Mohd. Abdul Javeed Pasha

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

PRESENT: Sri Mohd Abdul Javeed Pasha,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Khammam.

Dated, this the 23rd day of April, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 322 of 2019

BETWEEN :

Kolikonda Ravindar Babu, S/o.Satyanarayana, Age:50 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o.Flat No.204, Samskruthi Towers, Mamatha Hospital Road, Khammam. … Plaintiff

// AND //

Chava Madhu, S/o.Chinna Ramaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.7-3-325, Vijayanagar Colony, Khammam.

… Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 22.04.2024 in the presence of Sri Anamchinni Rama Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff; Sri. Rayala Ravi Kumar, Advocate for defendant; upon perusing the entire material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,20,000/- with future interest @ 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

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

The plaintiff and the defendant are well acquainted with each other, out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities on 8.10.2017 and having received the said amount, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % per annum as and when demanded by the plaintiff.

Thereafter, the plaintiff made several demands for the repayment of borrowed amount alongwith interest, but the defendant postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, the suit for recovery of amount with interest.

3]The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement and stated that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, never executed any promissory note much less the alleged promissory note dt.8.10.2017, the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document; the defendant has no necessity to borrow any amount from anybody muchless from the plaintiff as the defendant is having sufficient source of income; there is no acquaintance between the plaintiff and the defendant, as such the question of borrowing of such a huge amount does not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

3 4] Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

(i)Whether the suit promissory note dt.8.10.2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

5] During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and also examined one Kommineni Nageswara Rao as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 on his behalf. In rebuttal, the defendant not adduced any evidence on his behalf.

6] Heard.

ISSUE Nos.1 and 2 7] The contention of the plaintiff is that on 08.10.2017, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from him and executed

Ex.A1/promissory note in his favour with a promise to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum, but later inspite of his demands to repay the borrowed amount, failed to repay the same hence the suit.

4

To substantiate his contention as stated supra, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and also examined the scribe of the Ex.A1/promissory note as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1/promissory note.

On the other hand, the contention of the defendant is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff as he has sufficient source of income and no need to borrow any amount from anybody; the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

8] On perusal of the evidence of PW1, in his chief-examination affidavit he reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint. In the cross-examination,

PW1 stated that the defendant is his relative, he has given the amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- on 08.10.2017 at 5.00 p.m to the defendant; at the time of suit transaction, himself, defendant and attestors/T.Venkat Rao &

E.Nageswara Rao and scribe/ Kommineni Nageswara Rao were present and the suit transaction took place at his house; PW1 denied that he has filed the present suit to harass the defendant and to help the wife of the defendant.

On perusal of the evidence of PW2, in his chief examination affidavit, he mentioned that the defendant has well acquaintance with the plaintiff and out of such acquaintance, he borrowed an amount of 5

Rs.10,00,000/- on 08.10.2017 from the plaintiff, after receiving the said amount, executed the promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest as and when demanded by the plaintiff. In the cross-examination, PW2 stated that he scribed the Ex.A1/promissory note; before the suit transaction, he know the defendant and on the date of suit transaction plaintiff called him. PW2 denied that he is deposing false to help the plaintiff.

9]In this case, the defence taken by the defendant is that

Ex.A1/promissory note is forged and fabricated one. When the defendant has taken the plea of forgery, the initial burden to prove Ex.A1/promissory note is on the plaintiff. To discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and also got examined PW2 who is the scribe of

Ex.A1/promissory note. In his chief-examination affidavit, PW2 stated that the suit transaction took place in his presence and after receiving the amount the defendant executed the Ex.A1/promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and he scribed the said promissory note. In the cross- examination of PW2, no useful material to disprove the execution of

Ex.A1/promissory note could be elicited. No enmity is established between the defendant and PW2. In such a case, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW2 with regard to execution of 6

Ex.A1/promissory note. The evidence of PW2 is supporting the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and executed Ex.A1/promissory note. During the course of cross- examination of PW1 also, nothing is elicited which goes against to the case of the plaintiff and useful to the case of the defendant.

The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 corroborating with each other.

The evidence of PWs1 and 2 not shaken at any point of time with regard to factum of borrowing of money by the defendant and execution of

Ex.A1/promissory note, thus the plaintiff discharged his initial burden of proving the execution of Ex.A1/promissory note.

Then the burden shifts on the defendant, to prove his contention that Ex.A1 is forged one. But, the defendant has not taken any step to send the Ex.A1/promissory note to the Hand Writing Expert to prove that the signature of Ex.A1/promissory note not belongs to him. In this case, it is pertinent to note that the defendant not adduced any evidence on his behalf, even he did not enter into the witness box to depose his case.

10]At this juncture, I deem it appropriate to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision between -

Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441

7 wherein it is observed that - “ Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.”

In this case also, though the defendant contends that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document but neither the defendant has taken any steps to disprove the signature therein is not belongs to him nor adduced any evidence, even the defendant not entered into the witness box to state his own case and not offered himself to be cross-examined by the other side. Hence, in view of the observations in the above referred judgment, the presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct and his defence cannot be considered.

11]Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of my above discussion and in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the above referred judgment, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff proved his case as such, plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. The issue nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

8

Issue No.3:- 12]In view of my findings in issue nos.1 and 2, I am of the opinion that the suit of the plaintiff is to be decreed with costs.

13] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.14,20,000/- with future interest @ 24 % per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6 % per annum till realization, on the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of April, 2024.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

PW1 : Kolikonda Ravindar Babu

PW2 : Kommineni Nageswara Rao

FOR DEFENDANTS: -None- 9

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dt.08.10.2017

FOR DEFENDANT:

-Nil-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

Pg No.1 of 5HMOP NO.124/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KHAMMAM

Present :Sri Mohd. Abdul Javeed Pasha, Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024

H.M.O.P.No. 124 of 202 3

BETWEEN:

Mankena Eswar Rao, @ Kalyan, S/o.Seetha Ramaiah, Age: 36 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.3-67, Nerada village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District. … Petitioner No.1

// AND //

Papineni @ Mankena Sravani, W/o. Eswar Rao @ Kalian, Age:23 years, Occ:House maker, R/o. Gollenpahad village of Wyra mandal, Khammam District. … Petitioner No.2

This petition is coming before me on 23.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Srinvasa Rao, Advocate for the petitioners; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the matter and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioners no.1 and 2 under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce of mutual consent.

Pg No.2 of 5HMOP NO.124/2023

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

The marriage of the petitioners was performed on 29.04.2017 at

Gollenpahad village as per the rites and customs prevailing in Hindu community. After the marriage, the petitioner no.2 joined the company of petitioner no.1 and lead the marital life for a period of three years. Out of their wedlock, they blessed with a male child. During their marital life, the petitioners developed misunderstandings and they become enemies to each other and inspite of intervention of their parents and the elders, same could not be resolved and the differences continued and thereby they have been living separately from 05.06.2021. All the efforts made by the elders on both sides for reunion of the petitioners were went in vain.

Subsequently the elders pacified the matter by advising the petitioners to take legal divorce by way of mutual consent. Hence, the petitioners decided to dissolve their marriage and agreed to take divorce by mutual consent. As per the advise of the elders, the petitioner No.1 agreed to register the land of Ac.1.20 guntas and Ac.0.01 guntas to his minor son towards full and final settlement towards maintenance and for the share in the properties of petitioner no.1; the petitioner no.2, being the mother of minor ward agreed for the same and there is no any

Pg No.3 of 5HMOP NO.124/2023 ancestral properties fallen to the share of the petitioner no.1 and both the parties also agreed to exchange the ornaments and articles.

As the petitioners are residing separately since long time and absolutely there is no chance of reunion, hence, the present petition seeking for decree of divorce by mutual consent.

3.This petition was registered on 07.10.2023. In view of the provision laid down under section 13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, this petition was posted for compulsory observation period of six months. Conciliation efforts were made. Efforts to reconcile the matter were failed.

4.During the course of enquiry, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 and P2 are marked. Ex.P1 is the original lagna patrika; Ex.P2 is the marriage photographs.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for dissolution

of their marriage, which was performed on 29.04.2017 under

mutual consent?

POINT:

7.According to the averments in the joint petition and submissions made by the counsel for petitioners, both the petitioners are Hindus by

Pg No.4 of 5HMOP NO.124/2023 religion and their marriage is one which is recognized as valid by the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

8.To prove the contentions of the petitioners, they are examined as

PWs.1 and 2 and reiterated the contents of the joint petition in their chief- examination affidavits and got marked Exs.P1 and P2; on perusal of the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P1 and P2, it reveals that the marriage took place between the petitioners on 29.04.2017, both the petitioners were lived together for three years and out of their wedlock, they blessed with a male child.

The further contention of the petitioners is that they are residing separately from 05.06.2021 and there is no possibility for their reunion to lead the marital life hence as per the advise of elders they decided to dissolve their marriage by way of decree of divorce of mutual consent by resolving the issues with regard to maintenance of petitioner no.2 and their minor son and also share in the properties of petitioner no.1.

9. Before recording of the evidence of the petitioners, this court has ascertained the facts from both parties and satisfied that the consent given by each of the parties is voluntary one and it is of free consent. In these circumstances, it is found that the petitioners have proved their

Pg No.5 of 5HMOP NO.124/2023 case and they are entitled for divorce as prayed for. Point is accordingly answered.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed by granting a decree of divorce under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners No.1 and 2 which took place on 29.04.2017. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of April, 2024.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioner s : PW.1: Mankena Eswar Rao @ Kalyan

PW.2: Papineni @ Mankena Sravani

Exhibits marked

Petitioner s (PWs.1 and 2) :

Ex.P1 : Original Lagna Patrika

Ex.P2 : Marriage photographs (4)

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KHAMMAM

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

PRESENT: Sri Mohd. Abdul Javeed Pasha Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

Dated, this the 25th day of April, 2024

H.M.O.P NO.60 of 202 3

BETWEEN:

Peram Muthesh, S/o.Ramanadham, Age:32 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.H.No.2-81/4, Bachodu village, Tirumalayapalem mandal, Khammam District. …Petitioner

// AND //

Peram Nageswari, W/o. Peram Muthesh, Age:29 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.Raghavapuram village, Chinthakani mandal, Khammm District.

…Respondent

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 25.04.2024 in the presence of Sri P.Vidya Sagar, Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent was set exparte; upon perusing the entire material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

O R D E R :: ::

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/husband under section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce.

2

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

The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent took place on 10.05.2009 at Konijerla village and mandal, Khammam district as per the rites and customs prevailing in Hindu community. Out of their wedlock, they blessed with a male child. The petitioner further pleads in the petition the circumstances of cruelty meted out by the respondent.

3.After receipt of notice, though the respondent appeared before the court but did not choose to file the counter hence she was set exparte.

4.In order to prove his case, the petitioner himself examined as

PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 on his behalf. Ex.P1 is the marriage wedding card; Ex.P2 is the joint photograph of the petitioner and the respondent; Ex.P3 is the joint photograph of the respondent alongwith another person; Ex.P4 is C.C of docket order in H.M.O.P No.128/2018 on the file of this court.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“ Whether the marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent can be dissolved by granting a decree of

divorce as prayed for”?

3

P OINT:

7. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is his legally wedded wife, they lead the marital life happily for about three years at

Bachodu village, Thirumalayapalem mandal, Khammam district and blessed with a male child; thereafter they shifted their residence to various places and lead the marital life; during the marital life, the respondent used to left the house without any information to the petitioner and lead her life at her own accord, when the petitioner went for agriculture work, in his absence, the respondent used to maintain illegal intimacy with one person and also blessed with a male child with him.

The further contention of the petitioner is that so many panchayaths were conducted, the elders admonished the respondent and also advised her to join with the petitioner but the respondent expressed her disinterest in continuing marital life with the petitioner and abused to the petitioner and the elders in filthy language; as there is no chance for reunion with the respondent hence, the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce.

8.In support of his contention as stated supra, the petitioner himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. On perusal of the 4 evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.P1 and P2, it is proved that the petitioner and the respondent are the husband and wife and further proved by the evidence of PW1 that the respondent subjected him to cruelty without any reason or sufficient cause. There is no rebuttal evidence to the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent that was solemnized on 10.05.2009 is hereby dissolved by granting a decree of divorce. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of April, 2024.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

PW1 :Peram Muthesh - None- 5

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER :

Ex.P1 : Marriage wedding card

Ex.P2 : Joint photograph of the petitioner and the respondent;

Ex.P3: Joint photograph of the respondent along with another person;

Ex.P4: C.C of docket order in HMOPNo.128/2018 on the file of this court.

FOR RESPONDENT

-Nil-

Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Khammam.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

PRESENT: Sri Mohd. Abdul Javeed Pasha Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

Dated, this the 18th day of April, 2024

H.M.O.P NO.103 of 202 3

BETWEEN:

Rajavaram Nithin Prakash, S/o. Narayana Swamy, Age: 26 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o. H.No.2-51/2, Naidupeta, Khammam rural (m), Khammam District.

…Petitioner

// AND //

Rajavaram Sruthi @ Ch.Sruthi, W/o. Nithin Prakash, D/o. Deen Dayal, Age:23 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.2-4-97, Aam bazar, 13 No.basthi, Yellandu town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District-507123.

…Respondent

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 18.04.2024 in the presence of Sri Ch.Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri B.Kalyan Rao, Advocate for the respondent; upon perusing the entire material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

O R D E R :: ::

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/husband under section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce.

2

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

The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent took place on 20.11.2021 at Vanajeevi Ramaiah Function hall, Maremma thalli temple,

Reddypally, Khammam rural mandal, Khammam district as per the rites and customs prevailing in Hindu community. The petitioner further pleads in the petition the circumstances of cruelty meted out by the respondent.

3.Inspite of receipt of notice and filed vakalath on her behalf, the respondent did not choose to file the counter hence she was set exparte.

4.In order to prove his case, the petitioner himself examined as

PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 on his behalf. Ex.P1 is the marriage wedding card; Ex.P2 is the marriage photograph; Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice dated.14.09.2022; Ex.P4 is the postal receipt, dated.14.09.2022; Ex.P5 is the postal acknowledgment, dated 20.09.2022.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“ Whether the marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent can be dissolved by granting a decree of

divorce as prayed for”?

3

P OINT:

7. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is his legally wedded wife and they lead the marital life only for few days and out of their wedlock they have no issues; since the date of marriage, the respondent used to left the company of the petitioner without any intimation to the petitioner, the respondent used to ill-treat the petitioner and his parents with regard to education and financial status of the petitioner.

The further contention of the petitioner is that on 20.06.2022 the father of the respondent came to his house and took her without consent of the petitioner and his parents and since then she has been living with her parents, thereafter the petitioner made several efforts to bring back the respondent to his marital fold but all the efforts were went in vain; he also issued notice to the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was served but the respondent did not choose to join his company. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce.

8.In support of his contention as stated supra, the petitioner himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. On perusal of the 4 evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.P1 to P5, it is proved that the petitioner and the respondent are the husband and wife and further proved by the evidence of PW1 that the respondent subjected him to cruelty without any reason or sufficient cause. There is no rebuttal evidence to the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent that was solemnized on 20.11.2021 is hereby dissolved by granting a decree of divorce. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18th day of April, 2024.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

PW1 :Rajavaram Nithin Pakash - None- 5

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER : FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.P1: Marriage wedding card -Nil-

Ex.P2: Marriage photograph

Ex.P3: Office copy of legal notice dated.14.09.2022

Ex.P4: Postal receipt, dated.14.09.2022

Ex.P5: Postal acknowledgment, dated 20.09.2022.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Khammam.

TSKH020008362018

Presented on : 20-12-2018 Registered on : 20-12-2018 Decided on : 18-11-2021 Duration : 2 years, 10 months, 29 days

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge AT ,KHAMMAM

Presided Over by Sri Md.Abdul Javeed Pasha

OS/100552/2018

Exhibit No.:

:

VEERAVELLI RAJESH

Age: 32 Occupation : Address: OCC BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.9-2-142/A, BACK SIDE OF BUS

STAND, OLD CLUB ROAD, KHAMMAM

VERSUS :

KHAMMAM DISTRICT ARYA VYSYA MAHASABHA

Age: 0 Occupation : Address: KHAMMAM DISTRICT ARYA VYSYA MAHASABHA,

KHAMMAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVINOR, SRI DOSAPATI

VENKATESWAR RAO, S/O RANGA RAO, AGE.55, OCC BUSINESS, R/O SKT CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS, H.NO,.15-7-632/1,

SREE NAGAR COLONY, ROTARY NAGAR, KHAMMAM

2:SRI DOSAPATI VENKATESWAR RAO Age: 55 Occupation :

3:TELANGANA STATE ARYA VYSYA MAHASABHA

Age: 0 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : SRINIVASU KANDIBANDA Advocate for : appearing for KHAMMAM DISTRICT ARYA VYSYA MAHASABHA: Advocate , appearing for 2, 3 respectively.

ORDER

The plaintiff present. The counsel for the plaintiff present. The plaintiff and counsel for the plaintiff submitted that plaintiff and defendants settled the matter outside the court as per the advise of elders, hence, plaintiff is not intending to proceed with the suit. Memo filed to that affect by giving notice to the counsel for defendants. Memo recorded. This suit is dismissed as not pressed and attachment ordered if any, earlier is hereby raised.

Date : 18-11-2021 (Sri Md.Abdul Javeed Pasha)

FAC: Senior Civil Judge

KHAMMAM

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS