Mohd. Nizamuddin

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANCHERIAL,

DISTRICT MANCHERIAL

Present:- Sri Mohd.Nizamuddin, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial

MONDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

O.S.No.249 of 2013

Between

Sri Saraswathi Grameena Bank, established by the Regional Rural Bank Act 1976. The Deccan Grameena Bank was established by amalgamation of four RRBs., sponsored by S.B.H., in March 2006 having its Head Office at Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and one of the branch Offices at Mancherial, represented by its Branch Manager Sri G.Amarnath, s/o.Rukkuji, aged 54 years, occ:Chief Branch Manager, Mancherial. ...Plaintif //A N D//

Nalla Mallaiah, s/o.Shankaraiah, aged about 58 years, occ:Business, r/o.H.No.12-64/1, Gouthaminagar, Mancherial, district Mancherial.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri Siripuram Rajesh, Advocate for the plaintiff-bank and of Sri M.Ravindar Rao, Advocate for defendant and having heard and stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

‘Nul ne doit senrichir aux depens des autres’- No one ought to enrich himself at the expense of others. This is the doctrine involved in this case.

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,09,714/- (Rupees one lakh nine thousand seven hundred and fourteen only) towards interest on the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and seventy five thousand only) utilised by the defendant from 15.02.2010 to 06.09.2012, without having that amount in his account.

2.In the plaint, it is, inter-alia, submitted that the defendant is having Saving Bank account No.704502256 with the plaintif-bank.

Defendant presented a cheque bearing No.498402 dated 15.02.2010 to debit his account for Rs.2,75,415/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy five thousand four hundred and fifteen only) to issue Banker’s cheque for

Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and seventy five thousand only) in favour of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Beverages and demand draft charge of Rs.415/-. The plaintif-bank issued the

Banker’s cheque No.039006 dated 15.02.2010 for Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and seventy five thousand only) as desired, but due to technical problem, the cheque issued by the defendant for

Rs.2,75,415/- was not debited to his account. The defendant has over- drawn an amount of Rs.2,75,415/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy five thousand four hundred and fifteen only). Thereafter, the plaintif-bank approached the defendant and defendant agreed to pay the amount of

Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and seventy five thousand only) and paid the same in four instalments as under:-

Sl.Amount inDate

No.Rs.

1.50,000-0010.08.2012

2.50,000-0011.08.2012

3.1,00,000-0006.09.2012

4.75,000-0006.09.2012

The defendant is liable to pay the interest on Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and seventy five thousand only) from 15.02.2010 to 06.09.2012, but he did not pay the same. Plaintif issued legal notice to the defendant demanding him to pay the said interest on 28.03.2013, which was served on him, but he did not repay it. Therefore, it is prayed to decree the suit as stated above.

3.In the written statement filed by the defendant, he has submitted that the plaintif-Bank was at fault in not debiting the cheque dated 15.02.2010 issued by the defendant, to his account. The plaintif-Bank approached the defendant and requested to make payment and the defendant made payment of Rs.2,75,000/-. At that time, the plaintif assured that they will not charge any interest. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for consideration during trial:- (1). Whether the plaintiff-bank is at fault for not debiting the cheque dated 15.02.2010 issued by the defendant, to his account?

(2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest on Rs.2,75,000/.- (Rupees two lakhs and seventy five thousand only) as prayed for? and (3). What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case?

5.To prove the case of the plaintif, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A12 documents were marked. PW1-S.Sreenivasa Rao has been working as Chief Branch Manager of the plaintif-bank. Ex.A1 is the application of the defendant to open saving bank account dated 12.01.1995 with the plaintif, Ex.A2 is cheque bearing No.498402 dated 15.02.2010, Ex.A3 is Demand draft application Form dated 15.02.2010,

Ex.A4 is banker’s cheque bearing No.039006 dated 15.02.2010, Ex.A5 is payment voucher for Rs.50,000/- dated 10.08.2012, Ex.A6 is payment voucher for Rs.50,000/- dated 11.08.2012, Ex.A7 is payment voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 06.09.2012, Ex.A8 is payment voucher for

Rs.75,000/- dated 06.09.2012, Ex.A9 is office copy of legal notice dated 28.03.2013, Ex.A10 is postal acknowledgment dated 28.03.2013,

Ex.A11 is extract of statement of account calculating interest dated 24.09.2013 and Ex.A12 is postal receipt dated 28.03.2012.

6.On the other hand, on behalf of the defendant, DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 document was marked in the cross-examination of

PW1. DW1-Nalla Mallaiah, is defendant himself. Ex.B1 is the statement of account of the defendant from 15.02.2010 to 06.09.2012.

7.The learned counsel for the plaintif has argued that the defendant, without having credit balance in his account utilised

Rs.2,75,000/- from the plaintif-Bank and though he paid the said amount, he did not repay the interest for the relevant period and hence he prayed to decree the suit.

8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that there is no fault of the defendant in utilizing the amount in question and as such, the defendant is not liable to pay interest as he already re-paid the amount of Rs.2,75,000/-. It is accordingly prayed to dismiss the suit.

Issue No.1:-

9.The burden to establish this issue is on the plaintif.

Admitted facts:-

10.DW1-Nalla Mallaiah (defendant) opened Saving Bank Account with the plaintif-Bank by making application under Ex.A1 and he was allotted account No.704502256. Defendant presented Ex.A2 cheque bearing No.498402 dated 15.02.2010 to debit his account for

Rs.2,75,415/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy five thousand four hundred and fifteen only) to issue banker’s cheque for Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and seventy five thousand only) in favour of Government of

Andhra Pradesh with Ex.A3. Ex.A4-banker’s cheque was issued, but due to technical reasons, the amount was not debited to the account of the defendant.

11.According to PW1-S.Srinivasa Rao, Manager of the plaintif-Bank and also DW1, the defendant has over-drawn an amount of

Rs.2,75,415/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy five thousand four hundred and fifteen only) though he has no money in his account. Thereafter, the plaintif-bank after receiving the notice, approached the defendant and informed the same to the defendant who agreed to pay the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and seventy five thousand) and he paid the same in four instalments under Exs.A5 to A8 as under:-

Sl.Amount inDate No.Rs.

1.50,000-0010.08.2012

2.50,000-0011.08.2012

3.1,00,000-0006.09.2012

4.75,000-0006.09.2012

PW1 thus claims that the defendant is liable to pay the interest on

Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and seventy five thousand only) from 15.02.2010, but he did not pay the same in spite of issuance of Ex.A9- legal notice served on the defendant on 28.03,.2013 under Ex.A10 sent under Ex.A12. Ex.A11 and Ex.B1 are the statements of account of

DW1.

12.In his cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that Ex.A3 is not for availing overdraft facility to get Ex.A4. He has also admitted that the defendant was having sufficient amount in his account upto 2012. He has also admitted that they have not paid any interest for the said amount. There is no dispute about Exs.A1 to A4 documents. Exs.A5 to

A8 documents go to show that the defendant paid over-drawn amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to the plaintif herein which was used by him. The circumstances stated above coupled with the evidence of PW1 and

DW1 go to show that it is the plaintif who is at fault in making transaction to issue Banker’s cheque to the defendant but not debiting the cheque dated 15.02.2010 for the amount under the Banker’s cheque. Hence, I hold that the plaintif is at fault for not debiting the cheque dated 15.02.2010 issued by the defendant to his account. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintif and in favour of the defendant.

Issue No.2:-

13.Though the plaintif is at fault, now the question is, whether the defendant who utilized the amount and repaid it, is liable to pay the interest to the plaintif or not?

14.As stated in the beginning itself the doctrine involved in this case is “unjust enrichment”. This principle requires fulfilment of three conditions as under:- 1). The defendant has been ‘enriched’ by the receipt of a ‘benefit’.

2). This enrichment is at the expense of the plaintif.

3). The retention of enrichment is unjust.

In the case on hand, admittedly the defendant utilised the amount of

Rs.2,75,000/- of the plaintif. The main business of the plaintif is to lend money on interest, of course, under a contract. The transaction in the instant case comes under quasi contract. A quasi-contract is a fictional contract that was created by Courts to promote equitable treatment. Quasi means resembling. Thus, when no official contract exists, between the party and when there is no dispute with regard to payment for goods or services provided, courts create quasi-contract to prevent a party for being unjustly enrich or from benefitting from the situation when he does not desire to do so. In the instant case, at the cost of repetition, the defendant withdrawn the amount of the plaintif as such he is liable to pay interest thereon. Sec.72 of the Contract Act deals with the liability of a person to whom money is paid or thing delivered, by mistake or under coercion. It says ‘a person to whom money has been paid or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion must repay or return it’.

15.The plaintif for the first time got issued Ex.A9-legal notice on 28.03.2013 demanding the defendant to pay the interest on the amount of Rs.2,75,000/-. It is the evidence of DW1 that initially the plaintif-Bank officials assured him that they will not charge any interest over the excess amount paid. Therefore, the plaintif is entitled to interest from the date of Ex.A9 i.e., 28.03.2013. The plaintif-bank normally pays interest at 4% per annum on Saving Bank account and they pay 10% interest on Fixed Deposit Receipts. But, in the instant case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest at 6% per annum would be reasonable to be paid by the defendant. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

Issue No.3:-

16.In view of the findings on issue no.1 and 2, the suit is liable to be decreed in part to the extent indicated above.

17.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with proportionate costs. The defendant is directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and seventy five thousand only) from Ex.A9 dated 28.03.2013 till its repayment.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 rd day of July 2018.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif:For defendant:-

DW1: PW-1 : S.Sreeinivas RaoNalla Mallaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintif:-

Ex.A1: Application of plaintif-bank account dated 12.01.1995 Ex.A2: Cheque bearing No.498402 dated 15.02.2010 Ex.A3: Demand draft application Form dated 15.02.2010 Ex.A4: Banker cheque bearing No.039006 dated 15.02.2010 Ex.A5: Payment voucher for Rs.50,000/- dated 10.08.2012 Ex.A6: Payment voucher for Rs.50,000/- dated 11.089.2012 Ex.A7: Payment voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 06.09.2012 Ex.A8: Payment voucher for Rs.75,000/- dated 06.09.2012 Ex.A9: Office copy of legal notice dated 28.03.2013 Ex.A10: Postal acknowledgment dated 28.03.2013 Ex.A11: Extract of statement of account calculating the interest dated 24.09.2013 Ex.A12: Postal receipt dated 28.03.2012.

For defendant:-

Ex.B1: Statement of account of the defendant from 15.02.2010 to 06.09.2012

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANCHERIAL,

DISTRICT MANCHERIAL

Present:- Sri Mohd.Nizamuddin, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial

SATURDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

O.S.No.163 of 2013

Between

Golla Raju, s/o.Rayalingu, age 37 years, r/o.H.No.1-175/1, Maruthi Nagar, Mancherial, mandal and district Mancherial. ...Plaintif A N D 1). Sarampalli Sammireddy, s/o.Komaraiah, age 40 years, occ:Sdl.Operator, r/o.Q.No.D-2293, Thilak Nagar, Near Water tank, Post:Godavarikhani, district Peddapally.

2). Dasari Rayamallu, s/o.Rajam, age 48 years, occ:General Mazdoor, r/o.Q.No.ST2-1612, 8 Incline colony, Post 8 Incline colony, Godavaraikhani, mandal Kamanpur, district Peddapally.

3). Md.Quamuruddin, s/o.Habeeb, 37 years, occ:General Mazdoor, r/o.Q.No.D-1388, Jawahar Nagar, Godavarikhani, district Peddapally.

...Defendants

This suit is coming on before me on 20.07.2018 in the presence of Sri Budde Sathaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Akula Ravindar, Advocate for defendant no.1 and 2 and defendant no.3 remained exparte and having heard and stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,68,000/- (Rupees one lakh and sixty eight thousand only) from the defendant with costs and interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.

2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, are that the defendant no.1 obtained hand loan of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh and forty thousand only) from the plaintif on 09.09.2012 promising to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintif. Defendant no.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for defendant no.1. But, thereafter, the defendants did not repay the due amount to the plaintif in spite of demands made by him. It is accordingly prayed to decree the suit as stated above.

3.In the written statement filed by the defendant no.1 and 2, they have denied the entire material averments made in the plaint.

Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Defendant no.3 was set-exparte.

5.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for consideration during trial:- (1). Whether defendant no.1 had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- from the plaintif on the guarantee of the defendant no.2 and 3 by executing a promissory note dated 09.09.2012, agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% per annum? and (2). Whether the plaintif is entitled to the sum claimed in the suit from the defendants?

6.To prove the case of plaintif, PW1 to PW3 were examined and

Ex.A1 was marked. PW1-Golla Raju, is the plaintif himself, PW2-

Kandula Thirupathi, is an attestor of Ex.A1 and PW3-Dorishetty Narendar, is the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note. Ex.A1 is promissory note, dt.09.09.2012.

7.On the other hand, though the affidavit in lieu of examination-in- chief of DW1-Sarampalli Sammireddy is filed, since he did not come forward to face the cross-examination, his evidence stands eschewed.

8.In this case, Advocate Commissioner was appointed for cross- examination of PW1 to PW3, but defendants did not cross-examine them, as such, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 was closed.

9.Heard both sides.

Issue No.1 and 2:-

10.The sum and substance of the evidence of PW1-Golla Raju, who is the plaintif, PW2-Kandula Thirupathi, who is an attestor of Ex.A1 and

PW3-Dorishetty Narendar, who is scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note, is that defendant no.1 obtained hand loan of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh and forty thousand only) from the plaintif on 09.09.2012 promising to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintif. Defendant no.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for defendant no.1. But, thereafter, the defendants did not repay the due amount to the plaintif in spite of demands made by him.

The defendants have not challenged the evidence of PW1 to PW3 by cross-examining them. Under these circumstances, I hold that defendant no.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-(Rupees one lakh and forty thousand only) from the plaintif on the guarantee of defendant no.2 and 3 by executing Ex.A1 on 09.09.2012 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. The plaintif has proved Ex.A1 and he is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. These issues are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

11.IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed with costs. The defendant no.1 to 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- (Rupees one lakh and sixty eight thousand only) with future interest @12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation on the principal amount of

Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh and forty thousand only), to the plaintif.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21 st day of July 2018.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

. For plaintifFor defendants

PW-1Golla Raju DW1:Sarampalli Sammireddy PW-2Kandula Thirupathi(eschewed) PW-3Dorishetty Narendar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintifFor defendants: Nil

Ex.A1: Promissory note, dt.09.09.2012

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MANCHERIAL, DISTRICT: MANCHERIAL

Present:- Sri Mohd.Nizamuddin, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial

TUESDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

E.P.No.48 of 2018

in A.R.B.No.398 of 2017

BETWEEN

M/s. Margadarshi Chit Fund Private Limited, Mancherial, represented by its Manager cum Foreman Ch. Raghu, s/o.Ramappa, age:43 years, r/o.Mancherial. ... Decree holder

//A N D//

1. Govindula Srinivas s/o. Sammaiah, age: 45 years, Q.No.D-196, 1st Zone, Mandamarri, Mancherial district (Pump Operator, Civil Department).

2. Marri Kumara Swamy s/o. Pochaiah, age: 49 years, Q.No.D-67, 1st Zone, Mandamarri, Mancherial district (Fitter, RKP-1A Incline).

3. Mohammad Samdani s/o.Raj mohammad, age: 44 years, Q.No.28-H, Pranahita Colony, Mandamarri, Mancherial district (Fitter, Kasipeta Mine).

4. Masipeddi Bapanna s/o. Bhoomaiah, age: 45 years, H.No.71-232, opp:Q.No.D-652, 1st Zone, Mandamarri, Mancherial district (Security Guard, S & PC, Srirampur).

5. Sreepathi Sailu s/o. Komaraiah, age: 56 years, H.No.50-123, ASR Raju Nagar, A Zone, Ramakrishnapur, Mancherial district (Trammer, RK-6 Incline).

6. Erukala Srinivas s/o. Narasaiah, age:52 years, Q.No.D-444, 3rd Zone, Mandamarri, Mancherial district (Valve Operator, Civil Department, Mandamarri). ...Judgment debtors

This petition is coming on before me on this day in the presence of Sri G. Rajesh Goud, Advocate for the Decree holder and having heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

Full satisfaction memo is filed. Full satisfaction is recorded.

Execution Petition is terminated.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of July 2018.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

2

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

NIL

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MANCHERIAL, DISTRICT: MANCHERIAL

Present:- Sri Mohd.Nizamuddin, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial

TUESDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

E.P.No.39 of 2017

in

O.S.No.224 of 2011

BETWEEN

Golla Raju s/o.Rajalingu, occ: Business, r/o. Karnamamidi village, Mancherial. ... Decree holder //A N D//

Banothu Bheem Rao s/o. Pikala Naik, occ: SGT Teacher, r/o. H.No.11- 76, Sevadasnagar, Utnoor, Adilabad district. ...Judgment debtor

This petition is coming on before me on this day in the presence of Sri B. Sathaiah, Advocate for the Decree holder and having heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

Warrant is executed. It is reported that the decree holder is getting the amounts. Accordingly, this Execution Petition is closed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of July 2018.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

NIL

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MANCHERIAL, DISTRICT: MANCHERIAL

Present:- Sri Mohd.Nizamuddin, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial

MONDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

O.S.No.151 of 2012

BETWEEN

Vodnala Rajamallu s/o. Ellaiah, age: 48 years, occ: Agricultue, r/o.Seetharampally village, r/m. Mancherial.

… Plaintiff //AND//

Cheeti Satyanarayana Rao s/o. Gopal Rao, age: 54 years, occ: Business, r/o. Near Chaitanya College, College Road, Mancherial.

....Defendant

This case is coming on before me in the presence of Sri J.Shankaraiah, Advocate for the plaintiff not present and Sri E. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration, this Court framed the following issues:-

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff is called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of July 2018.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

NIL

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.