Currently Serving

P Rahul Ambedkar

junior civil judge

Senior Civil Judge`s Court, Atmakur (Taluka) · Kurnool · Andhra Pradesh

P RAHUL AMBEDKAR, junior civil judge, is posted at Senior Civil Judge`s Court, Atmakur (Taluka), Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,936 court orders on record since 2023. 17 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, CC cases.

1,936

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/199/2024

Shaik Rafi, S/o Idrusaheb vs Yeddula Satyaraju, S/o Ishaq

30 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), DHONE

PRESENT: Mr. P.RAHUL AMBEDKAR

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Wednesday, the 30th day of April, 2025

Original Suit.No.199 of 2024

BETWEEN:

Shaik Rafi, 39 years, S/o Idrusaheb @ Idrusvali @ Idrus, Muslim, Business, R/o H.No.1-216, Bugganipalle Village and Post, Bethamcherla Mandal, Nandyal District-518 206. cell: 9963875130.

... Plaintiff

-AND-

Yeddula Satyaraju @ Subbaiah, 58 years, S/o Ishaq @ Nagaiah, Indian, Business, R/o H.No.3-63, Bugganipalle Village and Post, Bethamcherla Mandal, Nandyal District-518 206. Cell: 8374472428.

... Defendant

This suit coming on 11.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Kotla Harichandra Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.Nagabhushana Reddy, Sri A.Sreedhar, Sri R.Rajasekhar Reddy, Sri V.Raviprakash, Sri R.N.Kullai and Shaik Heena Begum, Advocates for the defendant, upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for defendant, this Court delivered the following:

:J U D G M E N T:

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs.7,04,142/- from the defendant along with costs and future interest at contract rate and other reliefs.

2)In brief, the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is stated as follows:

2 The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- on 16.10.2021,

Rs.1,10,000/- on 28.10.2021, Rs.1,15,000/- on 31.10.2021 and Rs.1,11,000/- on 02.11.2021 in cash from the plaintiff for his necessities agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest @ 24% p.a and executed four demand promissory notes in favour of plaintiff on the respective dates. The plaintiff also borrowed amount from the plaintiff on 10 different occasions and executed 10 different promissory notes on the respective dates and the plaintiff has filed suits in respect of the said promissory notes. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the amount due under the suit promissory notes. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit. The defendant is not an agriculturist by profession and he is not entitled to the benefits of AP Agriculturist Relief Act 4 of 1938 and Act 45 of 1987.

3)Summons to the defendant was served and he filed his written statement denying all the averments in the plaint interalia contending that the plaintiff and him are well acquainted with each other and the plaintiff is well aware of his signature and some disputes arose between them in political matters and keeping the same in mind and with an intention to harass him, the plaintiff created false promissory note by forging his signature with the help of his hecnhmen and filed the present suit for wrongful gain. It is further the case of 3 the defendant that no cash consideration was passed under the suit promissory notes and he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in his favour on any date. The plaintiff, his father and two others colluded with each and filed suits to grab the property of the defendant by way of filing the suits in OS.No.207/2024, 200/2024, 202/2024, 205/2024, 206/2024 and 201/2024. Pleading the above, he prayed the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4)Based on the above pleadings and material on record, one of my predecessors in office framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff forged the signatures of the defendant on promissory notes dt.16.10.2021 for Rs.1,10,000/-, dt.28.10.2021 for Rs.1,10,000/-, dt.31.10.2021 for Rs.1,15,000/- and dt.02.11.2021 for Rs.1,11,000/-?

2) Whether the suit promissory notes dt.16.10.2021 for Rs.1,10,000/-, dt.28.10.2021 for Rs.1,10,000/-, dt.31.10.2021 for Rs.1,15,000/- and dt.02.11.2021 for Rs.1,11,000/- are devoid of consideration?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recover the suit amount as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

5)On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8 on his behalf. The attestor of Exs.A1 to A4 promissory notes is examined as PW.2. The defendant did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.

6)The learned counsel for plaintiff and the learned counsel for defendant submitted that their arguments may be treated as heard. Perused the record, oral and documentary evidence relied by both parties apart from bestowing serious consideration to the rival contentions of both the parties.

7)Issue Nos.1 to 3:

Above issues are discussed and decided conjointly for the sake of convenience.

PW.1 is the plaintiff. PW.1 filed his chief examinations by way of affidavit as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 4(1) of CPC. He deposed in detail in accordance with his pleadings. The detailed evidence of PW1 is not extracted herein to avoid repetition but the relevant evidence would be discussed at relevant points in discussion.

8)It is the case of plaintiff from the averments in the plaint and his testimony as PW.1 that the defendant borrowed total amount of Rs.4,46,000/- on 16.10.2021, 28.10.2021, 31.10.2021 and 02.11.2021 from him for his necessities and executed Ex.A1 to A4 promissory notes in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and later failed to pay the amount due under the same inspite of repeated requests and demands by the plaintiff. As stated earlier, there is no defendant evidence on record.

9)Undoubtedly, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the transaction under Ex.A1 to A4. Once the plaintiff discharges his initial burden, court can draw presumption under Section 118(a) of NI Act and then the onus shifts to the defendant to dispel the said presumption and disprove Ex.A1 to A4 transactions.

10)The legal position under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act is stated under for better appreciation of facts and legal position. By virtue of

Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, once the negotiable instrument is proved or admitted it is to be presumed that the said document is executed for legal consideration unless contra is proved.

11) In Ponuganti Subbarao Vs Sikhakollu Pullarao reported in (1999) 3

ALT 144, it was held that “by virtue of Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act, the initial burden lies on the holder of the promissory note to prove its execution and once execution is proved, burden shifted to defendant to disprove it.

12)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallavarapu Kashivisweswara Rao

Vs Tadikonda Ramulu Firm and others reported in (2008) SAR (Civil) 710

SC, it was held that “under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act, the court is obliged to presume until contrary is proved that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this 6 regard lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the court to believe the non existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improper, doubtful or illegal.

In the said citation, it was also held that once the execution of the promissory note is admitted the Presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable

Instrument Act would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable.

13)Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act – burden of proof:

Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."

Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act – on whom burden of proof lies:

The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.

14)On conjoint reading of Sections 101 and 102 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he has lent total amount of Rs.4,46,000/- to the defendant and the defendant executed promissory notes in his favour on 16.10.2021, 28.10.2021, 31.10.2021 and 02.11.2021 respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., To prove that 7 he lent total amount of Rs.4,46,000/- to the defendant, the plaintiff relied on his oral evidence as PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A8. PW.1 was subjected to cross examination and he denied all the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for defendant in support of the case of defendant that PW.1 filed this present suit in collusion with his father and one Thimmapuram Rama Subbaiah and

P.V.Subbanna to grab his property and that the signatures of the defendant on

Ex.A1 to A4 do not belong to him and that the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount to PW.1. Merely putting suggestions which are denied by the witness, it cannot be said that they are proved. There is no material cross of

PW.1 to discredit his evidence and believe the defence of the defendant. PW.2 who is the attestor of Ex.A1 to A4 promissory notes deposed on similar lines to that of PW.1 with respect to Ex.A1 to A4 suit promissory notes transaction.

PW.2 was subjected to cross examination and it was elicited therein that the contents of Ex.A1 to A4 and his signatures therein are in different ink. The said fact is noway detrimental to the case of the plaintiff as PW.2 added that he signed with his own pen. PW.2 denied all the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for defendant in support of the case of the defendant. Merely putting suggestions which are denied by the witness, it cannot be said that they are proved. There is no material cross examination of PW.2 to discredit his evidence and believe the defence of the defendant. From the oral evidence of 8 PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4, the plaintiff has proved the transaction under Ex.A1 to A4 as true. Therefore, this court has to draw a presumption that the defendant executed Ex.A1 to A4 promissory note and that it is supported by consideration. Now, the onus shifts to the defendant to rebut the said presumption.

Ex.A1 to A4 suit promissory note and filed this suit falsely against him. When such a plea is taken, the defendant ought to have taken steps to send Ex.A1 to A4 for expert opinion to prove his forgery. But the fact remains on record that no such steps were taken by the defendant. In the absence of opinion of the expert, the contention of the defendant that the suit promissory notes are forged by the plaintiff cannot be considered. In view of the above, it is clear that the defendant has failed to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption drawn by the court that he executed Ex.A1 to A4 and that they are supported by consideration.

16) In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff has proved his case and the defendant has failed to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption drawn by the court. The defendant is not an agriculturist and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits of AP Agriculturist Relief Act 4 of 1938 and Act 45 of 1987. So, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. The rate of interest claimed is the contractual rate of interest and it is neither penal nor usurious. Accordingly, issues No.1 to 3 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

17) Issue No.4:

In the result, suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay

Rs.7,04,142/- with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on Rs.7,04,142/- and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,46,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge

(Junior Division, Dhone.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant

P.W.1. Shaik Rafi Nil PW.2: S.Ahammad 10

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original suit promissory note dt.16.10.2021 for Rs.1,10,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff Ex.A.2: Original suit promissory note dt.28.10.2021 for Rs.1,10,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff Ex.A.3: Original suit promissory note dt.31.10.2021 for Rs.1,15,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff Ex.A.4: Original suit promissory note dt.02.11.2021 for Rs.1,11,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff Ex.A.5: Digitally signed certificate of 1B namuna (ROR) of Sy.Nos.271/1 and 181 of Bugganipalle Village issued by Tahsildar, Bethamcherla dt.06.03.2024 Ex.A.6: Digitally signed certificate of Adangal/pahani) of Sy.No.271/1 of Bugganipalle Village issued by Tahsildar, Bethamcherla dt.06.03.2024 Ex.A.7: Digitally signed certificate of Adangal/pahani) of Sy.No.181 of Bugganipalle Village issued by Tahsildar, Bethamcherla dt.06.03.2024 Ex.A8: certified coy of Registered sale deed bearing No.205/2008 dt.04.03.2008 For Defendant: Nil

Principal Civil Judge

(Junior Division, Dhone.

OS/200/2024

Shaik Rafi, S/o Idrusaheb vs Yeddula Satyaraju, S/o Ishaq

30 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), DHONE

PRESENT: Mr. P.RAHUL AMBEDKAR

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Wednesday, the 30th day of April, 2025

Original Suit.No.200 of 2024

BETWEEN:

Shaik Rafi, 39 years, S/o Idrusaheb @ Idrusvali @ Idrus, Muslim, Business, R/o H.No.1-216, Bugganipalle Village and Post, Bethamcherla Mandal, Nandyal District-518 206. cell: 9963875130.

... Plaintiff

-AND-

Yeddula Satyaraju @ Subbaiah, 58 years, S/o Ishaq @ Nagaiah, Indian, Business, R/o H.No.3-63, Bugganipalle Village and Post, Bethamcherla Mandal, Nandyal District-518 206. Cell: 8374472428.

... Defendant

:J U D G M E N T:

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs.4,78,733/- from the defendant along with costs and future interest at contract rate and other reliefs.

2)In brief, the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is stated as follows:

2 The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 25.09.2021,

Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.10.2021 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 08.10.2021 in cash from the plaintiff for his necessities agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest @ 24% p.a and executed three demand promissory notes in favour of plaintiff on the respective dates. The plaintiff also borrowed amount from the plaintiff on 10 different occasions and executed 10 different promissory notes on the respective dates and the plaintiff has filed suits in respect of the said promissory notes.

Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the amount due under the suit promissory notes. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit. The defendant is not an agriculturist by profession and he is not entitled to the benefits of AP Agriculturist Relief Act 4 of 1938 and Act 45 of 1987.

3)Summons to the defendant was served and he filed his written statement denying all the averments in the plaint interalia contending that the plaintiff and him are well acquainted with each other and the plaintiff is well aware of his signature and some disputes arose between them in political matters and keeping the same in mind and with an intention to harass him, the plaintiff created false promissory note by forging his signature with the help of his hecnhmen and filed the present suit for wrongful gain. It is further the case of 3 the defendant that no cash consideration was passed under the suit promissory notes and he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in his favour on any date. The plaintiff, his father and two others colluded with each and filed suits to grab the property of the defendant by way of filing the suits in OS.No.199/2024, 200/2024, 202/2024, 205/2024, 206/2024 and 201/2024. Pleading the above, he prayed the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4)Based on the above pleadings and material on record, one of my predecessors in office framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff forged the signatures of the defendant on promissory notes dt.25.09.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/-, dt.01.10.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- and dt.08.10.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/-?

2) Whether the suit promissory notes dt.25.09.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/-, dt.01.10.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- and dt.08.10.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- are devoid of consideration?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recover the suit amount as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

5)On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7 on his behalf. The attestor of Exs.A1 to A3 promissory notes is examined as PW.2. The defendant did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.

6)The learned counsel for plaintiff and the learned counsel for defendant submitted that their arguments may be treated as heard. Perused the record, 4 oral and documentary evidence relied by both parties apart from bestowing serious consideration to the rival contentions of both the parties.

7)Issue Nos.1 to 3:

Above issues are discussed and decided conjointly for the sake of convenience.

8)It is the case of plaintiff from the averments in the plaint and his testimony as PW.1 that the defendant borrowed total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.09.2021, 01.10.2021 and 08.10.2021 from him for his necessities and executed

Ex.A1 to A3 promissory notes for Rs.1,00,000/- each in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and later failed to pay the amount due under the same inspite of repeated requests and demands by the plaintiff. As stated earlier, there is no defendant evidence on record.

9)Undoubtedly, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the transaction under Ex.A1 to A3. Once the plaintiff discharges his initial burden, court can draw presumption under Section 118(a) of NI Act and then the onus shifts to the defendant to dispel the said presumption and disprove Ex.A1 to A3 transactions.

10)The legal position under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act is stated under for better appreciation of facts and legal position. By virtue of

11) In Ponuganti Subbarao Vs Sikhakollu Pullarao reported in (1999) 3

12)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallavarapu Kashivisweswara Rao

Vs Tadikonda Ramulu Firm and others reported in (2008) SAR (Civil) 710

In the said citation, it was also held that once the execution of the promissory note is admitted the Presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable

Instrument Act would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable.

13)Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act – burden of proof:

Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act – on whom burden of proof lies:

The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.

14)On conjoint reading of Sections 101 and 102 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he has lent total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant and the defendant executed promissory notes in his favour on 25.09.2021, 01.10.2021 and 08.10.2021 respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., To prove that he lent total 7 amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant, the plaintiff relied on his oral evidence as PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A7. PW.1 was subjected to cross examination and he denied all the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for defendant in support of the case of defendant that PW.1 filed this present suit in collusion with his father and one Thimmapuram Rama Subbaiah and P.V.Subbanna to grab his property and that the signatures of the defendant on Ex.A1 to A3 do not belong to him and that the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount to PW.1. Merely putting suggestions which are denied by the witness, it cannot be said that they are proved. There is no material cross of PW.1 to discredit his evidence and believe the defence of the defendant. PW.2 who is the attestor of Ex.A1 to A3 promissory notes deposed on similar lines to that of PW.1 with respect to Ex.A1 to A3 suit promissory note transactions. PW.2 was subjected to cross examination and it was elicited therein that the contents of Ex.A1 to A3 and his signatures therein are in different ink. The said fact is no way detrimental to the case of the plaintiff as PW.2 added that he signed with his own pen. PW.2 denied all the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for defendant in support of the case of the defendant. Merely putting suggestions which are denied by the witnesses, it cannot be said that they are proved. There is no material cross examination of PW.2 to discredit his evidence and believe the defence of the defendant. From the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A3, the 8 plaintiff has proved the transactions under Ex.A1 to A3 as true. Therefore, this court has to draw a presumption that the defendant executed Ex.A1 to A3 promissory notes and that they are supported by consideration. Now, the onus shifts to the defendant to rebut the said presumption.

Ex.A1 to A3 suit promissory notes and filed this suit falsely against him. When such a plea is taken, the defendant ought to have taken steps to send Ex.A1 to A3 for expert opinion to prove his plea of forgery. But the fact remains on record that no such steps were taken by the defendant. In the absence of opinion of the expert, the contention of the defendant that the suit promissory notes are forged by the plaintiff cannot be considered. In view of the above, it is clear that the defendant has failed to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption drawn by the court that he executed Ex.A1 to A3 and that they are supported by consideration.

17) Issue No.4:

In the result, suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay

Rs.4,78,733/- with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on Rs.4,78,733/- and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge

(Junior Division, Dhone.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant

P.W.1. Shaik Rafi Nil PW.2: Shaik Raja Basha 10

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original suit promissory note dt.25.09.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff Ex.A.2: Original suit promissory note dt.01.10.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff Ex.A.3: Original suit promissory note dt.08.10.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff Ex.A.4: Digitally signed certificate of 1B namuna (ROR) of Sy.Nos.271/1 and 181 of Bugganipalle Village issued by Tahsildar, Bethamcherla dt.05.03.2024 Ex.A.5: Digitally signed certificate of Adangal/pahani) of Sy.No.271/1 of Bugganipalle Village issued by Tahsildar, Bethamcherla dt.05.03.2024 Ex.A.6: Digitally signed certificate of Adangal/pahani) of Sy.No.181 of Bugganipalle Village issued by Tahsildar, Bethamcherla dt.05.03.2024 Ex.A7: certified coy of Registered sale deed bearing No.205/2008 dt.04.03.2008 For Defendant: Nil

Principal Civil Judge

(Junior Division, Dhone.

OS/175/2023

T.Sreenivasulu, S/o Thimmaiah vs B.Narasimhulu

30 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), DHONE

PRESENT: Mr. P.RAHUL AMBEDKAR

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Wednesday, the 30th day of April, 2025

Original Suit.No.175 of 2023

BETWEEN:

T.Sreenivasulu, 45 years, S/o Thimmaiah, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Yerraguntla Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District, AP.

... Plaintiff

-AND-

B.Narasimha Naidu, 48 years, S/o Maddilety, Hindu, LIC Agent, R/o H.No.10-32- 8, Kothapeta, Dhone, Nandyal District. Cell: 9493791189, 8978371575

... Defendant

This suit coming on 29.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri E.Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Hari Muralidhar Rao, Advocate for the defendant, upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for defendant, this Court delivered the following:

:J U D G M E N T:

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs.1,54,250/- from the defendant along with costs and future interest at contract rate and other reliefs.

2)In brief, the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is stated as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.01.2021 in cash from the plaintiff for his necessities agreeing to repay the same on demand with 2 interest @ 24% p.a and executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day at Yerraguntla Village. Despite repeated oral demands and requests and even after issuance of legal notice dt.18.01.2023, the defendant did not pay the amount due under the suit promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit. The defendant is not an agriculturist by profession and he is not entitled to the benefits of AP Agriculturist Relief Act 4 of 1938 and Act 45 of 1987.

3)Summons to the defendant was served and he filed his written statement denying all the averments in the plaint interalia contending that the plaintiff is brother-in-law of defendant and his sister was given in marriage to plaintiff and she suffered with ill health and underwent brain operation. The plaintiff harassed his wife stating that her brother (defendant) did not look after her treatment and keeping the same in mind, the plaintiff developed grudge against the defendant and created the suit promissory note to harass the defendant for unlawful gain. It is further the case of defendant that the plaintiff suppressed the close relationship with the defendant and filed this suit. The suit is devoid of bonafides and merits and liable to be dismissed in limine. Pleading the above, he prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)Based on the above pleadings and material on record, one of my predecessors in office framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff foreged and created the promissory note dt.01.01.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/-?

2) Whether the promissory note dt.01.01.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- is devoid of consideration?

3) Whether the defendant is an agriculturist by profession?

4) Whether the interest claimed under the promissory note dt.01.01.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- is usurious?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recover the suit amount as prayed for?

6) To what relief?

5)On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 on his behalf. The attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note is examined as PW.2. The defendant did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.

7)Issue Nos.1 to 5:

Above issues are discussed and decided conjointly for the sake of convenience.

4 PW.1 is the plaintiff. PW.1 filed his chief examinations by way of affidavit as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 4(1) of CPC. He deposed in detail in accordance with his pleadings. The detailed evidence of PW1 is not extracted herein to avoid repetition but the relevant evidence would be discussed at relevant points in discussion.

8)It is the case of plaintiff from the averments in the plaint and his testimony as PW.1 that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.01.2021 from him for his family expenses and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and later failed to pay the amount due under the same despite repeated requests and demands and even after issuance of legal notice. As stated earlier, there is no defendant evidence on record.

9)Undoubtedly, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the transaction under Ex.A1. Once the plaintiff discharges his initial burden, court can draw presumption under Section 118(a) of NI Act and then the onus shifts to the defendant to dispel the said presumption and disprove Ex.A1 transaction.

10)The legal position under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act is stated under for better appreciation of facts and legal position. By virtue of

Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, once the negotiable instrument is 5 proved or admitted it is to be presumed that the said document is executed for legal consideration unless contra is proved.

11) In Ponuganti Subbarao Vs Sikhakollu Pullarao reported in (1999) 3

12)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallavarapu Kashivisweswara Rao

Vs Tadikonda Ramulu Firm and others reported in (2008) SAR (Civil) 710

SC, it was held that “under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act, the court is obliged to presume until contrary is proved that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the court to believe the non existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improper, doubtful or illegal.

In the said citation, it was also held that once the execution of the promissory note is admitted the Presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable 6 Instrument Act would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable.

13)Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act – burden of proof:

Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act – on whom burden of proof lies:

The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.

14)On conjoint reading of Sections 101 and 102 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he has lent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant and the defendant executed promissory note in his favour on 01.01.2021 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., on the same day. To prove that he lent total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant, the plaintiff relied on his oral evidence as PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to

A4. PW.1 was subjected to cross examination and it was elicited therein that the defendant is his brother-in-law and his wife underwent surgery to her brain. It was further elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 that the attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note M.Rama Subbaiah suppplies vehicles for transport to their factory and both of them are good friends. PW.1 pleaded ignorance when 7 questioned as to whether the defendant obtained crop loan from Grameena Bank,

Dhone on his agricultural land in Kambalapadu Village. All the above facts elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 do not pertain to Ex.A1 transaction and they nowhere disprove the said transaction. PW.1 denied all the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for defendant that the plaintiff forged his signatures in Ex.A1 transaction with the help of scribe and attestor. Merely putting suggestions which are denied by the witness, it cannot be said that they are proved. There is no material cross examination of PW.1 to discredit his evidence and believe the defence of the defendant with respect to Ex.A1 transaction. PW.2 who is the attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note deposed on similar lines to that of PW.1 with respect to Ex.A1 suit promissory note transaction. PW.2 was also subjected to cross examination and it was elicited therein that he is a resident of Chinnamalkapruram Village and he supplies vehicles for transport to the factory of one Rajasekhar Reddy under whom the plaintiff is working. PW.2 also admitted that the wife of plaintiff underwent surgery to her brain. None of the facts elicited in the cross examination of PW.2 pertain the Ex.A1 transaction and they do not disprove the said transaction.

PW.2 denied all the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for defendant in support of the case of the defendant that the defendant never borrowed any 8 amount and never executed any promissory note in his presence. Merely putting suggestions which are denied by the witnes, it cannot be said that they are proved. There is no material cross examination of PW.2 to discredit his evidence and believe the defence of the defendant. From the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4, the plaintiff has proved the transaction under Ex.A1 as true. Therefore, this court has to draw a presumption that the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note and that it is supported by consideration. Now, the onus shifts to the defendant to rebut the said presumption.

15)The defendant can do so from the cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 or by adducing evidence on his behalf. As stated earlier, there is no material cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 to discredit his evidence and believe the defence of the defendant. The defendant did not adduce any evidence on his behalf. It is the main contention of the defendant that the plaintiff forged his signature in Ex.A1 suit promissory note and filed this suit falsely against him. When such a plea is taken, the defendant ought to have taken steps to send Ex.A1 for expert opinion to prove his plea of forgery. But the fact remains on record that no such steps were taken by the defendant. In the absence of opinion of the expert, the contention of the defendant that the suit promissory note is forged by the plaintiff cannot be considered. In view of the above, it is clear that the defendant has 9 failed to rebut the presumption drawn by the court that he executed Ex.A1 promissory note and that it is supported by consideration.

16) In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff has proved his case and the defendant has failed to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption drawn by the court. The defendant is not an agriculturist and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits of AP Agriculturist Relief Act 4 of 1938 and Act 45 of 1987. So, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. The rate of interest claimed is the contractual rate of interest and it is neither penal nor usurious. Accordingly, issues No.1 to 5 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

17) Issue No.6:

In the result, suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay

Rs.1,54,250/- with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on Rs.1,54,250/- and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge

(Junior Division, Dhone.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant

P.W.1. T.SrinivasuluNil PW.2: Rama Subbaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original suit promissory note dt.01.01.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff Ex.A.2: office copy of legal notice dt.18.01.2023 Ex.A.3: postal receipt dt.18.01.2023 Ex.A.4: served acknowledgment card of the defendant For Defendant: Nil

Principal Civil Judge

(Junior Division, Dhone.

OS/102/2023

Shaik Noor Jahan, W/o Shaik Khaja Mynuddin vs Shaik Shakeer

30 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), DHONE

PRESENT: Mr. P.RAHUL AMBEDKAR

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Wednesday, the 30th day of April, 2025

Original Suit.No.102 of 2023

BETWEEN:

Shaik Noorjahan, 32 years, W/o Shaik Khaja Mynuddin, Muslim, Housewife, R/o H.No.21-61, Kondapeta, Dhone, Nandyal District.

... Plaintiff

-AND-

Shaik Shakeer, 35 years, S/o Masum Vali, Muslim, Business, R/o H.No.21-39, Kondapeta, Dhone, Nandyal District.

... Defendant

This suit coming on 29.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Mohammad Rafi and Sri S.Mohammad Ali, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri N.Narasimhudu and Sri M.Madhava Swamy, Advocates for the defendant, upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for defendant, this Court delivered the following:

:J U D G M E N T:

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs.2,01,300/- from the defendant along with costs and future interest at contract rate and other reliefs.

2)In brief, the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is stated as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 16.09.2021 in cash from the plaintiff for his family expenses and necessities agreeing to repay the same on 2 demand with interest @ 24% p.a and executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day at Dhone Town. Despite repeated oral demands and requests and even after issuance of legal notice dt.22.12.2022, the defendant did not pay the amount due under the suit promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit.

3)Summons to the defendant was served and he filed his written statement denying all the averments in the plaint interalia contending that the SUIT promissory note is created only for wrongful gain and the defendant has no need or purpose to take loan from the plaintiff and the signatures appearing on the suit promissory note do not belong to the defendant and the same are created with the help of henchmen under forgery. It is further the case of the defendant that he did not receive any cash consideration under the suit promissory note and he has no capacity to borrow money from the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount to the defendant. Pleading the above, he prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)Based on the above pleadings and material on record, one of my predecessors in office framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff created the promissory note dt.16.09.2021 for Rs.1,50,000/- by forging the signatues of the defendant on the said promissory note?

2) Whether the suit promissory note dt.29.12.2019 for Rs.40,000/- is devoid of consideration?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recover the suit amount as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

7)Issue Nos.1 to 3:

Above issues are discussed and decided conjointly for the sake of convenience.

8)It is the case of plaintiff from the averments in the plaint and his testimony as PW.1 that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- on 16.09.2021 from him for his necessities and family expenses and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and later failed to pay the amount due under the same despite repeated requests and demands and even after issuance of legal notice Ex.A1 even after Ex.A2 reply notice. As stated earlier, there is no defendant evidence on record.

10)The legal position under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act is stated under for better appreciation of facts and legal position. By virtue of

11) In Ponuganti Subbarao Vs Sikhakollu Pullarao reported in (1999) 3

ALT 144, it was held that “by virtue of Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act, 5 the initial burden lies on the holder of the promissory note to prove its execution and once execution is proved, burden shifted to defendant to disprove it.

12)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallavarapu Kashivisweswara Rao

Vs Tadikonda Ramulu Firm and others reported in (2008) SAR (Civil) 710

SC, it was held that “under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act, the court is obliged to presume until contrary is proved that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the court to believe the non existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improper, doubtful or illegal.

In the said citation, it was also held that once the execution of the promissory note is admitted the Presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable

Instrument Act would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable.

13)Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act – burden of proof:

Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act – on whom burden of proof lies:

The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.

14)On conjoint reading of Sections 101 and 102 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he has lent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant and the defendant executed promissory note in his favour on 16.09.2021 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., on the same day. To prove that he lent total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant, the plaintiff relied on his oral evidence as PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to

A4. PW.1 was subjected to cross examination and he denied all the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for defendant in support of the case of defendant. Merely putting suggestions which are denied by the witness, it cannot be said that they are proved. PW.2 who is the attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note deposed on similar lines to that of PW.1 with respect to Ex.A1 suit promissory note transaction. PW.2 also denied all the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for defendant in support of the case of the defendant.

Merely putting suggestions which are denied by the witness, it cannot be said that they are proved. There is no material cross examination of PW.2 to discredit his evidence and believe the defence of the defendant. From the oral evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1, the plaintiff has proved the transaction under 7 Ex.A1 as true. Therefore, this court has to draw a presumption that the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note and that it is supported by consideration. Now, the onus shifts to the defendant to rebut the said presumption.

Ex.A1 suit promissory note and filed this suit falsely against him. When such a plea is taken, the defendant ought to have taken steps to send Ex.A1 for expert opinion to prove his plea of forgery. But the fact remains on record that no such steps were taken by the defendant. In the absence of opinion of the expert, the contention of the defendant that the suit promissory note is forged by the plaintiff cannot be considered. In view of the above, it is clear that the defendant has failed to rebut the presumption drawn by the court that he executed Ex.A1 promissory note and that it is supported by consideration.

16) In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff has proved his case and the defendant has failed to raise a probable defence to rebut the 8 presumption drawn by the court. So, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. The rate of interest claimed is the contractual rate of interest and it is neither penal nor usurious. Accordingly, issues No.1 to 3 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

17) Issue No.4:

In the result, suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay

Rs.2,01,300/- with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on Rs.2,01,300/- and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge

(Junior Division, Dhone.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant

P.W.1. Shaik NoorjahanNil PW.2: S.Allipeera

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A.1: Original suit promissory note dt.16.09.2021 for Rs.1,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff Ex.A.2: office copy of legal notice dt.22.12.2022 Ex.A.3: postal receipt dt.22.12.2022 Ex.A.4: served acknowledgment card of the defendant For Defendant: Nil

Principal Civil Judge

(Junior Division, Dhone.

OS/55/2023

P.Nagaraju, S/o P.Ramanjaneyulu vs T.Muraledhara Reddy alias Muraledhar Reddy, S/o T.Thimma Reddy

30 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), DHONE

PRESENT: Mr. P.RAHUL AMBEDKAR

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Wednesday, the 30th day of April, 2025

Original Suit.No.55 of 2023

BETWEEN:

P.Nagaraju, 48 years, S/o P.Ramanjaneyulu, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Dhone, Nandyal District, AP.

... Plaintiff

-AND-

T.Muraledhara Reddy @ Muraledhar Reddy, 55 years, S/o T.Thimma Reddy, Hindu, Landlord, R/o Thapalakothuru Village, Katarukonda Post, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District.

... Defendant

This suit coming on 29.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Gopal, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Laxmisetty Krishna Prasad, Advocate for the defendant, upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for defendant, this Court delivered the following:

:J U D G M E N T:

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs.8,30,000/- from the defendant along with costs and future interest at contract rate and other reliefs.

2)In brief, the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is stated as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 06.05.2020 in cash from the plaintiff for his necessities and family expenses agreeing to repay the same on 2 demand with interest @ 24% p.a and executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day at Dhone. Despite repeated oral demands and requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the amount due under the suit promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit. The defendant is not an agriculturist by profession and he is not entitled to the benefits of AP Agriculturist Relief Act 4 of 1938 and Act 45 of 1987.

3)Summons to the defendant was served and he filed his written statement denying all the averments in the plaint interalia contending that the defendant never borrowed suit promissory note amount from the plaintiff and never executed any alleged promissory note in his favour. The plaintiff is one of the litigants and finance business man in his native place and he created suit promissory note for wrongful gain. It is further the case of defendant that the plaintiff filed the suit on the strength of the materially altered promissory note to get wrongful gain and there is no cause of action for the suit and no cash consideration was passed under the suit promissory note. Pleading the above, he prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)Based on the above pleadings and material on record, one of my predecessors in office framed the following issues:

1) Whether the promissory note dt.06.05.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- is materially altered ?

2) Whether the promissory note dt.06.05.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- is devoid of consideration?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recover the suit amount as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

5)On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 on his behalf. The defendant did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.

7)Issue Nos.1 to 3:

Above issues are discussed and decided conjointly for the sake of convenience.

PW.1 is the plaintiff. PW.1 filed his chief examinations by way of affidavit as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 4(1) of CPC. He deposed in detail in accordance with his pleadings. The detailed evidence of PW1 is not extracted 4 herein to avoid repetition but the relevant evidence would be discussed at relevant points in discussion.

8)It is the case of plaintiff from the averments in the plaint and his testimony as PW.1 that the defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on 06.05.2020 from him for his family expenses and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and later, failed to pay the amount due under the same despite repeated requests and demands. As stated earlier, there is no defendant evidence on record.