Smt. Mohd. Ishrath Fathima

1Of 11

O.S.357 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. Mohd. Ishrath Fathima

II Additional Junior Civil Judge.

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 357/2018

BETWEEN:

Kode Subba Rao. ….Plaintiff

Palla Srinivasu. ..Defendant

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 13-03-2020 in the presence of Sri P.Srinivas, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant having been remained exparte; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant prays to pass preliminary decree against the defendants for a sum of Rs.1,95,550/- directing the defendant to pay or deposit the same into court with subsequent interest at 24% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.1,47,900/- within the time and for realization of the same from the mortgage property and other properties of the defendants and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of suit debt from the defendant basing on the mortgage deed dated 05.03.2012 which was executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same within four years, .

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant approached one Smt.Samana Naga

Mani, wife of Subba Rao of Tirupathipuram village of Attili Mandal for a loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 5.3.2012 agreeing to repay the same with interest 2Of 11

O.S.357 of 2018

at 24% p.a., and executed a simple registered mortgage deed in favour of

Smt.Samana Naga Mani agreed to repay the same in four years i.e., on 4.3.2016. The said Mortgage deed is duly attested one. Later, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- along with interest to Smt.Samana Naga Mani on 14.4.2012 and endorsed the part payment on the back page of the registered mortgage deed dated 5.3.2012 and agreed to repay the balance amount of Rs.75,000/- and interest from 14.4.2012. But, inspite of repeated demands made by said Samana Naga Mani, the defendant failed to repay the same. Smt.Samana Nagamani sent a notice to the defendant through her advocate , the defendant received the said notice, but not paid the amount to

Smt.Samana Nagamni.

3. It is further submitted that the said Samana Nagamani is a Cancer patient and due to her ill health in need of money for her medical expenses, she had demanded the defendant in number of times for her money and as the defendant not paid the amount due then Smt.Samana Nagamani in need of money for her treatment transferred the registered mortgage deed bond to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,47,900/- calculated the principal amount of Rs.75,000/- and interest upto 2.5.2016 and received the amount of

Rs.1,47,900/- from the plaintiff and executed the registered mortgage deed transferred deed dated 2.5.2016 in favour of plaintiff and handed over the document to the plaintiff before the attestors. The plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of the defendant which was purchased from Sri

Challa Krishna under the registered sale deed document No.3985/2011 and created registered mortgage of the said property in favour of Smt.Samana

Naga Mani for the borrowed amount. The plaintiff intimated the transfer of mortgage deed by Smt.Samana Nagamani in his favour and demanded the defendant to pay the amount due under registered mortgage deed to him 3Of 11

O.S.357 of 2018

The defendant requested time and after lapse of time also, the defendant did not paid the amount and postponing the same on one pretext or other. The plaintiff demanded the defendant number of times personally and through mediators, but the defendant has not paid the amount.

4. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant has already mortgaged the plaint schedule property to Sri Kode Siva Suresh under the equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed and said Siva Suresh filed suit O.s.21/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem and obtained decree against the defendant and later filed E.P.6/2017 against the defendant for sale of the plaint schedule property and the Hon’ble senior Civil Judge Court,

Tadepalligudem sold the plaint schedule property on 13.12.2018 for an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- in public auction and in that auction the bidder has deposed the amount in the Hon’ble senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem on 20.12.2018.

5. The plaintiff further submitted that the plaint schedule property was mortgaged to Sri Kode Suresh and later against mortgaged to Smt.Samana

Naga Mani under the registered mortgage deed dated 5.3.2012 by the defendant. But the plaint schedule property was sold by the Court in curt auction on 13.12.2018 in E.P.6/2017 in O.S.21/2013. Smt.Samana Nagamani transferred the registered mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff on 2.5.2016 and hence he has got right over the auction amount to the tune of the mortgage debt amount. Hence, he filed the suit for recovery of the suit mortgage amount from the auction amount of Rs.4,25,000/-.

6.On receipt of the notice, defendants did not appear before this Court and also failed to file their written statement. Hence, defendants have been remained exparte.

4Of 11

O.S.357 of 2018

7.On behalf of plaintiff he got himself examined as P.W.1 and exhibited

Exs.A-1 to A-4. The defendant failed to cross-examine P.W.1. To support his case, the plaintiff got examined P.W.2 on his behalf. On the other hand, the defendant did not produce any evidence. Hence, defendant side evidence is treated as Nil.

8.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit relief as prayed for?

POINT:- As noted above during plaintiff side evidence, the plaintiff filed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and the contents of such affidavit were found to be similar to the contents of the averments of the plaint and therefore the same are not restated in detail.

10.The case of the plaintiff as pleaded and as sought to be established is as follows: On 05/03/2012, the defendant approached one Samana Nagamani of

Tirupathipuram village and borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from her for the purpose of his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum within four years and executed a Registered Mortgage deed in respect of the schedule property in favour of Samana Nagamani. Ex.A-2 is the Registered mortgage bond dt.05/03/2012. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- along with interest to Samana Nagamani on 14/04/2012 before the attestors and endorsed the part payment on the back pages of the same.

Subsequently the defendant committed default of the installment. Samana

Nagamani demanded thedefendant personally and through the mediators and that the plaintiff got issued registered notice dt.06/12/2015. Ex.A-3 is the office copy of legal notice. Ex.A-4 is the postal acknowledgment.

11.Samana Nagamani was a cancer patient and due to her ill-health she 5Of 11

O.S.357 of 2018

was in need of money for her medical expenses and she had demanded the defendant number of time for her money due by the defendant and as the defendant did not pay the amount, the said bond was transferred in the name of plaintiff under Ex.A-1. The said schedule property is the self acquired property of the defendant who had purchased the same from Sri.Challa

Krishna under registered sale deed document No.3985/2011 and created registered mortgage of the said property in favor of Samana Nagamani for the amount borrowed by the defendant. After transfer of mortgage deed under

Ex.A-1, the plaintiff had intimated the same to the defendant and demanded him to pay the amount. The defendant had requested him some time and later failed to pay the amount. The defendant had already mortgaged the plaint schedule property to one Sri.Kode Siva Suresh under the Equitable Mortgage by deposit of title deeds and the said Kode Siva Suresh filed suit in OS 21/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem and obtained decree against the defendant and later filed EP No.6/2017 against the defendant for sale of the schedule property. The same was sold on 13/12/2018 for an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- in public auction conducted by the Court.

Hence the plaintiff prays to recover his mortgage amount from the said auction amount.

12.Further P.W1 had exhibited Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4 documents in support of the above contention. On careful perusal of the said exhibits it is clear that the same are fully corroborate the oral testimony of the P.W.1. One independent witness who had attested Ex.A-2 was examined. He also corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. On the other hand the defendant even failed to appear

before this court to prosecute the matter and he remained ex-parte. Thus, the

version of P.W.1 remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. On careful perusal of the plaint, its annexures and also the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the 6Of 11

O.S.357 of 2018

same are corroborated with each other’s. Further P.W.1 in his examination in chief had affirmed the plaint averments on oath and he had translated the pleadings into direct evidence which is acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the defendant remained ex-parte, the oral evidence of P.W.1 which is well corroborated by the contents of the above referred exhibits and oral evidence of P.W.2, had remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. There are no inherent infirmities either in the claim or in the nature of evidence adduced to prove the suit claim.

13.Therefore, the evidence on record is sufficient to safely conclude the contention of the plaintiff. In view of the above discussion coupled with the reasons, the point is accordingly answered holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently established about his entitlement to a decree in his favour and against the defendant as prayed for.

14. In the result, the suit is decreed preliminarily decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of

Rs.1,95,550/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety fife Thousand Five Hundred and Five

Hundred and Fifty only) with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,47,900/-. Time for redemption is three months. The plaintiff is at liberty to file a final decree petition in default of payment of amount due by the defendant.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-Mohd.Ishrath Fathima,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

7Of 11

O.S.357 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiff: For the Defendants : NONE.

P.W.1 Kode Subba Rao.

P.W.2 Kode Siva Suresh.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 is the registered mortgage bond transfer dated 2.5.2016.

Ex.A2 is the registered mortgage bond dated 5.3.2012.

Ex.A-3 is the office copy of legal notice dated 6.12.2015

Ex.A-4 is the postal acknowledgment.

For the Defendants: Nil.

ild/- Mohd.I.F.

IIAJCJ,

TPG.

8

Plaint presented on: 27.12.2018 Plaint filed on : 27.12.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. Mohd. Ishrath Fathima

II Additional Junior Civil Judge.

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 357/2018

BETWEEN:

Kode Subba Rao, son of Satti Raju, 56 years, Cultivation, D.No.1-28, Cheruvu Street, Avapadu Village, TPGPJCJC. ….Plaintiff

AND Palla Srinivasu, son of Satyanarayana, 31 years, Business, D.No.4-29-1, Kodi Building, Back side of Seshamahal, Salipet, Tadepalligudem, TPGPJCJC.

..Defendant

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant prays to pass preliminary decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,95,550/- as he has got rights over the plaint schedule property and the said property was sold by the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem, in E.P.6/2017 in O.S.21/2013 for an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- on 13.12.2018.

VALUE OF THE SUIT for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction is :

Principal Amount on Mortgage Deed Rs.1.47,900-00

Interest from 2.5.2016 to 26.12.2018 on Rs.75,000/-at 24% p.a., is Rs. 47,650-00 ----------------- Total Rs.1,95,550-00 ----------------- On which a court fee of Rs.4,426-00 is paid Under Section 19 and 20

Schedule 1(B)(C) and Article 1 of of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act. 1956 on 22-10- 2019.

CAUSE OF ACTION:-

Cause of action for the suit arose on 5-3-2012 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff mortgaging the plaint schedule property and executed registered mortgage deed on the 9 same day in favour of Smt.Samana Nagamani and on when the defendant paid an amount of Rs 75,000/- on 5.3.2012 and endorsed the same on back side of registered mortgage deed and on when Said Samana Nagamni got issued legal notice to the defendant on 6.12.2015 n and on 2.5.2016 hen Samana Nagamani transferred the registered mortgage deed to the plaintiff under registered mortgage transfer deed for an amount of

Rs.1,49,700/- and on when plaint schedule property was auctioned by the

Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem in public auction for an

amount of Rs.4,25,000/- at Avapadu and Tadepalligudem where the plaintiff and defendant are residing which are within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble

Court.

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 05-03-2020 in the presence of Sri P.Srinivas, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant had been remained exparte; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND

PRELIMINARY DECREE:

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to this the 27-12-2018 (the date of the suit) is the sum of Rs.1,95,550/- for principal and interest of

Rs.1,47,900/- on the said principal amount respectively; and the sum of

Rs.4428/-(Rupees Four Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Eight only) towards institution costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff making in all the sum of Rs.1,95,550/- + Rs.4428/- = Rs.1,99,978 /- (Rupees One Lakh

Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Eight only)

2. And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:-

(i)that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay to the

Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1.95,550/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a.,on the principal amount of Rs.1,47,900/- from the date of decree till the date of realization;

(ii)that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay the decree amount within 3 (Three) months failing which the Plaintiff is 10 entitled to bring the Plaint schedule mortgaged property into sale for realization of the Decree amount as per law after obtaining the final decree;

(iii)that if the sale proceeds of Mortgaged property is not sufficient to realize the decree amount, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the balance amount personally against the defendant;

(iv)that the defendant do pay an amount of Rs.4428/- towards institution costs of the suit.

3) that, on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such amount as the Court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First schedule to the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff shall being into court all documents in his possession of power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendants, or to such persons as they appoints, and the plaintiffs shall, if so required recovery of re-transfer the said property free from the said mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintiffs or any person claiming under them or any person under whom they claimed and shall, if so required, deliver up to the defendants quiet and peaceable possession of the said property.

4. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, in default of payment as afore said, the plaintiffs may apply to the court for a final decree for sale of the mortgaged property, and on such application on being made, the mortgaged property, or a sufficient part there of shall be directed to be sold and for the purpose of such sale the plaintiffs shall produce

before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in their

possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

5. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale) in payment of amount payable to the plaintiffs under this decree and under any further orders that maybe passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiffs in respect of such costs of the suit, and 11 such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as maybe payable under Rule 11 of the order XXXIV of the First schedule to the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendants or other persons entitled to receive the same.

6. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiffs as afore said, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty( there such remedy is open to them under the terms of their mortgage and is not barred by any Law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendants for the amount of balance, and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the court from time to time as they may have occasion, and on such application or other-wise the court may given such directions as it thinks fit.

(Copy of the Plaint schedule is appended hereto)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 20th day

March, 2020.

Sd/-Mohd.I.Fathima,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

INSTITUTION COSTS

Sl.No.DESCRIPTIONFOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANT 1Stamps on petition2-00

2. Plaint fee4,426-00No costs memo filed Total 4,428-00

Institution Costs Rs.4,428-00 ild/- Mohd.I.F.

II AJCJ, TPG.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. Mohd. Ishrath Fathima

II Additional Junior Civil Judge.

Thursday, this the 19th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.203/2019

BETWEEN:

Sri Vaddapatla Raghavendrarao.

...Plaintiff

AND

Sri Akula Paddaraju. ...Defendant

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 12-03-2020 in the presence of Sri Pydi Venkata Raju and Sri A.Subhakar, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri Y.Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.87,750/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and

Fifty only) being the amount of principal and interest due on promissory note dated 07.11.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for

Rs.75,000/- repayable with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.75,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his goat business abd agred to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a., either to plaintiff or to his order on demand and he had executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. The plaintiff submitted that afflux of time several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not choose to pay the debt due under the suit promissory note and postponing the same from time 2 to time on one pretext or other. The plaintiff further submitted that on 26.03.2019 he got issued a legal notice to the defendant through his counsel by demanding the defendant to discharge the debt due under promissory note. The defendant received the said notice and got issued a reply notice on 1.4.2019 with false and untenable allegations which are unsustainable under law.

3. The plaintiff humbly submits that it is false to state that the defendant approached one Maridi Satyanarayana and raised debt of Rs.75,000/- and the said debt was repaid by him and left the blank empty promissory notes with the said Maridi Satyanarayana and thereafter the death of said Maridi

Satyanarayana, the defendant approached one Smt.Chandravathi and asked about the said promissory notes, but said lady expressed her inability and assured there will not be any dispute in future course of time, so the defendant kept quite and that the said lady confessed before the village persons that the lady is going to take steps against the defendant and accordingly, the defendant got issued a notice stating about the said facts and that the said Chandravathi might have behind the litigation and that the defendant never approached the plaintiff and never borrowed Rs.75,000/- from the plaintiff on 7.11.2017 and the thumb is nothing but rank forgery with bad intention and might have at the instance of the above said persons.

The plaintiff further submits that the defendant is doing business in goats n

Akkupalli Gokavaram and having movable and immovable properties as such the defendant is having capacity to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note in lumpsum. Hence the plaintiff constrained to file this suit.

4. On receipt of summons the defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint. He submitted that on 3 necessity of agricultural operations, the defendant approached late Maridi

Satyanarayana more than one and half year back and requested to provide an amount of rs.75,000/- and took the said amount from the said

Satyanrayana and while giving the said amount the said late Maridi

Satyanarayana took two empty promissory notes obtaining the thumb impression of the defendant. He further submitted that the defendant approached the said late Maridi Satyanarayana with a view to clear off the said amount due along with one Sri Akula Srinivasarao and paid the above said amount to the said Satyanarayana and requested to give back the said empty promissory notes but the said person represented that the same were in the custody of elder daughter and the same will be return in due course of but it is extreme surprise that the said Satyanarana died intestate without handing over the said promissory notes to this defendant. Immediately after the death of the said late Maridi Satyanarayana basing on the empty promissory notes, the wife of Satyanarayana called the defendant and directed to pay the said amount along with stipulated interest thereof for which the defendant gave a notice to the said lady by name Chandravathi on 18.02.2019 and the said Chandravathi with malafide intention made to file the present through the present plaintiff who is no other than the in laws of the said Chandravati and late Satyanarayana. He further submitted that subsequently he received notice from the plaintiff and he gave reply with the facts prevailed but with malafide intention filed the present suit without relation of borrower and borrowee. He submitted the scribe and attestors mentioned in the suit document are no other than the near relations of the present plaintiff and said late Satyanarayana and Chandravathi. He submitted that there is no liability to this defendant to pay any amount under the suit pronote as the said note is fabricated one with an evil view to 4 cause mental agony to this defendant, moreover he is an agricultural coolie and he never did goat business at any point of time. Therefore, he prays the

Hon’ble Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5. Taking into consideration the above the pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:-

1) Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated as pleaded by the defendant?

2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

During the course of trial the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-3. Ex.A-1 is promissory note dt.07/11/2017.

Ex.A-2 is the Office copy of legal notice dt.26/03/2019. Ex.A-3 is the reply notice dt.01/04/2019. The 1st attestor of Ex.A-1 was examined as P.W.2. The 2nd attestor of Ex.A-1 was examined s P.W.3. Thereafter even sufficient time was given the defendant did not adduce any evidence on his side and no documents were also marked on his side.

6.Heard the arguments on plaintiff side and the defendant counsel did not adduce their side arguments and their side arguments were treated as heard. This court carefully gone through the pleadings, the oral, documentary evidence adduced and considered the same.

7. ISSUE NO::1:- Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated as pleaded by the defendant?

The oral evidence of P.W.1 is completely supported by Ex.A-1 and evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 regarding the money transaction between himself and defendant. It is the contention of P.W.1 that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000/- from P.W.1 on 07/11/2017 in the presence of attestors and scribe agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum yearly compound on demand to P.W.1 or to his order and executed 5

Ex.A-1. On the other hand it is the contention of the defendant that there is no legally enforceable contract between them and the said suit transaction is fabricated one.

8.Once the defendant admitted his thumb impression on Ex.A-1, the burden shifts on him to explain and prove, in what circumstances he put his thumb impression on Ex.A-1, failing which the presumption U/Sec.114 of

Indian Evidence Act can be safely drawn as Ex.A-1 promissory note was fully supported by consideration, upon due execution of the same by the defendant. U/Sec.20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, “where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, be thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other then a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder”. Since the defendant admitted his thumb impression on Ex.A-1 and so also giving it, he is liable to pay the amount covered under it.In the light of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that defendant failed to discharge the burden to show that Ex.A-1 was fabricated. Accordingly, this issue answered.

9. ISSUE NO::2:- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

In order to substantiate the contention of the defendant, P.W.1 was cross examined but nothing could be elicited out of his cross-examination.

6

P.Ws.2 and 3 were also cross-examined regarding the same but there were no worthwhile admissions. It has to be seen that except taking the said plea, the defendant did not get himself examined or adduce any evidence on his behalf either oral or documentary. In the absence of any acceptable evidence much weight cannot be attached to accept the contention of the defendant that Ex.A-1 is fabricated one. As such, it cannot be held that the contention of the defendant is correct. Hence the suit pronote dated 07/11/2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

In the light of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that defendant failed to discharge the debt covered under Ex.A-1. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to recover the debt with agreed interest and so also with subsequent interest from the date of suit to till the date of realization. Accordingly, this issue answered.

11. Issue No.3: To what relief ?

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.87,750/- (Rupees

Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) with interest @12% p.a. on the suit amount of Rs.87,750/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.75,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-Mohd.Ishrath Fathima,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Tadepalligudem.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiff:For the Defendant:

PW1: Vadpatla Raghavendrarao. None PW2:Tadi Ramireddy PW3:Dokala Srinivasa Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1:Original Promissory note dated 07-11-2017. Ex.A2:Office copy of legal notice dated 26.03.2019 Ex.A3:Reply notice dated 1.4.2019

For the Defendant:

NIL ild/-Mohd.I.F.

II A.J.C.J.,

TPG.

8

Plaint presented on : 18-04-2019 Plaint filed on : 25-04-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. Mohd. Ishrath Fathima

II Additional Junior Civil Judge.

Thursday, this the 19th day of March, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.203/2019

BETWEEN:

Sri Vaddapatla Raghavendra Rao, son of Satyanarayana, Hindu, Male, 70 years, Cultivation,

D.No.5-61,Kaikaram, Unguturu Mandal....Plaintiff.

AND

Sri Akula Paddaraju, son of Venkanna, Hindu, Male, aged 45 years, Goat Business, D.No.2-73, Akkupalli Gokavaram, Unguturu Mandal,

W.G.District.....Defendant.

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.87,750/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only) being the amount of principal and interest due on promissory note

dated 07.11.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for

Rs.75,000/- repayable with interest at 12% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

VALUE OF THE SUIT :

Principal amount is ... Rs.75,000/-

Interest from 07.11.2017 to 15.04.2019 @ Rs.12% p.a., … Rs.12,750/- Total ... Rs.87,750/- On which a court fee of Rs.3186/- is paid Under Section 20, Sch.I, Article 1

(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956.

CAUSE OF ACTION:Cause of action for the suit arose on 07.11.2017 when the defendant had borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and had executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff and on all dates when the plaintiff demanded the defendant in person for repayment and on 26.3.2019 when the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant and on 1.4.2019 9 when the defendant gave reply with false and untenable allegations and at

A.Gokavaram where the suit transaction has taken place and are all are within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 12-03-2020 in the presence of Sri Pydi Venkata Raju and Sri A.Subhakar, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri Y.Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE is as follows:

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs; ii) that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay a sum of

Rs.87,750/- (Rupees Eighty seven Seven Hundred and Fifty only) with interest @ 12% p.a. on the suit amount of Rs.87,750/- thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree, till the date of\ realization on the principal sum of Rs.750,000/-; and iii) that the defendant do also pay an amount of Rs.3188-00 (Rupees

Three Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Eight only ) to the plaintiff towards Institution costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 19th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-Mohd.Ishrath Fathima,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

INSTITUTION COSTS

Sl.No.DESCRIPTIONFOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANT 1Stamps on Vakalat2-00

2.Plaint fee3186-00No costs memo filed 3,188-00 Total

Institution Costs Rs.5,528-00 ild/-Mohd.I.F.

II AJCJ, TPG.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. Mohd. Ishrath Fathima

II Additional Junior Civil Judge.

Wednesday, this the 18th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.187/2019

BETWEEN:

Smt.Rajamahendravarapu Ananda Satyavathi

...Plaintiff

AND

Sri Chikkala Peda Subba Rao. ...Defendant

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 11-03-2020 in the presence of Sri Duvvi Peddi Nooka Raju, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri D.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,09,733/- (Rupees Three Lakh Nine Thousand Seven

Hundred Thirty Three only) being the amount of principal and interest due on promissory note dated 01.01.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family welfare and to discharge sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to plaintiff or to his order on demand and he had executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff in person and through elders to 2 discharge the debt but the defendant failed to repay the same and postponing the same one pretext or other. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant is having movable and immovable properties and having capacity to discharge the said debt and hence he is not entitled to claim any benefits under debt relief Act. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant appeared before this court and filed his written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint.

He submitted that he never executed the alleged suit promissory note either on 1.1.2017 or on any other date in favour of the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint and on the other hand the plaintiff have no capacity to lend such huge amount either to the plaintiff or to anybody. The said promissory note is forged one and brought into existence with the active collusion of the alleged scribe and attestor who are no other than the close associates, kith and kin of the plaintiff. He further submitted that no consideration was passed and the suit promissory note is nothing but false, fabricated an forged one and not supported by any consideration.

4. He further submitted that the allegation that the plaintiff demanded the defendant many a time personally and through the mediators but the defendant failed to discharge the suit pronote debt etc., are utterly false.

He further denied that he has capacity to discharge the suit debt and not entitled to get any benefits under any debt relief acts. He submitted that he is an agricultural coolie and he is eking out his livelihood by attending the seasonal coolie works. Therefore, he prays the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

3

5. Taking into consideration the above the pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:-

1) Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated one as pleaded by the defendant?

2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

During the course of trial the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and exhibited Ex.A-1. Ex.A-1 is promissory note dt.01/01/2017. The attestor of Ex.A-1 was examined as P.W.2. The scribe of Ex.A-1 was examined as

P.W.3. Thereafter even sufficient time was given the defendant failed to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 3 and did not adduce any evidence on his side and no documents were also marked on his side.

6.Heard the arguments on plaintiff side and the defendant counsel did not adduce their side arguments and their side arguments were treated as heard. This court carefully gone through the pleadings, the oral, documentary evidence adduced and considered the same.

7. ISSUE NO::1:- Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated as pleaded by the defendant?

The oral evidence of P.W.1 is completely supported by Ex.A-1 and evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 regarding the money transaction between himself and defendant. It is the contention of P.W.1 that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from P.W.1 on 01/01/2017 in the presence of attestors and scribe agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum yearly compound on demand to P.W.1 or to his order and executed

Ex.A-1. On the other hand it is the contention of the defendant that there is no legally enforceable contract between them and the said suit transaction is forged and fabricated one.

4

8.The defendant took plea that Ex.A-1 is a forged document. In order to disprove the said plea the plaintiff could prove the execution of Ex.A-1 by way of examining the attestor and scribe of the same. Now the burden shifts upon the defendant to prove that the signature on Ex.A-1 not belong to him.

Except taking the plea of forgery the defendant did not take any steps to send Ex.A-1 for expert opinion in order to prove the plea of forgery and that he is in no way concerned with the signature on Ex.A-1. In the absence of taking such necessary steps an adverse inference can be drawn that defendant took a vague plea to avoid the payment of suit claim amount.

Moreover the defendant failed to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 3 to elicit the said forgery.

9.In the light of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that defendant failed to discharge the burden to show that Ex.A-1 was forged and fabricated one. The plaintiff could discharge the initial burden resting upon him regarding the passing of consideration under

Ex.A-1 to the defendant apart from proving the execution of Ex.A-1. Once execution of Ex.A-1 accepted by this court, the presumption can be drawn in favour of the plaintiff U/Sec.114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, as the suit promissory note was fully supported by consideration upon duly executing the same. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claimed amount from the defendant . Accordingly, this issue answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. ISSUE NO::2:- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

5

In order to prove the execution of Ex.A-1, the plaintiff took the support of the attestor and scribe of Ex.A-1. On close evaluation of the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, this court has no reason to discard their evidence in chief as their evidence was failed to be cross-examined by the defendant. As per the pleadings and evidence of P.W.1, the same is corroborated by P.Ws.2 and 3.

Since they were not cross-examined their evidence is considered in toto.

However, as stated by the defendant that he does not know the plaintiff, In such an event, what is the necessity for the plaintiff to have brought Ex.A-1 into existence by forging the signature of defendant in collusion with the attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 was not satisfactory explained by the defendant to disbelieve the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3.

In the light of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that defendant failed to discharge the debt covered under Ex.A-1. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to recover the debt with agreed interest and so also with subsequent interest from the date of suit to till the date of realization. Accordingly, this issue answered.

11. Issue No.3: To what relief ?

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.3,09,733/- (Rupees

Three Lakh Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Three only) with interest @12% p.a. on the suit amount of Rs.3,09,733/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-Mohd.Ishrath Fathima,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Tadepalligudem.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiff:For the Defendant:

PW1: Rajamahendravarapu None Ananda Satyavathi. PW2:Karripothu Rajamani PW3:Dulapalli Murali Krishna

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1:Original Promissory note dated 01.01.2017

For the Defendant:

NIL

ild/-Mohd.I.F.

II A.J.C.J.,

TPG.

7

Plaint presented on : 15-04-2019 Plaint filed on : 15-04-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. Mohd. Ishrath Fathima

II Additional Junior Civil Judge.

Wednesday, this the 18th day of March, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.187/2019

BETWEEN:

Smt. Rajamahendravarapu Ananda Satyavathi, wife of late Satyam, Hindu, Female, 51 years, r/o D.No. 1-76-55, LIG 1-12, housing Board Colony,

Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District.....Plaintiff.

AND

Sri Chikkala Peda Subba Rao, son of Sarabandi Raju, Hindu, Male, 42 years, r/o D.No.11-111, Kondalamma Street, Pippara Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.

....Defendant

.

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,09,733/- (Rupees Three Lakh Nine Thousand Seven Hundred

Thirty Three only) being the amount of principal and interest due on promissory note dated 01.01.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

VALUE OF THE SUIT :

Principal amount is ... Rs.2,00,000/-

Interest from 01.01.2017 to 14.04.2019 @ Rs.24% p.a., … Rs.1,09,733/- Total ... Rs.3,09,733/- On which a court fee of Rs.5,526/- is paid Under Section 20, Sch.I, Article 1

(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956.

CAUSE OF ACTION:Cause of action for the suit arose on 01.01.2017 when the defendant had borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and had 8 executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff and on all dates when the plaintiff demanded the defendant in person for repayment and at Tadepall igudem transaction has taken place and are all are within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 20-02-2020 in the presence of Sri Duvvi Peddi Nooka Raju, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri D.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER

AND DECREE is as follows:

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs; ii) that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay a sum of

Rs.3,09,733/- (Rupees Three Lakh Nine Thousand seven

Hundred and Thirty here only) with interest @ 12% p.a. on the suit amount of Rs.3,09,733/- thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree, till the date of realization on the principal sum of

Rs.2,00,000/-; and iii) that the defendant do also pay an amount of Rs.5528-00 (Rupees

Five Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Eight only ) to the plaintiff towards Institution costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 18th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-Mohd.Ishrath Fathima,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

INSTITUTION COSTS

Sl.No.DESCRIPTIONFOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANT 1Stamps on Vakalat2-00

2.Plaint fee5526-00No costs memo filed 5,528-00 Total

Institution Costs Rs.5,528-00 ild/-Mohd.I.F.

II AJCJ, TPG.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. Mohd. Ishrath Fathima

II Additional Junior Civil Judge.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT No.409/2019

BETWEEN:

Sri Thamanmpudi Satish Reddy.….Plaintiff

AND

Sri Lalapeta Jayachandra.....Defendant

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 13-03-2020 in the presence ofSri D.Akanth, Advocate for the plaintiffand of

Sri E.Faroth Babu, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,71,800/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy One Thousand Eight

Hundred only) being the amount of principal and interest due on promissory note dated 15.08.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for

Rs.1,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family welfare and to discharge sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to plaintiff or to his order on demand and he had executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff to discharge the debt but the defendant failed to repay the same and postponing the same one pretext or other. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant is not an agriculturist and the nature of debt is also not for agricultural purpose and 2 hence the defendant is not entitled to claim any benefits under

A.P.Agricutural debt relief Act. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant appeared before this court but failed to file his written statement and also failed to cross examine the witnesses.

4. During the course of trial the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and exhibited Exs.A-1. Ex.A-1 is promissory note dt.15/08/2016. The attestor of Ex.A-1 was examined as P.W.2. On the other hand the defendant appeared before this court and failed to file his written statement and also failed to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2. Thus, the version of Pws.1 and 2 remains unchallenged and uncontroverted.

5. Heard arguments on plaintiff side. This court carefully gone through the pleadings, the oral, documentary evidence adduced and considered the same.

6. The point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

POINT: All the averments in the plaint which are necessary for a decision on the point are already stated supra and therefore the same are not restated. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded and as sought to be established is as follows: The defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 15/08/2016 from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family welfare and discharge sundry debts and executed promissory note with a promise to repay the borrowed amount with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently in spite of several demands made by the Plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the amount and postponed the same, on one pretext or the other. On careful 3 perusal of the document marked on behalf of the plaintiff, it is clear that the same fully corroborate the oral testimony of the P.W.1. The same was corroborated by P.W.2 who is the attestor of Ex.A-1. On the other hand the defendant even failed to appear before this court and file his written statement and also failed to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2. Thus, the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 remains unchallenged and uncontroverted.

7.This court had carefully gone through the pleadings of the plaint, oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and document marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

P.W.1 in his chief examination had affirmed the plaint averments on oath and had translated the pleadings into direct evidence which is acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. There are no inherent infirmities either in the claim or in the nature of evidence adduced to prove the suit claim.

The same is supported with the evidence of P.W.2. On the other hand the evidence on record is sufficient to safely conclude that the suit claim is proved. In view of the above discussion coupled with reasons the point is accordingly answered holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently established his entitlement to a decree in his favour and against the defendant.

8. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,71,800/- (Rupees

One Lakh Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred only) with interest @12% p.a. on the suit amount of Rs.1,71,800/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-Mohd.Ishrath Fathima,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Tadepalligudem.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiff:For the Defendant:

PW1: ThamanampudiSathish None Reddy PW2:K.V.V.Satyanarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1:Original Promissory note dated 15.08.2016

For the Defendant:

NIL

ild/- Mohd.I.F.

II A.J.C.J.,

TPG.

5

Plaint presented on : 14-08-2019 Plaint filed on : 14-08-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt. Mohd. Ishrath Fathima

II Additional Junior Civil Judge.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.409/2019

BETWEEN:

Sri Thamanmpudi Sathish Reddy, son of Jawahr Reddy, 33 years, Male, Business, r/o Pentapadu,

Pentapadu Mandal.....Plaintiff.

AND

Sri Lalapeta Jayachandra, son of Krishnamachari, 35 years, Hindu, Male, Business, c/o P.Rammohanreddy, Beside Kaldhar Hospital, Venkatagiri SPSR Nellore District.

....Defendant.

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,71,800/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy One Thousand Eight

Hundred only) being the amount of principal and interest due on promissory note dated 15.08.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for

Rs.1,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

VALUE OF THE SUIT :

Principal amount is ... Rs.1,00,000/-

Interest from 16.08.2016 to 13.08.2019 @ Rs.24% p.a., … Rs. 71,800/- Total ... Rs.1,71,800/- On which a court fee of Rs.4,226/- is paid Under Section 20, Sch.I, Article 1

(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956.

CAUSE OF ACTION:Cause of action for the suit arose on 15.08.2016 when the defendant had borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and had executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff and on all dates when the plaintiff demanded the defendant in person for repayment and at Tadepall 6 igudem transaction has taken place and are all are within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 20-02-2020 in the presence ofSri D.Akanth, Advocate for the plaintiffand of

Sri E.Faroth Babu, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND

DECREE is as follows:

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs; ii) that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay a sum of

Rs.1,71,800/-(Rupees One Lakh Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Six only) with interest @ 12% p.a. on the suit amount of

Rs.1,71,800/- thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree, till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/-; and iii) that the defendant do also pay an amount of Rs.11,242 (Rupees

Eleven Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Two only ) to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 17th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-Mohd.Ishrath Fathima,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

INSTITUTION COSTS

Sl.No.DESCRIPTIONFOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANT 1Stamps on Vakalat2-00

2.Plaint fee4,226-00No costs memo filed

3.Process Fee60-00

4.Advocate fee6,454-00

5.Typing & Writing 500-00 Charges 11,242-00 Total

Costs Taxed Rs.11,242-00 ild/- Mohd.I.F.

II AJCJ, TPG.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

::TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Smt.Istrath Fathima,

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, FAC.Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem

Tuesday, the 31st day of December, 2019

O .S.No.98/2019

Between:

Nallimilli Suresh Reddy, S/o Adi Reddy, 32 years, Employee, R/o D.No.4-78-7, Indiranagar, 6th ward, Tadepalligudem, WGDt, AP

..Plaintiff.

And

Jayavarapu Srinu @ Srinivasu, S/o Govindarao, 40 years, Hindu, Male, R/o D.No.1-48A, Nidamarru village and Mandal, WGDt, AP

...Defendant.

This suit coming on 23-12-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.P.M. Sarma, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri M. Ratna Babu, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.92,700/- (Rupees ninety two thousand and seven hundred only) being the amount of principal and interest due on a promissory note, dt.25-11-2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for

Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) repayable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are that:-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/- on 25-11-2018 from the plaintiff for his family necessities and also to discharge the sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% yearly compound and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through elders, the defendant failed to discharge the above said 2 suit pronote due debt and postponing the same on some pretext and the other. The defendant is not entitled to any Debt Relief Laws as he is not an agriculturist. Hence, this suit.

3.On the other hand, the defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and stated as hereunder.

a)That the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and did not execute the suit pronote in favour of plaintiff. The defendant has not aware of the plaintiff, attestors and scribe of the suit pronote and he came to know that the scribe and the attestors are none other than the followers of the plaintiff. There is no any enforceable contract between plaintiff and the defendant and the alleged suit pronote is fabricated and forged one. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are framed :

1) Whether the suit pronote dated 25-11-2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit amount of Rs.92,700/-?

3) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and exhibited Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is promissory note dt.25-11-2018.

The attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 were examined as Pws.2 and 3.

Thereafter even sufficient time was given the defendant did not adduce any evidence on his side and no documents were also marked on his side.

6.Heard the arguments on plaintiff side and the defendant counsel did not adduce their side arguments and their side arguments were treated as heard. This court carefully gone through the pleadings, the oral, documentary evidence adduced and considered the same.

3

7.For better adjudication, both the issues are dealt together.

1) Whether the suit pronote dated 25-11-2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit amount of Rs.92,700/-?

8.The oral evidence of Pw.1 is completely supported by Ex.A1 and evidence of PWs.2 and 3 regarding the money transaction between himself and defendant. It is the contention of PW.1 that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/- from PW1 on 25-11-2018 in the presence of attestors and scribe agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum yearly compound on demand to PW.1 or to his order and executed Ex.A1. On the other hand it is the contention of the defendant that there is no legally enforceable contract between them and the said suit transaction is fabricated.

9.In order to substantiate this contention, Pw.1 was cross examined but nothing could be elicited out of his cross-examination.

Pws.2 and 3 were also cross-examined regarding the same but there were no worthwhile admissions. It has to be seen that except taking the said plea, the defendant did not get himself examined or adduce any evidence on his behalf either oral or documentary. In the absence of any acceptable evidence much weight cannot be attached to accept the contention of the defendant that Ex.A1 is fabricated. As such, it cannot be held that the contention of the defendant is correct. Hence the suit pronote dated 25-11-2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

10.In the light of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that defendant failed to discharge the debt covered under Ex.A1. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to recover the debt with agreed interest and so also with subsequent interest from the date of suit to till the date of realization. Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 are 4 answered.

Issue No.3 :

To what relief ?

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 92,700/- (Rupees ninety two thousand and seven hundred only) with interest at 12% per annum on the suit amount of Rs.92,700/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.90,000/-

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 31 st day of December, 2019

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC.PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Nallimill Suresh Reddy None

P.W.2 : Sheik Shabbir

P.W.3 : Vittakula Gangadhararao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Suit pronote executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.90,000/-, dt.25-11-2019

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL.

II AJCJ

FAC.P.J.C.J.,

TPG.

5