff through his banker. The plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant on 8.7.2021 by registered post requesting the defendant to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which the plaintiff will be constrained to take legal action against them u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, as amended by Act 55 of 2002. The defendant received the said ntoice and on 14.7.2021 the defendant reply notice through his advocate with false allegations 19.7.2021. The defendant is a small farmer and the interest claimed is simple and reasonable. Therefore, the interest need not be scaled down.

The defendant is not entitled to the benefits of any debts laws. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit.

3.THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT:

On appearance of defendant, he filed written statement denying the plaint averments and further contended that the defendant craves leave the following facts for the kind consideration of this court. The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 28.8.2018 and

Rs.1,00,000/- on 29.8.2018 from the plaintiff and at that time the plaintiff 3 obtained the signatures of the defendant on blank cheque also towards security purpose on 29.8.2018. On 17.2.2021 the defendant discharged the said borrowed amount with interest to the plaintiff in the presence of

Ponnuri Naga Surya Sasidhara Rao of Tenali, Guntur District and requested the plaintiff to return the said pronotes and empty cheque. At that time, the plaintiff requested and represented the defendant that the same were kept in another place and she would would return the same as soon as possible. Having believed the words of the plaintiff, the defendant kept quite all these days.

3.1) It is further submitted that the plaintiff filed the blank cheque containing the signature of the defendant and which was given towards security purpose and presented the said cheque without informing the defendant and the same was got returned. The plaintiff only for unlawful gain presented the cheque and now by suppressing all real facts got issued notice dt.8.7.2021 with all false and frivolous allegations only with an intention to squeeze money from the defendant. The defendant received the said notice and got issued a suitable reply notice dt.17.7.2021 by mentioning the true and real facts. The plaintiff filed a false complaint against the defendant under Negotiable Instruments Act

before this court. In any event, the interest claimed by the said krishna

Reddy is usurious. The defendant reserves his right to file additional written statement if necessary in a later stage and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial?

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

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

3. To what relief ?

5.During trial, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and got examined the 1st attestor of suit promissory notes as PW.2 and got marked Ex.As.1 to A.4. The defendant himself examined as DW.1 and got examined one Ponnurui Naga Surya Sasidhar Rao as DW.2 and got marked no documents.

6.Heard arguments of learned advocates of both sides.

7.ISSUE No.1 :

(i)The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff proved her case by examining herself and by examining 1st attestor as

PW.2 and by exhibiting Exs.A.1 to A.4. Hence, he prayed to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

(ii) The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant discharged the promissory notes debt in the presence of one

Ponnuru Naga Surya Sasidhara Rao, but the plaintiff did not return the promissory notes and filed this false suit for wrongful gain. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

(iii) The case of the plaintiff is that on 28.8.2018, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his business 5 purpose and executed ‘A’ marked suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. The defendant again borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 29.8.2018 from the plaintiff for his business purpose and executed ‘B’ marked suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. but later failed to repay the said debt amount in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators. On 1.7.2021 the defendant issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Tenali Branch towards part payment of the above said debt and the said cheque was dishonoured on 2.7.2021 with an endorsement that “funds insufficient” in the account of the defendant.

(iv)The defendant admitted that he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 28.8.2018 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 29.8.2018 and that at that time the plaintiff obtained his signatures on blank cheque also towards security purpose on 29.8.2018. On 17.2.2021 he discharged the said debt in the presence of Ponnurui Naga Surya Sasidhara Rao. The plaintiff without returning the promissory notes and cheque filed this case for wrongful gain.

8.To prove her case, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 by filing her affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief by reiterating the averments of the plaint. To prove her case, the plaintiff got examined the 1st attestor of the suit promissory notes as PW.2 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief. He stated that the defendant borrowed 6

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 28.8.2018 and he also borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 29.8.2018 and executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum. At the time of execution of the suit promissory notes, he, another attestor P. Durgaprasad, defendant were present. The defendant himself scribed the suit promissory notes. The entire transaction took place in his presence.

9.The defendant himself examined as DW.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief by reiterating the averments mentioned in the written statement. In support of his case, he got examined one

Ponnuri Naga Surya Sasidhara Rao who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief. He stated in the same lines of DW.1. On 17.2.2021 the defendant discharged the said amount borrowed from the plaintiff in his presence and requested the plaintiff to return the promissory note and empty cheque. The plaintiff represented that the same were kept in another place and she would return the same as soon as possible.

10.The defendant did not dispute that he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.8.2018 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 29.8.2018 from the plaintiff under

Exs.A.1 and A.2. His contention is that he discharged the said debt, but the plaintiff did not return Exs.A.1 and A.2 promissory notes. Since the defendant admitted the execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2, the presumption u/Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendant has to rebut the presumption that he discharged the said debt.

7

11.During cross examination of PW.1, she denied that she obtained two cheques from the defendant on the date of execution of suit promissory notes. She admitted that the defendant got issued reply notice to the notice issued by her. She admitted that she filed a suit against DW.2 Ponnuri Naga Surya Sasidhara Rao for recovery of money on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali. She admitted that the said Ponnuri Naga Surya Sasidhara Rao filed a suit against her, her husband, Pendiyala Prasad for permanent injunction. She admitted that the suit filed by Ponnuri Naga Surya Sasidhara Rao against her and others was compromised. She also admitted that the suit filed by her against

Ponnuri Naga Surya Sasidhara Rao on the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Tenali was also compromised. She denied the suggestion

that the defendant repaid the amount due under the suit promissory notes in the presence of the said Ponnuri Naga Surya Sasidhara Rao. She denied the suggestion that at the time of discharge of the promissory notes debt, the defendant asked her to return his cheques and promissory notes issued by him to him and that she stated that that they were kept somewhere and she will return the same whenever they traced. If really, the defendant discharged the debt due under Exs.A.1 and A.2 and when the plaintiff did not return the said promissory notes, he would issued a legal notice to her to return the said promissory notes or he would have taken legal steps against her. The suggestion made to PW.1 shows that he got issued reply notice to the plaintiff after receipt of notice from her.

When the plaintiff failed to file the reply notice before this court, what prevent the defendant to file the office copy of the said legal notice 8

before this court. Surprisingly, DW.1 in his cross examination stated he

did not issue any legal notice to the plaintiff demanding her to return her promissory notes. So, the defendant has taken two inconsistent pleas.

Further, the defendant being a prudent person when paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff he would have obtained proper receipt.

12.During cross examination of DW.1, he stated that he discharged the total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the husband of the plaintiff by name Leela Mohan but he does not remember the date when he repaid the said amount. He repaid the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- at the house of the plaintiff. He asked the husband of the plaintiff to return his promissory notes, but he did not issue any legal notice to the plaintiff demanding her to return his promissory notes. It was suggested to her that he did not repay the due amount under Exs.A.1 and A.2 to the plaintiff and that he is deposing false. From the admissions of DW.1 in his cross examination it shows that he paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the husband of the plaintiff whereas in the cross examination of PW.1, he suggested to her that he paid Rs.2,00,000/- to her. So, DW.1 stated two inconsistent statements that he paid the amount to the plaintiff on one hand and on the other hand he repaid the amount to the husband of the plaintiff. So, his evidence is not inspiring the confidence of the court.

13.DW.2 also stated that the defendant paid the amount due under the suit promissory notes to the husband of the plaintiff. He cannot the say the date when the defendant repaid the amount to the husband of the plaintiff due under the suit promissory notes. He has not witnessed 9 how much amount paid by the defendant to the plaintiff’s husband. The defendant did not obtain and receipt from the plaintiff after payment. It was suggested to him that the defendant did not pay amount due under the suit promissory notes to the plaintiff’s husband. So, from the admissions of DW.2, it shows that the defendant repaid to the husband of the plaintiff, but not to the plaintiff and that without seeing how much amount paid by the defendant to the plaintiff’s husband and on which date, the evidence of DW.2 that the defendant repaid Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff cannot be believable.

14.Though PWs.1 and 2 were cross-examined, nothing useful to establish any of the defences could be elicited from any of them.

15ISSUE No.2:

Since Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed. Accordingly this issue is answered.

16.ISSUE No.3 :-

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs for Rs.3,07,150/- (Rupees

Three Lakhs, Seven Thousands, One Hundred Fifty only) with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per 10 annum from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 19th day of April, 2023.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TENALI.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW-1 : Chunduru Pushpa leela @ Pushpa Leela Vathi.

PW-2: Chunduri Ravi Kumar

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT::

DW-1:Penugonda Siva Kumar DW-2: Ponnuri Naga Surya Sasidhara Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

Ex.A-1: 28.8.2018‘A’ marked original promissory note executed by the defendant.

Ex.A-2 :29.8.2018‘B’ marked original promissory note executed by the defendant.

Ex.A-3 :8.7.2021Office copy of the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.A-4:19.7.2021Reply notice defendant advocate to plaintiff.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT::

-- NIL --

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

11

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TENALI.

Present :: Sri Mohammed Rahamtulla I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Wednesday, the 19th day of April, 2023.

O.S.NO.466/2021

Between: Chunduru Pushpa Leela @ Pushpa Leela Vathi, W/o.Leela Mohan, aged 44 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.22-05-43, Sarojini Naidu Street, Kothapet, Tenali, Guntur District. … PLAINTIFF. AND Penugonda Siva Kumar, S/o.Venkat Malleswara Rao, D.No.14-27-5, Uppuluri Vari Street, Marrispet, Tenali-522201, Guntur District. … DEFENDANT.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of amount of

Rs.3,07,150/- under the foot of promissory note and for costs.

Plaint presented on:21.8.2021. Plaint filed on:24.8.2021. CAUSE OF ACTION :- Cause of action for the suit arose on 28.8.2018, and 29.8.2018 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes each Rs.1,00,000/- with his own hand writing in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, when the defendant failed to repay the same in spite of repeated demands and finally issue a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- on 1.7.2021 towards the part payment of the above said pronotes debt amount and the same was dishonoured on 2.7.2021, where the pronotes were executed and when the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 8.7.2021 the defendant, reply notice through his advocate his advocate with false allegations on 19.7.2021. At Tenali where the plaintiff and where the pronotes were executed are all within the jurisdiction of his court.

VALUATION :- A)Principal amount due under the suit ‘A’ marked promissory note dt.28.8.2018 Rs.1,00,000-00

Interest thereon @ 18% p.a., from 28.8.2018 to 20.8.2021Rs. 53,600-00 –--------------------- Rs.1,53,600-00

On which, an amount of Rs.4,026/- is payable under Sec.20 of the A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

B)Principal amount due under the suit ‘B’ marked promissory note dt.29.8.2018 Rs.1,00,000-00

Interest thereon @ 18% p.a., from 29.8.2018 to 20.8.2021Rs. 53,550-00 –--------------------- Rs.1,53,550-00 12

On which, an amount of Rs.4,026/- is payable under Sec.20 of the A.P.C.F and S.V.Act. The value for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.3,07,150-00

This suit is coming on 6.3.2023 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri D.Siva Koteswara Rao, Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri Sk.Kalesha, Counsel for the defendant, upon perusal of the entire record and on hearing both the counsel, Doth Order and Decree as follows :

1 That suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs;

2. That the defendant do pay Rs.3,07,150/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and there after 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/-; and

3. That the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.19,1188-00 to the plaintiff towards costs and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 19th day of April, 2023.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintif For Defendant

 (No C.M. filed) Stamps on vakalat: Rs. 2-00 Stamp on plaint: Rs.8,052-00– Process fee: Rs. 100-00 Pleaders fee: Rs.10,914-00 Typing charges: Rs. 50-00 -------------------------------------- Costs Allowed at: Rs.19,118-00 - N I L - --------------------------------------

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI.

Present : Sri. Mohammed Rahamtulla,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class :: Tenali

Tuesday, the (25th ) day of April, 2023

O.S.No.32 of 2023

Between :

Tulluru Narasimha Rao, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu,

Hindu, aged 62 years, Retired Municipal Employee,

R/o.D.No.14-40-52/3, Mattam Bazar, Morrispet,

Tenali Town, Guntur District. ….PLAINTIFF

And :

Shaik Baji Hussain, S/o.Shaik Mohammad, Muslim,

aged 53 years, Sanitary Inspector, Tenali Municipality,

R/o.D.No.20-12-1, Venugopala Swamy, St : Chinnaravuru,

Tenali Town. ….DEFENDANT

This suit is coming on the same day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri

J.Siva Rama Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and

this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1).This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of amount of

Rs.6,70,933/- under the foot of promissory note and for costs.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are :- On 10.3.2020, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his transferee and executed a marked promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at his house in Morrispet, Tenali Town. Later, the plaintiff made several demands in person and through mediators for repayment of the debt due under the above said promissory note executed by the defendant with interest. The defendant admitted his liability and postponed the payment. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of the debt due under the said promissory note with interest.

2

3) Summons were issued to the defendant. He received the summons.

Since he failed to appear before this court, he was set exparte.

4).In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1.

5) Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6) It is the case of the plaintiff that on 10.3.2020, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his transferee and executed a marked promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at his house in Morrispet, Tenali Town. Later, the plaintiff made several demands in person and through mediators for repayment of the debt due under the above said promissory note executed by the defendant with interest.

7) The plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief reiterating the averments mentioned in the plaint and got marked suit Promissory note dt.10.3.2020 as Ex.A.1. The testimony of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 remained unrebutted by the defendant. Hence, it is opined that the plaintiff has proved his claim and is therefore entitled for a decree.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.6,70,933/- with future interest on principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- 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 to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 25 th day of April, 2023.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TENALI.

3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for :

PlaintiffDefendant

PW.1Tulluru Narasimha Rao Exparte

Exhibits marked for the Plaintiff

Ex.A.110.3.2020Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour

of plaintiff.

Exhibits marked for the Defendant: Nil

IAJCJ., TENALI.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TENALI.

Present : Sri. Mohammed Rahamtulla,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class :: Tenali

Tuesday, the (25th ) day of April, 2023

O.S.No.32 of 2023

Between :

Tulluru Narasimha Rao, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu,

Hindu, aged 62 years, Retired Municipal Employee,

R/o.D.No.14-40-52/3, Mattam Bazar, Morrispet,

Tenali Town, Guntur District. ….PLAINTIFF

And :

Shaik Baji Hussain, S/o.Shaik Mohammad, Muslim,

aged 53 years, Sanitary Inspector, Tenali Municipality,

R/o.D.No.20-12-1, Venugopala Swamy, St : Chinnaravuru,

Tenali Town.

….DEFENDANT

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of amount of Rs.6,70,933/- under the foot of promissory note and for costs.

Plaint presented on:6.1.2023. Plaint filed on:19.1.2023.

CAUSE OF ACTION :- Cause of action for the suit arose on 10.3.2020, when the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff for meeting to discharge his sundry debts and for family expenses and executed a marked promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at his house in Morrispet, Tenali Town and when the plaintiff made several demands in person and through mediators for repayment of amount due under the said promissory note and the defendant admitted his liability and postponed the payment and both parties are residing in Tenali Town are all within the jurisdiction of this court.

VALUATION :-

Principal amount due under 10.3.2020Rs.4,00,000-00

Add :- Interest at 24% p.a., from 10.3.2020 to 5.1.2023Rs.2,70,933-00 –--------------------- Rs.6,70,933-00

On which, an amount of Rs.9,226/- is payable under Sec.20 of the A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

The value for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,70,933-00

This suit is coming on the same day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.Siva Rama Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained exparteand upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and having considered the material available on record, Doth Order and Decree as follows :

5 1 That suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs;

2. That the defendant do pay Rs6,70,933/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and there after 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/-; and

3. That the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.20,292-00 to the plaintiff towards costs and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this the 25th day of April, 2023.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintif For Defendant No C.M. filed) Stamps on vakalat: Rs. 2-00 Stamp on plaint: Rs. 9,226-00– Process fee: Rs. 100-00 Pleaders fee: Rs.10,914-00 Typing charges: Rs. 50-00 -------------------------------------------------------- Costs Allowed at: Rs.20,292-00 - N I L - ------------------------------------------------------

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TENALI.

Present :: Sri Mohammed Rahamtulla I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.

Thursday, the (20th ) day of April, 2023.

OS.No.684 of 2021

Between :

1.Davuluri Prasunamba

2.Koganti Nagalakshmi.

3.Davuluri sudheer.

4.Yalavarthi Srilakshmi....Plaintiffs

And

1.Davuluri Venkata Rao.

2.Duggirala Lakshmi Tulasi.

3.Davuluri Sailaja. ....Defendants

This suit is coming before me for hearing on this day in the presence of Sri T.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri B.M.S.Durga Prasad, Advocate for 2nd and 3rd defendants and 1st defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for partition.

02.As per Orders passed in IA.No.138/2023 this suit is advanced from 3.7.2023 to till this day i.e., 20.4.2023.

03.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs filed a memo prays the Hon’ble

Court to may be pleased to dismiss the above suit without costs as the matter is adjusted out of court and pass such other orders. Memo recorded. Hence, the suit is dismissed as adjusted out of the court.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 20 th day of April, 2023.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.

APPENDIA OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

No oral and documentary evidence adduced by either side.

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TENALI.