Sri N. Venkat Ram

Pg.1 of 8 OS.No.160 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

AT: NAGARKURNOOL

On Tuesday, this the 04th day of November, 2025

Present:- Sri. N. Venkat Ram,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

OS No.160 of 2024 (OS. No.72 of 2018)

Between:-

Thumma Chinnapu Reddy, S/o. Late Thumma Inna Reddy, Age: 50years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Yadireddypally village of Tadoor Mandal of Nagarkurnool District.

... Plaintiff

And

Pallemoni Tirupathaiah, S/o. Pallemoni Balaiah, Age: 31years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Tadoor Village and Mandal and Nagarkurnool District.

... Defendant

***

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 31.10.2025 for disposal in the presence of Sri. P. Babu Pears, Advocate for plaintiff and of

Sri. G. Srinivasulu, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of a sum of

Rs.2,78,000/-.

2.Originally this suit was instituted on the file of II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool and the same was registered as OS.No.72 of 2018. Later, the suit was withdrawn and transferred to this Court by virtue of proceedings of Hon’ble

Pg.2 of 8 OS.No.160 of 2024

Prl. District Judge, Nagarkurnool Vide Dis.No.2329 of 2024 Dt.26-10-2024 and renumbered as OS.No.160 of 2024.

3.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

a) The plaintiff and defendant are known to each other. The defendant obtained hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the defendant on 10.12.2015 to meet his family necessities and agricultural development. The defendant executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay interest @

Rs1.50Paisa per Rs.100/- per month.

b) The plaintiff requested the defendant for several times for payment, but the defendant failed to repay the same. Hence, on 04.05.2017 and 14.07.2017 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant by demanding to pay the amount, but the defendant having received the said notice did not give any reply.

Hence, the plaintiff prayed to pass a decree against the defendant.

4.In pursuance of service of summons, the defendant appeared before this

Court and filed written statement. The averments of the written statement in brief are as follows:

a) The defendant denied the allegations levelled against him and further also denied obtaining hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 10.12.2015 and also execution of promissory note. Further, also denied service of notice on defendant.

b) The defendant further submits that plaintiff is running a shop in the name of Anand Traders and provides seeds and pesticides to the needy farmers.

The defendant used to take seeds and pesticides on credit basis and in that

Pg.3 of 8 OS.No.160 of 2024 transaction the plaintiff obtained signatures of defendant on several papers. The defendant used to clear the debt after completion of harvesting of crop. The plaintiff taking advantage of signatures on empty promissory notes filed the present suit to extract money from the defendant. The plaintiff is a money lender and the suit is hit by Section 9(2) of Money Lenders Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.This case was posted for exploring settlement methods as provided U/s.89 of CPC, but the parties showed no interest in pursuing to opt any of the alternative dispute resolution methods.

6.Basing on the above pleadings and after verifying the documents Junior

Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool settled the following issues for Trial.

1. Whether the promissory note dt.10.12.2015 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of loan amount of

Rs.2,78,000/- as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future interest @ 18% per annum as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

7.In order to prove his case on behalf of plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of defendant.

8.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and no arguments advanced on behalf of defendant, hence treated the defendant as heard. Perused the record.

Pg.4 of 8 OS.No.160 of 2024

ISSUE No.1 :

9.a) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant obtained hand loan of

Rs.2,00,000/- and agreed to pay interest @ Rs.1.50Paisa per Rs.100/- per month and executed Ex.A1 promissory note and later failed to pay the amounts.

On the other hand, the defendant denied borrowing of hand loan and further submitted that the plaintiff is a money lender and under the guise of providing seeds and pesticides on credit the plaintiff used to obtain signatures on blank papers and fabricated the same and filed the suit.

b) The plaintiff in order to prove the loan transaction and execution of

Ex.A1 he relied on the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 and also on Ex.A1 promissory note. PW1 being the plaintiff he reiterated the contents of plaint regarding advancing of hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and execution of promissory note by the defendant on 10.12.2015. PW2 is the attestor for Ex.A1 promissory note, he testified that he witnessed the transaction and the defendant executed the Ex.A1 promissory note. PW3 another attestor also testified about witnessing the transaction and as well as the execution of promissory note by the defendant.

The evidence of PW1 to PW3 remained as unchallenged one.

10.a) The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff is running seeds and pesticides shop in the name of Anand traders and used to provide seeds and pesticides on credit basis and during the transaction the plaintiff used to obtain signatures on blank papers and later the defendant used to clear the debts at the end of crop season. Though, the defendant has taken these pleas but he did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the said contentions. Even, the defendant

Pg.5 of 8 OS.No.160 of 2024 did not choose to cross examine the PW1 to PW3 to rebut the contention of plaintiff. In the absence of any evidence this Court do not find any impediment in accepting the evidence of PW1 to PW3 regarding loan transaction and as well as execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant.

b) Furthermore, Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act provides presumptions as to consideration, date etc. The plaintiff by the strength of evidence of PW1 to PW3 he could able to prove the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant. Therefore, he laid foundation to raise presumption under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act that Ex.A1 is supported by consideration. As noted herein above the defendant did not adduce any evidence or elicited any material to rebut the presumption available under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument

Act.

11.In view of aforesaid discussion and the reasons assigned there on the plaintiff by the strength of evidence of PW1 to PW3 coupled with Ex.A1 he could able to prove that the plaintiff advanced hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant on 10.12.2015 and the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note and the said promissory note is supported by consideration. Therefore, in view of aforesaid reasons this Court held that the plaintiff could able to prove that Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

ISSUE No.2 & 3:-

12.a) In the foregoing part of Judgment this Court affirmatively answered regarding loan transaction and execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant. The

Pg.6 of 8 OS.No.160 of 2024 defendant has taken a plea that the plaintiff is a money lender and without having license doing money lending business as such the suit is hit by section 9(2) of

Money Lenders Act. However, as noted in the foregoing part of Judgment , there is no evidence on behalf of defendant to substantiate his contentions, even he did not cross examine the PW1 to PW3 to establish this contention. Therefore, in the absence of any material it is very difficult to hold a finding that the plaintiff is a money lender. Hence, this Court do not find any force in the said contention.

b) The plaintiff has pleaded that several times he requested for repayment of hand loan with interest and also issued Ex.A2 and A5 legal notice and despite service of said notices the defendant did not pay the amounts. PW1 in his chief examination affidavit he testified about his request and as well as issuance of

Ex.A2 and A5 notices. Further, Ex.A3, A4 and A6 postal receipts and acknowledgment card would reveals about issuance of said notices to the defendant and as well as service of legal notice on defendant. By virtue of this oral and documentary evidence the plaintiff could able to prove his demand for payment of hand loan with interest covered by Ex.A1.

13.The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant agreed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the principal sum and he deposed the same in his chief examination affidavit. Further, Ex.A1 promissory note also contains the said clause. Therefore, the plaintiff could able to prove the rate of interest on the

principal sum covered by Ex.A1. Coming to future interest, section 34 of Civil

Procedure Code governed awarding of interest. If the transaction is other than commercial in nature the plaintiff is entitled for interest from the date of suit to

Pg.7 of 8 OS.No.160 of 2024 date of decree at the discretion of the Court depends on facts and circumstances of the case. However, this provision limiting the future interest as 6% per annum from the date of decree to realisation on the principal sum only. Therefore, awarding of future interest beyond the provision does not arise. Hence, awarding of future interest @ 18% per annum is not permissible. Accordingly, these issues are answered.

ISSUE No.4:

14.In view of answering issues No.1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff and issue No.3 against plaintiff as such suit is decreed partly. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

In the result, suit is partly decreed with cost by directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,78,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit to date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum on the principal sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- till realisation.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, on this the 04 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff:- PW1 : Thummala Chinnapu Reddy PW2 : Manchala Vishnu PW3 : Uduthala Venkataiah

For Defendant:- Nil

Pg.8 of 8 OS.No.160 of 2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :- Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note dt.10.12.2015 Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dt.04.05.2017 Ex.A3 : Original Postal receipt dt. 04.05.2017 Ex.A4 : Postal Acknowledgement card Ex.A5 : Office copy of legal notice dt. 14.07.2017 Ex.A6 : Original postal receipt dt.14.07.2017

For Defendant :- Nil

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOLLAPUR

Friday this the 6th day of September, 2013.

Present: N.Venkatram, LL.M., Junior Civil Judge, Achampet, FAC: Kollapur.

O.S. No. 101 of 2013

Between:-

1. .Chenamoni Chinna Gopal s/o Balramudu age 29 yrs,occ.Agril,

2. Chenamoni Narsimha s/o Balramudu age 25 yrs,occ.Agril, Both are r/o Chukkaipally village of Kollapur Mandal. …Plaintiff

Versus

Chenamoni Chinna Kistanna s/o Linganna age 76yrs, occ.Agri r/o Chukkaiapally of Kollapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Defendant

This Case is coming before me for final hearing on 3-9-2013 in the presence of Sri.S.Baleeshwaraiah, and Sri S.Rajesh, Advocates for the plaintiff and defendant called absent set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day and delivered the following:--

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs against the defendant for decree of perpetual injunction.

2.The brief fact of the plaint are that the plaintiff No1is the owner and possessor of land bearing survey No. 278/E admeasuring 0-33 gts and Plaintiff

No2 is the owner and possessor of land bearing survey No. 278/A admeasuring 0- 33 gts which is fully described as plaint schedule land their names are also entered in the revenue records and obtained pattedari pass book and title deed and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same but the defendant without having any right tried to tress pass on 19-6-2013 and the plaintiff resisted the same but the defendant threatened to come with more force. Hence

Plaintiffs filed the present suit.

3.Defendant having received the summons but did not choose to appear

before this court, hence was set exparte.

4.In order to prove their case the plaintiff no.1 examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the record.

6.The plaintiffs to prove their case relied on oral evidence of Pw1 and as well as on Ex.A1 to A10. On perusing the Ex.A1 and ExA2 title deeds of plaintiffs reveals that the plaintiffs are the pattedars for their respective extents in the suit land along with other lands. Further ExA3 proceedings of thasildar, ExA4 and ExA5

Form I-B are also showing the holding of Plaintiffs. Ex.A6 to ExA9 pahanies are showing the possession of plaintiffs in respect of their extents. By virtue of ExA1 to A9 coupled with unchallenged evidence of Pw1, the plaintiff’ proved their possession and as well as claim for a decree against defendant.

7.In the result suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants, their agents, legal heirs and representatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. However, in the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of September, 2013.

Junior Civil Judge, Achampet, FAC: Kollapur.

Appendix of evidence For plaintiffs For defendant Pw1 Chenamoni Chinna Gopal --Nil-

Exhibits marked

Ex.A1 is the Title deed book of Plaintiff No.1 Ex.A2 is the Title deed book of Plaintiff No.2 Ex.A3 is the ROR proceedings, dt. 13-8-2009 Ex.A4 is the CC of Form NO.1 of ROR of plaintiff No.1 Ex.A5 is the CC of Form NO.1 of ROR of plaintiff No.2 Ex.A6 is the CC of pahani for the Fasli year 1421 of plaintiff No.1 Ex.A7 is the CC of pahani for the Fasli year 1422 of plaintiff No.1 Ex.A8is the CC of pahani for the Fasli year 1421 of plaintiff No.2 Ex.A9 is the CC of pahani for the Fasli year 1422 of plaintiff No.2 Ex.A10 are the photos with C.D.

Junior Civil Judge, Achampet, FAC: Kollapur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOLLAPUR

Monday this the 27 th day of February,2012

Present: Dr. T.Srinivasa Rao,

M.A., LL.M.,PGDIRPM.,Ph.D.

Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

E.P.No. 88 of 2010

Between:-

1. A.Balachandramma w/o Krishnaiah age 40 yrs,occ.Agril r/o Pagidyala village of Kurnool Dist.

2. Smt. Kummu Sathyamma w/o Bichaiah age 36 yrs,occ.Agril, r/o Rajapur village of Kodair Mandal.

3. Smt. Ganamoni Laxmi w/o Ganaramudu age 30 years,occ r/o Chinnadagada village of Veepangandla Mandal.

4. Bai Veeraiah s/o Venkataiah age 60 yrs,occ.Agril, r/o Yetham village of Kodair Mandal. …Decree Holder

Versus

Bai Balaiah s/o Veeraiah age 57 yrs,occ.Agril, r/o Yetham village of Kodair Mandal. …Judgment Debtor

This Case is coming before me in the presence of Sri.B.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Decree holder and Judgement Debtor called absent set exparte and having stood over for consideration and delivered the following:--

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed for execution of decree of perpetual injunction in O.S.No.77/2010, Dt.26-7-2010 and sought the relief of sending the

J.Dr into civil imprisonment as J.Dr interfered into the possession of the D.Hr by violating the decree threatened the D.Hr with dire consequences by warning not to enter into the suit lands.

2. In support of the contention of the petitioner /D.Hr Pw1 was examined as witness and no document was marked. On the other hand J.Dr called absent. No representation set exparte .

3. Heard the counsel for D.Hr.

5 On verification of records the decree was granted in favour of the

D.Hr in O.S.77/2010 on 26-7-2010 where the decree was granted for 2 the suit lands bearing Sy.Nos. 127/E,128/A/1, 128/B/C, 128/A/3, 128/A/6, 129/A and 128/A/1, to an extent Ac. 2-00, 0-33gts,0-23gts, 0-22gts, 0-23gts, 0-31 ½ gts, 0-33gts situated in the limits of Yetham village of Kodair Mandal., The unchallenged evidence of Pw1 shows that his is an execution petition filed against the Judgment debtor U/o 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. to punish him by sending to civil imprisonment since the Judgment debtor has violated the decree of perpetual injunction granted by this Court and obstructed him for ploughing the suit lands bearing Sy.Nos. 127/E,128/A/1, 128/B/C, 128/A/3, 128/A/6, 129/A and 128/A/1, to an extent Ac. 2-00, 0-33gts,0-23gts, 0-22gts, 0- 23gts, 0-31 ½ gts, 0-33gts situated in the limits of Yetham village of

Kodair Mandal., on 15-10-2010. He has also threatened him that he obstructed the D.Hrs interfered her peaceful possession over the E.P.

schedule lands. Hence the Judgment debtor is liable for punishment for violation of decree.

6In the result, the E.P. is allowed without costs. Issue warrant of arrest U/o 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. on process call on

Typed to my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27thday of February,2012.

Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

Appendix of evidence For Decree Holders For Judgment Debtor Pw1:Ganamoni Laxmi -Nil- Exhibits marked -Nil-

Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

3

TSNG010008162024

Presented on : 29-12-2021 Registered on : 10-12-2024 Decided on: 07-11-2025 Duration: 3 years, 10 months, 9 days

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool AT

NAGARKURNOOL, MAHABOOBNAGAR.

Presided Over by Smt A SREEDEVI

OS No.303/2024

1. Pathlavath Jayee W/o Chandru, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Vattam Nagamma W/o Laxmaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Letla Uday Kumar S/o Kathalaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4. Athinarapu Bala Laxmaiah S/o Rangaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,

5. Letla Venkataiah S/o Danaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

6. Letla Ramulu S/o Pedda Nagaiah, Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture,

7. Pathlavath Pandu S/o Chandru, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,

8. Athinarapu Laxmi W/o Balalaxmaiah, Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture,

9. Pathlavath Chandru S/o Thulsiya, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture,

10. Pathlavath Mallikarjun S/o Chandru, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o Gudlanarva village of Bijinapally mandal, Nagarkurnool district.

...Plaintiffs

VERSUS

1. Ch. Subrahmanyam S/o Ramaiah, Age: 55 years, Occ: General Manager in HES INFRA COM.PRIVATE LIMITED, Office at Anekhanpally Tanda village of Bijinapally mandal, Nagarkurnool district.

2. The District Collector, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Cheque disbursement authority for

Palamooru and Ranga Reddy Ethipothal Pathakam Vattam Reservoir,

Nagarkurnool district.

4. Mamidi Krishna Tahasildar of Bijinapally mandal, Nagarkurnool district.

5. Letla Bheem Rao S/o Chinna Balaiah, Age: 34 years, Occ: Tailoring,

6. Letla Balaswamy S/o Bakkaiah, Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture,

7. Letla Balamashanna S/o Laxmaiah, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture,

8. Letla Ashok S/o Danaiah, Age: 34 years, Occ: Agriculture,

9. Letla Anjaneyulu S/o Pentaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,

10. Letla Ramulu S/o Balaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

11. Vattem Venkataiah S/o Pedda Mallaiah, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture,

12. Letla Sampath Kumar S/o Karre Balaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,

13. Letla Krishnaiah S/o Yellaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,

14. Vattam Balanarayana S/o Pedda Laxmaiah, Age: 47 years, Occ:

Agriculture,

Defendants No.5 to 14 are R/o Gudlanarva village of Bijinapally mandal,

Nagarkurnool district.

…Defendants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for Plaintiff : P. Prathap Roy, Advocate Defendants No.1 to 4 were set exparte and Sri. V. Raghunatha Rao, Advocate for D5 to D14.

DOCKET ORDER

(Delivered on 07-11-2025)

Plaintiffs are called absent. No representation. Despite case posted

for dismissal also evidence not adduced. It appears that plaintiffs have

no interest in prosecuting the suit. Suit is pertaining to the year 2019.

Hence, suit is dismissed for default.

Date : 07-11-2025 (Smt A SREEDEVI)

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant

Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

On Monday, this the 3rd day of November, 2025. Present :- Sri. N. Venkat Ram,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

O.S. No. 7 of 2015

Between:- Addula Janardhan Reddy s/o Narasimha Reddy, Age: 48 yrs, Occ: Agrl., R/o

Mahadevunipeta village of Bijinapally Mandal.

... Plaintiff

AND

1: Addula Keerthi D/o Late Rameshwar Reddy, Age: 20 yrs, Occ: Agrl., R/o

Mahadevunipeta village of Bijinapally Mandal. Presently R/o. H.No.6-8/B, SRNS

Colony, Ayodhya Nagar, Meerpet, Saroor Nagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2: Mannepu Reddy s/o Ram Reddy, Age: 65 yrs, Occ: Agrl., 3: Y. Sujatha w/o Y. Prathap Reddy, Age : 67 yrs, Occ: House hold, 4: Jajala Bharathi w/o Purender Reddy, Age: 45 yrs, Occ: House hold, R/o

Suraipally village 5: Jaipal Redy s/o Prathap Reddy, Age: 39 yrs, Occ: Agrl.,

R/o D2, D3 and D5 is Mahadevunipeta village....Defendants

Claim: Suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed.

This Petition is coming before me for hearing on 03.11.2025 in the presence of Sri.S.Sreenivasulu, Counsel for Plaintiff and Sri. G.Brahmeshwar

Rao, Counsel for Defendant No.1 and Sri.V. Radhakrishna, Counsel for

Defendants No.2 to 5; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

DOCKET ORDER, Dt.03.11.2025 -:: ::-

Plaintiff and Defendants and their respective counsels are

present. Parties are identified by their respective counsels.

IA No.525 of 2025 is allowed in terms of memorandum of

compromise.

Accordingly, suit is partly decreed in terms of compromise and

the defendant No.1 is directed to execute register sale deed in favor

of Plaintiff with respect to the land admeasuring Ac.01.20gts in

Sy.No.143 and Ac.01.21gts in Sy.No.81 as per the plan enclosed with

terms of compromise and the plaintiff relinquished all his rights over

the agreement of sale dt.20.06.2013 and the said agreement of sale is

terminated to the extent of left over properties and D1 agreed to

execute conveyance deed/s in favor of D2 and D5 upon the payment of

sale consideration as per the terms of compromise and D3 and D4

relinquished all their rights in favor of plaintiff, D2 and D5. No Cost.

Pronouned by me in open Court on this the 3rd day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

For Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.