IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ::
TIRUPATI.
Present: Sri P.V.Ram Babu,
III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati.
Monday, the Thirteenth (13th) day of June, Two Thousand Sixteen
O.S.No. 85 of 2007
Between:
R.Chandra Sekhar Reddy...Plaintiff
And:
1C.Sai Ramalinga Reddy
2C.Vikrama Sai.... Defendants
This suit is coming on 21032016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri L.Madhusudhana Reddy, Advocate for defendants 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.33,60,00000 which comprises of principal amount of Rs.20,00,00000 and interest of
Rs.13,60,00000 and with subsequent interest, with the following averments made in the plaint in brief are:
1st defendant is the father of 2nd defendant and both of them are known to the plaintiff for the past 20 years and got well acquaintance and friendship, as 2nd defendant is the class mate and close friend of son of plaintiff. Both the defendants approached the plaintiff to accommodate loan of Rs.20,00,00000 on free of interest by representing that they are doing railway contract work at Chitravathi river near Kondapuram of Kadapa District and require amount for proceeding with the contract work, during the last week of November, 2 2004, promising to return the said amount soon after completion of the contract work irrespective of profit or loss in the said contract work. On account of the close acquaintance, the plaintiff agreed to lend the said amount of Rs.20,00,00000 to the defendants and asked the defendants about the security for repayment of the said amount, and on that the defendants represented that they got house sites described in the suit agreement schedule; and in case of failure to repay the amount soon after completion of contract work, both the defendants agreed to execute registered sale deed for consideration amount of above loan amount of Rs.20,00,00000 and deliver possession, alternatively by giving option to the plaintiff to claim specific performance also. The said offer was accepted by both the defendants and thus the deal between the plaintiff and defendants was entered on 29112004 and both the defendants received Rs.20,00,00000 from the plaintiff by embodying the above terms and conditions, both the defendants executed an agreement in favour of plaintiff on the even date. The suit agreement was prepared on 28112004 and the defendant received the amount on 29112004 and executed the same on 29112004. While things stood thus, the plaintiff reliably came to know that the Railway contract work was completed by 31062006 and inspite of the same, the defendants failed to keep up their words and failed to repay the amount of Rs.20,00,00000, inspite of demands made by the plaintiff.
The defendants have been evading and postponing the repayment of amount on some pretext or the other. Thus, the defendants are also 3 liable to pay interest at 24% per annum on the amount borrowed by them, till the date of repayment as they failed to perform their part of contract. The plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 08092007 to the defendants calling upon them to repay the amount due with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and the defendants intentionally got returned the said notices with false endorsement. The plaintiff was given option to take a registered sale deed from the defendants as per the terms and conditions of the suit agreement dated 29112004 in case of failure to repay the amount due as agreed by them and have given collateral security of the agreement schedule property for due repayment of the amount of Rs.20,00,00000, but the plaintiff is not exercising his option as he reliably came to know that the agreement schedule property is not free from encumbrances and therefore, the plaintiff is confining his relief to recover the amount due to him. Hence, the suit.
21st Defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted b y the 2nd defendant with the following averments in brief are:
The averments made in the plaint are not true and correct and the suit is not maintainable either under law or on facts. The suit document is not admissible in evidence for want of proper stamp duty and registration. The suit is not properly framed and the court fee paid is also not correct. The suit document is not at all an agreement and as per the contents, it is just mortgage deed/bond, which is compulsorily registrable document. The averments that both the defendants are 4 known to the plaintiff since 20 years is not true and correct. The averments in the plaint are not true and correct except payment of
Rs.20,00,00000 by the plaintiff to the defendants on free of interest on 29112004. The plaintiff paid the said amount by taking the signatures of the defendants on stamp papers and so also on white papers as security and 1st defendant promised to repay the amount as agreed without interest within six months. The allegation that the defendants borrowed amount for the alleged Chitravathi railway bridge contract work is not correct. These defendants are nothing to do with the said contract work. The other allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct. As per the terns made at the time of borrowing the amount, in the month of March, 2005 itself, the 1st defendant repaid the above amount of Rs.20,00,00000 to the plaintiff in three installments. Though the plaintiff received amount, due to other litigations and in order to blackmail the defendants, created the said document, with the help of blank stamp and white papers containing the signatures of the defendants, that were obtained on 29112004, filed this suit. In the above circumstances, question of demand by the plaintiff and not paying the amount as alleged are not true and correct. The defendants have no knowledge about the alleged notice dated 08092007 and the allegations contra are false. During the relevant period of alleged notice, the defendants are not in Tirupati and as such the question of getting the notice returned with false endorsement etc., are false. The suit document is a created document. These defendants never executed 5 the same. The plaintiff might have created the suit document with alleged option and after knowing its inadmissibility filed this suit, confining his relief for recovery of amount. Even as per the suit document, the plaintiff is not entitled to interest and inspite of it, claimed interest, which speaks volumes about the false claim made by the plaintiff. There is no cause of action for the suit, as the defendants repaid the amount and the alleged cause of action is created one. The plaintiff is one of the Directors along with 2nd defendant and wife of 2nd defendant and others in 'Hamsa Engineering and Contractors Pvt.,
Limited' and in between them there are some disputes and the wife of 2nd defendant by name C.Nithya Bhavani filed a suit in O.S.No.51/2006 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the plaintiff and other Company Directors and after filing of the said suit, the plaintiff might have bore grudge and to take revenge and to blackmail the defendants herein filed the present suit with false allegations by creating the suit document taking advantage of having in possession of blank stamp papers and white papers containing the signatures of the defendants obtained by the plaintiff on 29112004 with the help of alleged attestors and scribe, for wrongful gain. The defendants repaid the amount through cheques and when demanded for return of blank documents containing the signatures of the defendants obtained by the plaintiff on 29112004, the plaintiff stated that they were misplaced and promised to return as and when traced. But the plaintiff by using the said blank papers created the suit document and filed the present 6 suit and the said conduct of the plaintiff is nothing but cheating and 1st defendant already gave a report to police on 02072008 against the plaintiff. With these grounds and other grounds the 1st defendant pray to dismiss the suit. As already stated supra the 2nd defendant adopted the above written statement 1st defendant.
3The plaintiff by obtaining permission from the court as per orders in I.A.No.159/2009 under OrderVIII Rule9 of C.P.C filed a rejoinder subsequent to filing of written statement by the defendants with the following averments in brief are:
The defendants among other averments mentioned in their written statement and took a definite stand that they received
Rs.20,00,00000 from the plaintiff on 29112004 on free of interest which is to be repayable within six months. But however further pleaded that the said amount was repaid by them in three installments and inspite of repayment the plaintiff created suit agreement with the help of blank stamp papers etc., and filed this suit and the said pleading of the defendants is absolutely false and incorrect. The defendants are known to the plaintiff for the past 20 years and as such he lent
Rs.20,00,00000 to the defendants on their executing suit agreement
dated 29112004. Further the defendants used to take hand loans
from the plaintiff even prior to and subsequent to the present transaction and in course of money dealings the plaintiff lent amounts to 1st defendant by issuing cheque for Rs.15,00,00000 on 16082004,
Rs.10,00,00000 on 21012005 and Rs.3,88,10900 on 27012005 and 7 similarly Rs.1,00,00000 to 2nd defendant on 07012005, Rs.50,00000 to 2nd defendant on 01122004 and the said amounts were repaid in the month of March, 2005 by issuing cheques to the plaintiff. Thus, the 1st defendant issued cheques for Rs.5,00,00000 on 01032005,
Rs.10,00,00000 on 02032005 n Rs.5,00,0000 on 04032005 and
Rs.5,00,00000 on 05032005 and another cheque for Rs.2,60,00000 on 21062005 through wife of 2nd defendant account towards hand loan amount due by them to the plaintiff and as such the amounts paid by 1st defendant and wife of 2nd defendant by way of cheques were not to the present suit transaction, but are towards earlier amounts borrowed by them from the plaintiff. Therefore, the discharge plea taken by the defendants is not correct and defendants want to suppress the said information and took false plea of discharge. Suit amount is still outstanding and was not discharged by the defendants and hence liable to pay the same with interest as claimed by the plaintiff. The suit in
O.S.No.51/2006 filed by the wife of 2nd defendant against plaintiff and
others is nothing to do with the present suit transaction and the averments made contra in the written statement of the defendants are false.
4Subsequent to the said rejoinder filed by the plaintiff the defendants filed additional written statement namely 1st defendant filed it and the same was adopted by 2nd defendant with the following averments in brief are:
8 The averments of the rejoinder of plaintiff are not true and correct. Subsequent to the written statement of the defendants the plaintiff created new story and filed rejoinder with false allegations. As pleaded by the defendants in their written statement, these defendants subsequent to taking of hand loan of Rs.20,00,00000 discharged the same by issuing cheques in the month of March, 2005 itself etc..
5Subsequent to the original pleadings my learned predecessor in office on 30092008 settled the issues and subsequent to the additional pleadings also settled additional issue on 10022010.
1. Whether the suit agreement dated 29112004 is true and binding on the defendants?
2. Whether the discharge pleaded by the defendants in Para6 of the written statement is true?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount or part there of?
4. To what relief?
Additional Issue Dated 10022010:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest?
6On behalf of plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and also examined one of the attestors of Ex.A1 namely D.Vasudeva Reddy as PW2 and scribe of the said document namely R.Venkata Subba Rao as PW3 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. (Among the above documents, the plaintiff marked Ex.A5 through DW1 during his cross examination).
7On behalf of defendants, 1st defendant himself was examined as DW1 and 2nd defendant himself was examined as DW2.
The defendants through DW1 marked Ex.B1. The details of the 9 documents marked on behalf parties are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.
8Heard, the learned counsel for plaintiff and so also learned counsel for defendants. Apart from submitting oral arguments, both counsel for plaintiff and so also defendants filed written arguments.
Perused the entire record and with the available material on record, now proceeding to answer the points for consideration as follows:
9Issue No.1: Whether the suit agreement dated 29112004 is true and binding on the defendants?
It is the case of plaintiff that the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,00000 from him as hand loan and executed Ex.A1 agreement agreeing to repay the said amount without interest, within six months and further contend that in case of default to repay the said amount, the defendants 1 and 2 agreed to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of property mentioned in the agreement in favour of plaintiff and option was also alleged to have given to plaintiff even to obtain specific performance of the said agreement. According to the plaintiff since the defendants failed to repay the amount as agreed and since the plaintiff did not want to exercise his option to get the property, as there are encumbrances over the property, the plaintiff restricted his claim for recovery of the amount and to prove and establish the transaction filed and marked Ex.A1 agreement. The defendants deny execution of Ex.A1 agreement. But however admitted about the borrowing of Rs.20,00,00000 from plaintiff on 29112004 and at that 10 time the plaintiff obtained their signatures on blank stamp papers and on white stamp papers and subsequently due to disputes, inspite of discharging the said loan, got created Ex.A1 with the help of attestors and scribe and filed the present suit. Thus, though the defendants admitted borrowing of Rs.20,00,00000 from plaintiff on 29112004, but deny execution of Ex.A1. At this juncture, it is relevant to observe that, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff only for recovery of money, which he alleged to have lent to the defendants and in support of the same rely on Ex.A1 for the limited purpose of the said money transaction and is not relying on the remaining part of recitals of Ex.A1.
Money transaction as put forward by the plaintiff, is admitted by the defendants. Hence, Ex.A1 lost its importance as Ex.A1 is not sought to be legally enforced for any purpose and is filed only for the purpose of proving money transaction namely to prove that the plaintiff lent
Rs.20,00,00000 to the defendants on 29112004, and the same is admitted by the defendants.
10There is lot of pleading and also evidence and arguments so far as admissibility of Ex.A1 in regard to the stamp duty and registration and both the plaintiff and defendants rely on several legal precedents to the effect that even though the document is marked the same can be demarked when it is inadmissible etc.,. In fact this document was admitted in evidence only after levying deficit stamp duty and penalty as per provisions of Stamp Act namely stamp duty of
Rs.11,89800 and penalty of Rs.1,18,98000 was collected from plaintiff.
11 11The plaintiff in order to prove Ex.A1 and its execution even examined two witnesses namely PW2 and PW3 i.e., one of the attestors and scribe of Ex.A1 respectively. The defendants unable to get any favourable answers either from PW1 or PW2 or PW3 in support of their defence so far Ex.A1 and its execution is concerned. The defendants 1 and 2, even admitted their signatures in Ex.A1 when confronted to them while they were in the witness box as DW1 and
DW2. No doubt mere admission of signatures did not amount to execution of document. But at the same time the plaintiff through his evidence as PW1 and also through the evidence of PWs2 and 3, proved and established that the defendants 1 and 2 duly executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff. Thus, taking into consideration of the above evidence of PWs1 to 3 and so also DWs1 and 2 this court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that Ex.A1 was duly executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff and a is true and genuine document. Thus, this issue is held in favour of plaintiff.
12Issue No.2:
Whether the discharge pleaded by the defendants in Para6 of the written statement is true?
This is the crux of suit. This issue for all purposes determine the result of the suit. As already stated while dealing with issue No.1, the defendants admitted that they took hand loan of
Rs.20,00,00000 from the plaintiff on 29112004 and agreed to repay the same without interest, but pleaded that subsequently they discharged the same through cheques issued in favour of plaintiff, which 12 were encashed by the plaintiff. So far the plea of discharge is concerned, the burden is on the defendants.
13Subsequent to the filing of the written statement by the defendants, the plaintiff filed rejoinder pleading that prior to the suit transaction and subsequent to the suit transaction, there were monitory transactions between them namely the defendants and wife of 2nd defendant used to borrow hand loans from him and they also used to repay the said amounts and the alleged three cheques referred and issued by the 1st defendant are in respect of other money transactions, but not in respect of the present suit transaction. In other words the plea of the defendants to the extent that the defendants paid amount of
Rs.20,00,00000 to the plaintiff through three cheques subsequent to the suit transaction is admitted by the plaintiff, but contend that they pertain to different transaction. Hence, the crux of the issue is whether the said three cheques for a total sum of Rs.20,00,00000 issued by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff, which were encashed by the plaintiff in the month of March, 2005 are in respect of the present suit transaction or not. In this regard, the evidence of the defendants who themselves were examined as DW1 and DW2 is very important and crucial. DW1 the 1st defendant in his cross examination categorically stated that, he has borrowed amounts from the plaintiff on several occasions. Accordingly he further admit that, he received
Rs.15,00,00000 by way of cheque from the plaintiff on 16082004 and also stated that he repaid the said amount. Accordingly in continuation 13 to a specific question DW1 stated that, he has no record to show that he repaid the amount of Rs.15,00,00000 and further stated that, he did not remember as to when he repaid Rs.15,00,00000 borrowed by him from the plaintiff on 16082004. However, DW1 the 1st defendant in his cross examination stated that on 17092004 he paid interest of
Rs.30,00000 by way of cheque at the rate of 24% per annum on
R.s.15,00,00000 and accordingly further stated that on 20102004 he paid interest of Rs.30,00000 by way of cheque at the rate of 24% per annum on Rs.15,00,00000. Accordingly the 1st defendant in his cross examination also stated that, as per Ex.A4 Rs.4,50,00000 was paid to
Nithya Bhavani, who is his daughterinlaw from the account of plaintiff by way of cheque and also stated that as per Ex.A4 an amount of
Rs.50,00000 was paid to the 2nd defendant from the account of plaintiff on 01122004 and further stated that as per Ex.A4 an amount of
Rs.1,50,00000 was paid to 2nd defendant by way of cheque from the account of plaintiff on 10122004. DW1, the 1st defendant in his cross examination also stated, that an amount of Rs.10,00,00000 was paid to him on 20012005 by way of cheque as per Ex.A4 and also stated that an amount of Rs.3,88,10900 was transferred to the account
No.TLOTH/01/20030003 on 27012005 and the said account is in his name in Andhra Bank, Balaji Nagar, Tirupati. However, DW1 in the cross examination denied the suggestion of plaintiff that the above amounts that were paid to him and 2nd defendant through the above bank transactions were repaid by them on 02032005, 04032005, 14 05032005, but not the suit amount under Ex.A1. The evidence of
DW1 clearly supports the case of the plaintiff to the effect that there were money transactions between the plaintiff and defendants as pleaded by the plaintiff in his rejoinder and in particular, the defendants and so also the daughterinlaw of 1st defendant also used to take amounts from the plaintiff.
14At this juncture it is also relevant to refer the evidence of 2nd defendant, who himself was examined as DW2. DW2 in his cross examination pleaded ignorance as to his father 1st defendant took an amount of Rs.15,00,00000 from the plaintiff on 16082004 through cheque and also paid interest for the said amount on 17092004 and on 20102004. DW2 in the cross examination stated that Nithya Bhavani is his wife and again pleaded ignorance as to whether his wife borrowed Rs.4,50,00000 from the plaintiff. In fact the 1st defendant admitted the above transaction namely to the effect that the wife of 2nd defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,00000 from the plaintiff.
But surprisingly husband pleaded ignorance. However 2nd defendant as
DW2 in his evidence admitted that, he borrowed an amount of
Rs.15,00,00000 from the plaintiff on 01122004 through cheque and also admitted that on 10122004 the plaintiff gave an amount of
Rs.1,50,00000 to him through cheque. DW2, the 2nd defendant pleaded ignorance as to whether his father the 1st defendant borrowed
Rs.10,00,00000 from the plaintiff through cheque on 20012005 and another amount of Rs.3,88,10900 through cheque on 27012005.
15 However, the 2nd defendant as DW2 also denied suggestion of plaintiff that the cheques issued by his father i.e., the 1st defendant, dated 02032005, 04032005 and 05032005 are in respect of the amounts borrowed by him from the plaintiff but not towards repayment of suit transaction amount. The defendants in their cross examination to a specific question categorically stated that they are not having any endorsement issued by the plaintiff to show that the cheques issued by 1st defendant dated 02032005, 04032005 and 05032005 are in respect of the suit transaction.
15From the above evidence of DWs1 and 2, as already stated supra, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants used to take hand loans from him prior to the present suit transaction and even subsequent to the suit transaction and used to repay the same, is proved to be true, as the defendants through their evidence admitted the same.
16Admittedly, there is no evidence that was adduced by the defendants to prove and establish that the amount of Rs.10,00,00000 through cheque dated 02032005, Rs.5,00,00000 through cheque
dated 04032005 and Rs.5,00,00000 through another cheque dated
05032005; for a total sum of Rs.20,00,00000 as pleaded by them are in discharge of Rs.20,00,00000 borrowed by them from the plaintiff namely the suit transaction on 29112004. When the defence of the defendants is one of discharge the burden is on them to prove and establish the same. Mere showing payment of amount itself is not sufficient, that too when there are other monitory transactions between 16 the plaintiff and defendants as admitted by the defendants. When there are several other transactions between the parties, each transaction has its own independent identity and when the defence of defendants is one of discharge, the person who took plea of discharge has to prove and establish that a particular payment is towards repayment of a particular transaction; and for all purposes the defendants failed to prove and establish. Thus, taking into consideration of the evidence as discussed, this court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that the defendants failed to prove their defence of discharge as pleaded by them and consequently this issue is held in favour of the plaintiff and against to the defendants.
17Additional Issue Dated 10022010:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest? It is the specific case of both plaintiff and defendants that, both parties at the time of transaction, agreed to the effect that, the amount borrowed by the defendants namely Rs.20,00,00000 shall be repaid by the defendants without interest. The plaintiff even in his plaint itself categorically pleaded that because of friendship and acquaintance between him and the defendants, he lent Rs.20,00,00000 to the defendants without interest and agreed to repay Rs.20,00,00000 soon after completion of railway contract work, irrespective of time limit namely will repay the said amount of Rs.20,00,00000 soon after completion of work. The defendants also admitted the above aspect namely to the effect that they borrowed Rs.20,00,00000 from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same without any interest. However the 17 defendants contend that they are no way concerned with the alleged railway work etc.. But the fact remains and as born out from the pleadings of both parties is to the effect that, the defendants borrowed
Rs.20,00,00000 from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same without any interest. Even the recitals of Ex.A1 for the above limited purpose, are also very clear and categorical.
18However, the plaintiff in the present suit claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 29112004 onwards till filing of the suit and even paid court fee on the said amount of interest of
Rs.13,60,00000 and even claimed subsequent interest at the same rate namely 24% per annum., by contending that since the defendants committed default in repayment of the amount, as agreed by them, he is entitled to claim interest. The defendants deny the claim of the plaintiff in particular claim of interest and their defence is that in the month of
March, 2005 itself they discharged the amount. So, the terms of contract between the plaintiff and defendants at the time of borrowing amount are clear and categorical to the effect that, there was no stipulation of interest payable by the defendants to the plaintiff on the amount borrowed by the defendants from the plaintiff, that too there was no stipulation of time also for repayment of the amount. When the contract between the parties is clear and categorical, claim of interest by the plaintiff at the rate of 24% per annum is not proper and tenable. Had the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants is under
Negotiable instrument, when there is no stipulation of interest between 18 the parties, the plaintiff may take advantage of Sec.80 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and can claim interest at the rate of 18% per annum as allowed by the Statue. But admittedly the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants is not under any Negotiable instrument and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of Sec.80 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Further the other contents of Ex.A1 if taken into consideration, the question of claiming interest does not arise, as other part of contents of Ex.A1 reads that in case defendants failed to repay the amount of Rs.20,00,00000 they agreed to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the property mentioned in the agreement i.e., Ex.A1 by treating the amount borrowed by them as consideration and plaintiff was given option even to claim for the relief of specific performance. But the plaintiff himself voluntarily not exercised the said option of specific performance against the property mentioned in Ex.A1 and restricted his claim only for limited purpose of recovery of money. So, the parties at the time of entering into contract are very clear and categorical so far the terms are concerned and most important term is that defendants are liable to pay amount borrowed by them to the plaintiff, without interest. When the contract between the parties is such, the claim for interest made by the plaintiff is not permissible and hence the plaintiff is not entitled for the interest as claimed by him in the suit and accordingly this issue is held against to the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
19 19Issue No.3:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount or part there of?
In view of my findings and observations to Issues 1 and 2 and Additional Issue dated 10022010, the plaintiff is entitled to recover principal amount of Rs.20,00,00000 from the defendants, but not suit claim as suit claim includes interest on Rs.20,00,00000 at the rate of 24% per annum from 29112004 to 02102007 i.e., till the date of suit namely Rs.13,60,00000, which the plaintiff is not entitled to.
20Thus the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest from the date of borrowing amount till the date of filing of the suit as claimed by him as there is no agreement, and in view of finding to Additional
Issue dated 10022010.But at the same time, the plaintiff can be granted interest for the period during pendency of the suit and subsequent to suit, as per Sec.34 of C.P.C and the same will meet the ends of justice and accordingly this issue is held partly in favour of plaintiff.
21Issue No.4:
To what relief?
In view of my findings and observations to Issues 1 to 3 and Additional Issue dated 10022010, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed in his favour and against the defendants 1 and 2 for
Rs.20,00,00000 with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.20,00,00000 from the date of suit till the date of decree and also 20 at the same rate i.e., at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.20,00,00000 or part there of, from the date of decree till the date of realization, with proportionate costs of the suit.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court this the 13th day of June, 2016.
III Additional District Judge. Tirupati.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFF : DEFENDANTS:
PW1R.Chandrasekhar Reddy,DW1 C.Sai Ramalinga Reddyu
PW2D.Vasudeva ReddyDW2 C.Vikrama Sai.
PW3R.Venkata Subba Rao
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFF: Sl.No.ExhibitDate ofDescription of documentRemarks No.Document
1.Ex.A.129112004Original agreement executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff
2.Ex.A.208092007Office copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff to defendants 1 and 2 3Ex.A3Two returned unserved notices sent to defendants 1 and 2
4.Ex.A4 16122014Bank statement of plaintiff for the period from 16082004 to 21062005 of Andhra Bank, Balaji Nagar Branch, Tirupati.
5.Ex.A5Statement of bank account of 1st defendant for the period from 25032004 to 31072004 with Andhra Bank, Balaji Nagar Branch, Tirupati.
21 FOR DEFENDANTS: Sl.No.ExhibitDate ofDescription of document Remarks No.Document
1.Ex.B1Statement of bank account of 1st defendant for the period from 01052005 to 04022006 with Andhra Bank, Balaji Nagar Branch, Tirupati.
III A.D.J.
Tirupati 22
Fair Judgment in
O.S.No.85 of 2007
dated: 13062016