Sri Pinapati Bharadwaja

APNE0A0084872021 1

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::NELLORE

Present: - Sri P.Bharadwaja, I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore. (FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences:: Nellore-cum- VIII Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nellore.

Thursday, this the 19th (Nineteenth) day of February, 2026

OS No.1126/2021

1. Kilari Tirupathi Naidu, S/o.Venkataraylu, Hindu, aged about 62 years, Property Holder, residing at 24- 2-2477, 2nd Street, Old Military Colony, Dargamitta, Nellore City.

2. Kilari Jagadeesh, S/o.Tirupathi Naidu, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Property Holder, residing at 24-2- 2477, 2nd Street, Old Military Colony, Dargamitta, Nellore City. … Plaintiffs

Vs.,

Modegunta Sanjeevaiah, S/o late Polaiah, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Resident of Mudivarthi Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District … Defendant

This suit is coming on 10.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri V.Ranga Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri V.Narasimha Rao,

Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following:-

APNE0A0084872021 2

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendant seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.04.2009 and in the alternative to order for return of the advance amount of Rs.3,28,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand only) with interest at 24% per annum from the date of agreement of sale and for other allied reliefs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are :

The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he offered to sell the same to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) and the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into an agreement of sale on 24.04.2009. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards advance and agreed to pay remaining balance amount on or before 30.12.2011. The defendant agreed to execute registered sale deed after receiving the total amount of consideration. The plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 21.09.2010,

Rs.10,000/- on 16.10.2010, Rs.22,000/- on 15.12.2010, Rs.10,000/- on 27.01.2011, Rs.25,000/- on 15.04.2011, Rs.35,000/- on 07.09.2011,

Rs.10,000/- on 29.09.2011, Rs.30,000/- on 24.11.2011, Rs.10,000/- on 30.04.2012, Rs.20,000/- on 30.04.2012, Rs.30,000/- on 21.06.2012,

Rs.20,000/- on 26.07.2012, Rs.2,000/- on 06.06.2013, Rs.1,000/- on 28.06.2013, Rs.2,000/- on 16.12.2013, Rs.1,000/- on 23.01.2014,

Rs.2,000/- on 01.02.2014, Rs.1,000/- on 04.08.2014, Rs.1,000/- on 13.08.2014, Rs.1,000/- on 26.10.2014, Rs.2,000/- on 30.04.2015,

Rs.1,000/- on 25.08.2015, Rs.1,000/- on 04.12.2015 and Rs.1,000/- on 01.10.2016. Out of the above payments, the amounts paid on 21.09.2010, 16.10.2010, 15.12.2010, 27.11.2011, 15.04.2011 and on 29.09.2011 were

APNE0A0084872021 3 paid to the defendant through bank transfers and the remaining part payments were endorsed on the backside of the agreement of sale. The plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of contract and they insisted the defendant to receive the balance amount of Rs.72,000/- and execute regular registered sale deed in their name, but the defendant postponed the same on the pretext that some court litigations are pending on the suit schedule property and promised to execute the sale deed after clearing the same. The defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract and hence, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 15.09.2021 calling upon him to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute regular registered sale deed in their favour.

The defendant received the notice on 18.09.2021 but failed to comply the demand. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit.

3.The defendant appeared before the court and filed his written statement opposing the suit claim. Brief averments in the written statement of the defendant are:

All the material allegations made in the plaint are false and all the material allegations are specifically denied. It is true that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. However, he never executed any agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs and never received any advance amount or part payments. The plaintiffs got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 15.09.2021, but it is false to state that the defendant failed to comply with the notice. The defendant leased out the suit schedule property herein to one Raju Educational Society, represented by its Executive Secretary and Correspondent Muppalla Sanakar Raju on 25.05.1981 under registered lease deed bearing document No.1974/1981 for a period of 100 years. There is a recital in the lease deed that the

APNE0A0084872021 4 amount shall be adjusted at the end of every year and after completion of 100 years, the tenure of the lease holder has to be renewed. The defendant came to know that due to hike of prices, the lease holder Sankar Raju alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 without any consideration by creating sham and nominal documents. The said

Sankar Raju executed document bearing No.8994/2008 dated 30.07.2008 in favour of the 1st plaintiff and document bearing No.8993/2008 dated 30.07.2008 in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. The said Sankar Raju died in the year 2010 and when the defendant visited the suit schedule property, he found the plaintiffs clearing the bushes and leveling the ground. When the defendant questioned them, the plaintiffs stated that they purchased the suit schedule property from Sankar Raju. As the said Sankar Raju violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed and alienated the property, the lease deed was cancelled. As the sale deeds executed by Sankar Reddy in favour of the plaintiffs are illegal and invalid documents, the defendant herein filed O.S.No.756/2021 on the file of III AJCJ Court, Nellore against the son of said Sankar Reddy and the plaintiffs herein seeking cancellation of lease deed and also seeking declaration that the registered sale deeds standing in the name of the plaintiffs are sham and nominal documents and not binding on the defendant herein and also for recovery of possession of suit schedule property and the suit is pending. Later, the plaintiffs herein fabricated the suit agreement of sale and filed the present suit. The plaintiffs suppressed about the pendency of O.S.No.756/2021 and they approached the court with unclean hands. The suit agreement of sale is a fabricated document and all the part payments endorsements are also fabricated.

Even as per the agreement of sale, the last part payment is made on 01.10.2016 and hence, the suit is barred by limitation. As on the date of

APNE0A0084872021 5 alleged agreement of sale, the market value of the schedule land is

Rs.5,00,000/- per acre and even registered value is Rs.1,45,000/- per acre.

However, agreement of sale is for Rs.4,00,000/- for Ac.10.00 cents which clearly goes to show that the same is fabricated document. There is no readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the above mentioned pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 24.04.2009 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific

performance of agreement of sale by the defendant as

prayed for?

5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of return of

advance amount along with interest in the alternative as

prayed for?

6. To what relief?

5.During trial, the 1st plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 and

Exs.A1 to A21 documents. Ex.A1 is the agreement of sale dated 24.04.2009 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiffs. Ex.A2 is the part payment endorsement dated 07.09.2011 for an amount of Rs.35,000/-. Ex.A3 is the part payment endorsement dated 24.11.2011 for an amount of Rs.30,000/-.

Ex.A4 is the part payment endorsement dated 30.04.2012 for an amount of

APNE0A0084872021 6

Rs.10,000/-. Ex.A5 is the part payment endorsement dated 30.04.2012 for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Ex.A6 is the part payment endorsement dated 21.06.2012 for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Ex.A7 is the part payment endorsement dated 26.07.2012 for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Ex.A8 is the part payment endorsement dated 06.06.2013 for an amount of Rs.2,000/-.

Ex.A9 is the part payment endorsement dated 28.06.2013 for an amount of

Rs.1,000/-. Ex.A10 is the part payment endorsement dated 16.12.2013 for an amount of Rs.2,000/-. Ex.A11 is the part payment endorsement dated 23.01.2014 for an amount of Rs.1,000/-. Ex.A12 is the part payment endorsement dated 01.02.2014 for an amount of Rs.2,000/-. Ex.A13 is the part payment endorsement dated 04.08.2014 for an amount of Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A14 is the part payment endorsement dated 13.08.2014 for an amount of

Rs.1,000/-. Ex.A15 is the part payment endorsement dated 26.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.1,000/-. Ex.A16 is the part payment endorsement dated 30.04.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,000/-. Ex.A17 is the part payment endorsement dated 25.08.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,000/-. Ex.A18 is the part payment endorsement dated 04.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A19 is the part payment endorsement dated 01.10.2016 for an amount of

Rs.1,000/-. Ex.A20 is the office copy of legal notice dated 15.09.2021 along with postal receipt. Ex.A21 is the postal acknowledgment. He also examined one of the attestor of Ex.A1 as Pw.2.

6.On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as Dw.1 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked through him. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30.07.2008 executed by Raju Educational

Society represented by its Secretary in favour of 1st plaintiff bearing document No.8994/2008. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of registered sale deed

dated 30.07.2008 executed by Raju Educational Society represented by its

APNE0A0084872021 7

Secretary in favour of 2nd plaintiff bearing document No.8993/2008. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of plaint in OS No.756/2021 on the file of III AJCJ Court,

Nellore filed by DW1 against plaintiffs 1 and 2 and one Uppala Chaithanya.

Ex.B4 is the certified copy of written statement filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 in

OS No.756/2021 on the file of III AJCJ Court, Nellore

7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendant. The learned counsel for the defendant also filed memo of citations. Perused the record.

Issues 1 to 5:

8. As all the issues involve common questions of law and fact, all of them are being discussed together. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale in their favour for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and that he received advance amount of Rs.80,000/- on the date of Ex.A1 from them and that they paid several part payments to the defendant and that some of the part payments were made by way of bank transfers and that the remaining part payments were made by way of cash and Ex.A2 to Ex.A19 endorsements were made on Ex.A1 in proof of the same and that the defendant postponed to execute a registered sale deed in their favour on pretext that there is court litigation against the property and finally failed to perform his part of contract. It is their further contention that they are the only liable to pay Rs.72,000/- out of the agreed amount and that they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract from the date of Ex.A1 till the date of filing of the suit and that the defendant did not respond even to Ex.A20 legal notice got issued by them. On the other hand, the defendant categorically denied the execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale and Exs.A2 to A19 part payment endorsements on it and he also denied receiving of any amounts whatsoever from the plaintiffs. It is his case

APNE0A0084872021 8 that he gave the suit schedule property on lease for a period of 100 years to one Muppalla Sankar Raju and that the said Sankar Raju created registered sale deeds in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and that he filed a suit against the son of said Sankar Raju and the plaintiffs herein in O.S.No.756/2021 on the file of III AJCJ Court, Nellore seeking cancellation of lease deed and for recovery of possession of suit schedule property and also seeking declaration that the sale deeds standing in the name of the plaintiffs are sham and nominal documents and that the plaintiffs filed the present suit as counter blast to that suit. In a suit seeking specific performance of agreement of sale, the primary burden is on the plaintiffs to prove the execution of the agreement when the defendant is denying the same. Apart from that, as the relief of Specific Performance is an equitable relief, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and that he continuously demanded the defendant to perform his part of contract and that the terms of the agreement could not be materialized only due to acts that can be attributed to the defendant. The fact of readiness and willingness to perform the part of the contract of the plaintiffs shall be pleaded and specifically proved. In order to prove such burden, the 1st plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 and reiterated the plaint averments. The original agreement of sale is marked as

Ex.A1 and Exs.A2 to A19 are the part payments endorsements witnessing the payment of several part payments said to have been made by the plaintiffs to the defendant between the years 2009-2016. The plaintiffs also examined one of the attestor of Ex.A1 as Pw.2 and the witness also deposed on the same lines as that of Pw.1 with regard to execution of

Ex.A1 by the defendant and corroborated the evidence of Pw.1 in all material particulars.

APNE0A0084872021 9

9.The defendant got Pws.1 and 2 cross-examined. During his cross-examination, Pw.1 stated that the suit schedule property is an agricultural land in an extent of Ac.10-00 cents situated in survey No.1904 with roads on the north and east to some extent and that Simhapuri Public school is situated on the east to some extent and on the south, the lands allotted to the people of SC community are situated on the west. He stated that he conducted negotiations with the defendant and entered into Ex.A1 agreement on the same day and that himself, his son, the defendant, Pw2 and one person brought by the defendant were present at the time of negotiations. He stated that Ex. A1 was executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper and one or two additional papers and further stated that he purchased the stamp paper at Allagaddaduring 2004 or 2005 as he has lands at that place. He admitted that the stamp papers will be available in the Registrar office which is at a distance of two kilometers from his house and added that he did not purchase the stamp papers as they were available with him. He stated that he gave an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the defendant on the date of Ex.A1 and further stated that he agreed to pay the balance amount after the defendant cleared the land. He however admitted that the said condition is not mentioned in Ex.A1. He admitted that as per the recitals in Ex.A1, the remaining amount shall be paid on or before 30.12.2011 and he added that the defendant failed to cancel the lease deed from the owner of Simhapuri

Society School and the sale deed was not executed for that reason and that he paid amounts till 2016. He admitted that the said fact was not mentioned either in Ex.A20 legal notice or in his plaint or in his chief affidavit. He admitted that there are cross overs in the 1st page and 2nd page of Ex.A1 and added that the defendant placed his initials near them. He admitted that an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- is crossed over and the amount of Rs.3,20,000/-

APNE0A0084872021 10 is written on the 2nd page of Ex.A1 and added that the defendant himself made the correction. He admitted that he did not issue any legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to execute regular registered sale deed prior to 30.12.2011. He admitted that there are no attestors to Exs.A2 to A19 part payment endorsements. He further admitted that typed portion which was crossed over in 3rd page of Ex.A1 is no way related to the suit transaction.

He admitted that the defendant leased out the suit schedule property to one

Raju Educational Society represented by one Muppala Sankar Raju. He further admitted that himself and his son purchased the land in an extent of

Ac.5-00 cents each from Muppala Sankar Raju on 30.07.2008 but denied the suggestion that the land is the suit schedule property. He also denied the suggestion that the boundaries of the land purchased by them and the boundaries of the suit schedule properties are one and the same. He admitted that the defendant filed O.S.No.756/2021 on the file of III AJCJ court against him, his son, son of Muppala Sankar Raju. He stated that he does not know about the relief sought by the defendant in that suit. He admitted that even as per his case, the last part payment was made on 01.10.2016 and further admitted that he filed the suit in the year 2021 but denied the suggestion that the suit is barred by limitation. He admitted that as per Ex.A1, the value of the suit schedule property is Rs.4,00,000/- which means the value of the one acre is Rs.40,000/- and he further admitted that as per the sale deed standing in his name, he purchased Ac.5-00 cents from Sankar Raju in the year 2008 at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. He however denied the suggestion that there is no possibility of selling of the suit schedule property at Rs.40,000/- per acre when the sale deed standing in his name shows the value at Rs.1,50,000/-. He denied the suggestion that he filed the present suit by fabricating Ex.A1 as counter blast to O.S.

APNE0A0084872021 11

No.756/2021 filed by the defendant and that he is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract even as per his case.

10.During his cross-examination, Pw.2 stated that he got acquaintance with Pw.1 through the defendant and that he has seen Pw.1 for the first time on the date of Ex.A1. He however stated again that he knows Pw.1 prior to that date but does not have acquaintance with him. He stated that he does not know the nature of the suit schedule property and its extent but stated that the suit schedule property is relating to Ac.10-00 cents of agricultural land. He however stated that he does not know the boundaries and survey number of the suit schedule property. He stated that he does not know the location of the house of Pw.1 and stated that he cannot say the distance between house of Pw.1 and registrar office. He stated that he does not know where the stamps on which Ex.A1 was executed was purchased and added that Pw.1 brought the stamps to the office of one Kolla Venkateswarlu and himself and the defendant also went to that office. He stated that he does not know whether Ex.A1 is typed or hand written document but stated that there are four corrections in Ex.A1.

He also stated that himself, Pw.1, the defendant and his son were present at the time of execution of Ex.A1. He admitted on confrontation with Ex.A1 that there are several corrections in Ex.A1 and that there are no signatures of the defendant near any of the corrections except in the 1st correction. He denied the other suggestions given to him on the lines of written statement averments.

11.On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as Dw.1 and reiterated the written statement averments in it. During his cross- examination, he stated that he filed several cases from the year 2008 against several persons but denied the suggestion that he did real estate

APNE0A0084872021 12 business along with one S.Venkata Krishna Reddy and Koduru Venkata

Krishna Reddy. He stated that Pw.1 is resident of Nellore but stated that he does not have any acquaintance with him. He stated that he gave Ac.10-00 cents of the land for lease to one Muppani Sankar Raju during 1981-1982 towards permanent lease and stated that he can file the document before the court to prove the same. He stated that there are 10 to 11 persons as partners in the society and that he does not know their names. He stated that he filed a suit against Muppalla Chaithanya Raju and stated that he did not file any suit against the plaintiffs 1 and 2. He stated that he filed the documents relating to that suit in the present suit on his behalf but stated that he did not file any documents relating to Pw.1 and 2nd plaintiff in the present suit. He stated that he got Ac.10-00 cents of the land from Chitteti

Jaganadham and B.Pattabirami Reddy. He denied the suggestion that he executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs and that he also received advance amount and part payments from them. He denied the suggestion that his son Sreedhar signed as first attestor on Ex.A1. He admitted his signatures on vakalat dated 02.12.2021 and also vakalat on 27.03.2023 after seeing the entire document but he denied the signatures on Ex.A1, Ex.A2 to A19 but also on his written statement and the acknowledgment of the summons sent through post. He stated that he did not receive any legal notice prior to filing of the suit and further stated that he did not see Ex.A1 agreement prior to the date of his evidence. He stated that he does not remember what is mentioned in his written statement regarding Ex.A1. He denied the other suggestions given to him on the lines of plaint averments.

12.A perusal of the evidence goes to show that Ex.A1 agreement of sale is executed on 24.04.2009 and as per the recitals in Ex.A1, an

APNE0A0084872021 13 amount of Rs.80,000/- was paid on the date of agreement and the balance amount was agreed to be paid on or before 30.12.2011. However, the balance amount was not paid by the plaintiffs within that period. According to them, they made Exs.A2 to A19 and some other part payments endorsements till 01.10.2016 and obtained the signatures of the defendant on the agreement of sale. Even though, there is no recital in Ex.A1 that the time limit for execution of regular registered sale deed can be extended beyond the time period fixed by the parties in Ex.A1, it is now well settled law that even though, time is essence of the contract both parties can extend the time by mutual consent or fact of extension of time can be ascertained by the conduct of the parties like that of payment and receipt of part payment endorsements. Hence, if the plaintiffs herein are successful in proving that they made Exs.A2 to A19 part payments endorsements to the defendant, their failure to get regular registered sale deed within time fixed in Ex.A1 can be condoned. The defendant categorically denied Exs.A2 to

A19 part payments endorsements. There are no attestors on the part payments. Further, inspite of their plea in the plaint that the plaintiffs also paid some of the part payments which are not mentioned in Exs.A2 to A19 by way of bank transfer to the account of the defendant, the plaintiffs failed to file any such documents before the court. Inspite of specific plea taken by the defendant denying the signatures on Exs.A2 to A19, the plaintiffs failed to secure any document belonging to the defendant and also failed to send

Ex.A1 document to expert to prove that signatures on Exs.A2 to A19 belongs to the defendant. The burden is squarely upon the plaintiff to prove the execution of Exs.A2 to A19 as the defendant categorically denied the execution of the same and it is only on prima facie proof of execution, the onus would have shifted upon the defendant. Even if the plaintiffs could not

APNE0A0084872021 14 prove the signatures due to lack of documents, they at least could have produced some evidence before the court to prove that there are further negotiations with the defendant for extension of the time and that payments as mentioned in Exs.A2 to A19 were in fact made to the defendant.

13.As per the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract from the date of Ex.A1 till the date of filing of the suit and that the defendant postponed the same on the pretext that there are some court litigations over the suit schedule property. However, the nature of the court litigation is not stated either in the plaint or in the evidence of Pw.1. If really, the defendant stated to the plaintiffs that there is court litigation over the property, the plaintiffs would have enquired about details of such court litigations and would have mentioned the said facts in the plaint. Moreover, contrary to the pleadings in the plaint, Pw.1 in his cross-examination stated that there is a recital in

Ex.A1 that they agreed with the defendant that the balance amount shall be paid after the defendant cleared the land. However, there is no such recital in Ex.A1. Further Pw.1 stated in his cross-examination itself that the balance amount was not paid within time and regular registered sale deed was not executed as the defendant failed to cancel the lease deed from the owner of

Simhapuri Society School. However, there is no recital in Ex.A1 that the defendant shall cancel the lease deed standing in the name of Simhapuri

School and shall execute the document in favour of Pw.1. The said fact is not even pleaded in the plaint or in the chief examination affidavit of Pw.1.

The case of the plaintiffs is also not clear as to why they continued to make payments under Ex.A2 to A19 if really, the defendant did not either clear the land or did not cancel the lease deed standing in the name of Simhapuri

School for a period of almost seven years from the date of agreement. The

APNE0A0084872021 15 reasons given by Pw.1 during his cross-examination on his failure to insist the defendant to execute the regular registered sale deed by way of issuing a legal notice or by way of proceeding against him by filing the suit for specific performance is not at all convincing and it seems that the answers given by him are an afterthought to justify their case.

14.A perusal of Ex.A1 goes to show that there are several corrections in the document. The actual sale consideration amount and the balance sale consideration amount payable and the original limit fixed by the both sides for execution of regular registered sale deed are all changed by crossing over the original typed portion and the name of the defendant is mentioned besides the corrections. However, if really, the corrections were made on Ex.A1 on the date and as there are crossing overs on the material portions of the document like the actual sale consideration and the time limit fixed, the parties would have obtained another agreement of sale instead of making corrections. The fact that the plaintiffs kept the document as it creates a doubt about the execution of document as being claimed by them.

In fact, the stamp paper on which Ex.A1 was executed was purchased by

Pw.1 at Allagada 18.03.2006 that is nearly three years prior to the date of

Ex.A1. If really, the parties entered into the agreement under Ex.A1 on 24.04.2009, there is no necessity for execution of the document on a stamp paper purchased around three years ago. It is true that there is no bar under law that a document cannot be executed on a stamp paper purchased three years prior to the date of agreement. However, when there is abnormal gap between the date of purchase of stamp paper and the date of execution of the document and also when the stamp paper is purchased at far off place from where the parties to the agreement resides, it requires that the circumstances of the execution of document on that particular stamp paper

APNE0A0084872021 16 needs to be examined carefully. The explanation offered by Pw.1 for the same is that he also has properties at Allagadda and that he purchased the stamp paper for other transaction and that he used the same for agreement of sale as the same is available with him. However, the plaintiffs failed to prove the said fact that they are having property at Allagaddaand that some transaction relating to those properties have taken place in the year 2006 as claimed by them. Even though, plaintiffs examined Pw.2 who is said to be one of the attestor on Ex.A1, his evidence itself is not sufficient to believe the execution when there are some glaring inconsistencies in the manner of execution of the document.

15.The part payment endorsements under Exs.A2 to A19 were made on the back side of 1st page and on the back side of 2nd page and also on a stamp paper annexed to the 1st two pages. Exs.A15, A17 to A19 were made on the third page. As per the recitals, the said payments were made from the year 2014 to 2016. There is some printed matter on the back side of 3rd page which was crossed over with pencil and the contents of the document is nothing but the typed matter on the 2nd page of Ex.A1. It is quite possible that while printing the matter on the 2nd page another copy is also taken on computer and same might have been discarded. However, when

Ex.A1 is executed in the year 2009, there is no reason for the plaintiffs to retain a copy of the agreement taken in the year 2009 and to use it in the year 2014 to record the part payments in the year 2014 and subsequently.

No person is expected to keep a copy of the agreement prepared in the year 2009 till the year 2014 and to use it for recording the part payment endorsements. The presence of typed matter in the third page creates suspicion whether the page was inadvertently used to record the part

APNE0A0084872021 17 payments endorsements while preparing the part payments endorsements subsequently.

16.In a suit for specific performance, the burden is squarely upon the plaintiff to prove that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and that the contract could not be finalized due to fault committed by the defendant. In the present case, Ex.A1 is of the year 2009 and the suit is filed in the year 2021. The plaintiff failed to give cogent reasons for not taking steps for issuing legal notice and filing a suit for specific performance against the defendant in this time period. Even though, he got marked

Exs.A2 to A19 part payment endorsements, the last part payment endorsement is of the year 2016 and the plaintiff failed to explain why he could to take steps from the year 2016 to 2021. It is clear from the record that the plaintiff is not diligent in taking steps for execution of regular registered sale deed and hence, he cannot be considered to be ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Further, the limitation period for filing of the suit for specific performance is three years from the date fixed for the performance of the agreement and if there is no date, the limitation period is three years from the date on which there was refusal of performance. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant failed to clear the suit schedule property from the litigation and that he also postponed the execution on one pretext or the other. Even though, the above-mentioned contention could not be proved by him for the reasons stated in the aforementioned paragraphs, even if the contention is taken on face value, the limitation shall be construed from the year 2016 and hence, the present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.

17.It is true that there are several lapses in the case of the defendant as well. The defendant failed to prove that Exs.B1 and B2

APNE0A0084872021 18 registered sale deeds are pertaining to the suit schedule property. The boundaries of Exs.B1 and B2 combined did not tally with the boundaries of the suit schedule property. Moreover, the defendant failed to file the rental agreement executed between him and Raju Educational Society to show that the schedule of the property which was given on rents to the society is the same as that of property sold under Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. In such circumstances, the contention of the defendant that the plaintiffs colluded with the said correspondent ofRaju Educational Society and fabricated

Exs.B1 and B2 cannot be accepted. However, the validity of Exs.B1 and B2 is the subject matter of O.S.No.756/2021 and not the present suit. Even though, Dw.1 gave evasive answers to many questions put to him during his cross-examination, considering the fact that none of the admissions made by him are sufficient to believe the case of the plaintiff, the same need not be given much importance. It is well settled principle of law that in any suit, the plaintiff shall prove his case basing on the merits of his own case and not basing on the weakness in the case of the defendant. In the present suit, the plaintiff could not explain the reason for purchasing stamp paper in a location which is far away from the place of execution, he could not explain the overwritings and corrections made in Ex.A1 agreement, he could not explain the reason for having so many part payment endorsements when it is the apparent from the conduct of the defendant as per the proceedings under case that he is evading the execution of regular registered sale deed. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and he also failed to establish that the present suit is within period of limitation. In such circumstances, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and

APNE0A0084872021 19 the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, issues 1 to 5 are answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant.

Issue No.6:

18.In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore.

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for

Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences:: Nellore-cum-

VIII Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nellore.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Plaintiffs: Defendant:

Pw.1: K.Tirupathi NaiduDw.1:M.Sanjeevaiah

Pw.2: M.Srinivasa Rao

Documents Marked for

Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1:Agreement of sale dated 24.04.2009 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiffs.

Ex.A2:Part payment endorsement dated 07.09.2011 for an amount of

Rs.35,000/-.

Ex.A3:Part payment endorsement dated 24.11.2011 for an amount of

Rs.30,000/-.

APNE0A0084872021 20

Ex.A4:Part payment endorsement dated 30.04.2012 for an amount of

Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.A5:Part payment endorsement dated 30.04.2012 for an amount of

Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.A6:Part payment endorsement dated 21.06.2012 for an amount of

Rs.30,000/-.

Ex.A7:Part payment endorsement dated 26.07.2012 for an amount of

Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.A8:Part payment endorsement dated 06.06.2013 for an amount of

Rs.2,000/-.

Ex.A9:Part payment endorsement dated 28.06.2013 for an amount of

Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A10: Part payment endorsement dated 16.12.2013 for an amount of

Rs.2,000/-.

Ex.A11: Part payment endorsement dated 23.01.2014 for an amount of

Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A12: Part payment endorsement dated 01.02.2014 for an amount of

Rs.2,000/-.

Ex.A13: Part payment endorsement dated 04.08.2014 for an amount of

Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A14: Part payment endorsement dated 13.08.2014 for an amount of

Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A15: Part payment endorsement dated 26.10.2014 for an amount of

Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A16: Part payment endorsement dated 30.04.2015 for an amount of

Rs.2,000/-.

Ex.A17: Part payment endorsement dated 25.08.2015 for an amount of

Rs.1,000/-.

APNE0A0084872021 21

Ex.A18: Part payment endorsement dated 04.12.2015 for an amount of

Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A19: Part payment endorsement dated 01.10.2016 for an amount of

Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A20: Office copy of legal notice dated 15.09.2021 along with postal receipt.

Ex.A21: Postal acknowledgment.

Defendant :

Ex.B1:Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30.07.2008 executed by Raju Educational Society represented by its Secretary in favour of 1st plaintiff bearing document No.8994/2008.

Ex.B2:Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30.07.2008 executed by Raju Educational Society represented by its Secretary in favour of 2nd plaintiff bearing document No.8993/2008.

Ex.B3:Certified copy of plaint in OS No.756/2021 on the file of III AJCJ

Court, Nellore filed by DW1 against plaintiffs 1 and 2 and one

Uppala Chaithanya.

Ex.B4:Certified copy of written statement filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 in OS

No.756/2021 on the file of III AJCJ Court, Nellore

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore.

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for

Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences:: Nellore-cum-

VIII Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nellore.

APNE0A0007632024 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION):: NELLORE.

Present:- Sri P.Bharadwaja,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore.

Friday, this the 15th (Fifteenth) day of May, 2026

O S.No.155/2024

Between:

Valipi Ramulamma, W/o.Ramanaiah @ Buddaiah, Hindu, aged 77 years, resident of Door No.20/7/504, Swami Vivekananda Centre, Kotamitta, Nellore Corporation, SPS Nellore …… Plaintiff District.

And

1. The Chairman, The Visakhapatnam Co- operative Bank Limited, Dwarka nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530016, Visakhapatnam District, A.P.

2. The Branch Manager, The Visakhapatnam Co- operative Bank Limited, Nellore branch, Door No.5-2-70, B.S.R. Village, Rebalavari Street, Stonehouse pet, Nellore -524 002, Nellore Corporation,SPS Nellore District.

… Defendants

This suit is coming on 21.04.2026 for final hearing before me in presence of Sri Akula Venkateswarlu, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri

K.Srikanth, Advocate for the defendants 1 and 2 andthe matter having stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following :-

APNE0A0007632024 2

JUDGMENT

1.The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.10,91,078/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Ninety

One Thousand and Seventy Eight only) along with subsequent interest and for other allied reliefs.

2.Brief averments in the plaint are that:

The plaintiff approached the defendants seeking loan and paid an amount of Rs.500/- on 11.02.2015 and Rs.24,500/- on 12.02.2015 and the defendants issued share certificate in favour of plaintiff on 12.02.2015. The plaintiff availed mortgage loan with account No.MORL/171 with G.No. 335/A for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by mortgaging her house situated at

Kotamitta. As per loan agreement, the plaintiff shall repay the loan amount in 84 equated monthly instalments of Rs.18,740/- per month. The rate of interest for the loan is 14% per annum and while fixing the installments, the defendants calculated the interest up to the end of the repayment period i.e., 12.02.2022. The 2nd defendant also deducted an amount of Rs.31,732/- as insurance from the said amount and paid the remaining amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid several amounts to the defendants from 09.03.2015 to 16.10.2017. In spite of the same, the 2nd defendant declared the loan account of the plaintiff as NPA as per the provisions of SARFAESI

Act and issued demand notice on 15.12.2016. The employees of the 2nd defendant continuously visited the property of the plaintiff and threatened the tenants that they would lock the premises. The plaintiff obtained loan by showing income generated from the rents as source of repayment and as the employees of the 2nd defendant threatened them, the tenants vacated the property and the plaintiff was left without any income. The officers of the

APNE0A0007632024 3 2nd defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from her house and initiated SARFAESI proceedings and the plaintiff approached Hon’ble Debt

Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and filed a S.A.No.348/2018. The

Hon’ble Tribunal directed the plaintiff to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendants

for granting stay and the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- on 15.10.2018. Due to harassment of the staff of the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff obtained loan from private financiers and discharged the loan on 06.12.2018. For closure of the account, the 2nd defendant calculated an amount of Rs.12,48,000/- and the said amount was included with interest up to 12.02.2022. The 2nd defendant collected excess amount of Rs.2,48,000/- as interest over original amount by calculating interest up to 12.02.2022. As the employees of the 2nd defendant degraded the prestige of the plaintiff in society, she is entitled for damages. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants on 04.10.2019 and the defendants got issued a reply notice with false and frivolous allegations. As they did not repay the amounts as demanded by the plaintiff, she filed the present suit.

3.The defendants appeared before the court and 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same is adopted by the 1st defendant.

Brief averments in written statement are:

All the material allegations made in the plaint except the admitted ones are false. It is true that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.500/- on 11.02.2015 and Rs.24,500/- on 12.02.2015 to the defendants and the defendants issued share certificate in favour of plaintiff on 12.02.2015. It is also true that the plaintiff obtained mortgage loan for an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- from the defendants. The loan tenure and EMI amount and also the rate of interest as mentioned in the plaint are correct. It is also true

APNE0A0007632024 4 that the plaintiff paid amounts from 09.03.2015 to 16.10.2017 as narrated in the plaint. All the other allegations made in the plaint are false. After obtaining loan from the defendants, the plaintiff did not pay the loan amount regularly and committed default. As she failed to repay the loan amount in spite of several demands made by the defendants, the loan account of the plaintiff was declared as NPA as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Section 13(2) notice was issued to the plaintiff on 15.12.2016 demanding her to repay the entire amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice. As the plaintiff did not repay the amounts, possession notice was issued to the plaintiff on 26.02.2017. The plaintiff resisted the acts of the defendants for taking physical possession and hence, the 2nd defendant filed a petition under section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Nellore and got appointed an Advocate Commissioner.

In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed appeal before the Hon’ble Debt Recovery

Tribunal, Visakhapatnam vide S.A.348/2018. The Hon’ble Tribunal directed the plaintiff to deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for granting the stay of proceedings and the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- on 15.10.2018 and failed to comply with the order. On 06.12.2018, the plaintiff voluntarily paid the entire loan amount due to the 2nd defendant and got discharged the schedule property and obtained no due certificate from the 2nd defendant.

There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant never collected excess amount of Rs.2,48,000/- from the plaintiff and never collected an amount of Rs.31,730/- for insurance. In fact, only an amount of Rs.3,703/- is collected towards building insurance. The employees of the 2nd defendant never visited the house of the plaintiff and threatened the tenants and never harassed the plaintiff as stated in the

APNE0A0007632024 5 plaint. There is no cause of action to file the suit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing on the above mentioned pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether the defendants are liable to return the value

of share certificate to the plaintiff as claimed?

2) Whether the defendants deducted an amount of

Rs.31,732/- from the plaintiff?

3) Whether the defendants collected excess interest of

Rs.2,48,000/- from the plaintiff towards loan transaction?

4) Whether the defendants degraded the prestige of the plaintiff in the society with their acts?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from the defendants?

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

7) To what relief?

5.During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 documents on her behalf. Ex.A1 is the Original share certificate issued by the defendants in G.No.335/A dated 11.02.2015 under receipt No.047333. Ex.A2 is the original loan passbook. Ex.A3 is the original savings account passbook of the plaintiff maintained with defendants’ bank.

APNE0A0007632024 6

Ex.A4 is the office copy of petition filed by PW1 before Debt Recovery

Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in IA No.1622/2018 in SA No.348/2018. Ex.A5 is the attested copy of loan account statement of PW1 with defendant bank.

Ex.A6 is the of legal notice dated 04.10.2019 along with postal receipts.

Ex.A7 are the acknowledgments (2 in number). Ex.A8 is the served copy of reply notice dated 19.10.2019. She also examined a third party as Pw.2.

6. On the other hand, the present manager of the 2nd defendant is examined as Dw.1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked through him. Ex.B1 is the attested copy of the statement of account of Pw.1 in defendants’ branch for the period 12.02.2015 to 06.12.2018. Ex.B2 is the attested copy of letter of authorisation dated 05.08.2025.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants. Perused the record.

Issues 1 to 6:

8.As all the issues involve common questions of law and fact, all of them are being discussed together. It is the contention of the plaintiff that she obtained a mortgage loan for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the 2nd defendant bank agreeing to repay the loan in 84 monthly installments of

Rs.18,740/-. It is her contention that the 2nd defendant collected an amount of Rs.25,000/- from her towards issuance of share certificate and also deducted an amount of Rs.31,732/- towards insurance. It is her further contention that the 2nd defendant declared her account as NPA in spite of repayments made by her and that the employees of the 2nd defendant threatened the tenants of her house and as a result, the tenants vacated the house. It is her contention that the 2nd defendant also initiated proceedings

APNE0A0007632024 7 under SARFAESI Act and that she obtained loan from the private financiers and discharged the loan on 06.12.2018 due to the harassment of the staff of the 2nd defendant. It is her further case that the 2nd defendant collected an excess amount of Rs.2,48,000/- as interest component and that the 2nd defendant is liable to return the amount of Rs.25,000/- collected towards issuance of share certificate and an amount of Rs.31,730/- collected towards insurance amount apart from paying an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to her towards damages. On the other hand, while the defendants are admitting the loan transaction and also the terms of the loan transactions, it is their contention that the plaintiff did not adhere to the repayment schedule and that her loan account was declared as NPA as per the guidelines and proceeded under SARFAESI Act to take possession of the house property of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff finally paid the entire loan amount and obtained no due certificate from them. It is their further contention that they never collected any excess amount from the plaintiff and never harassed her as narrated in the plaint and that they are not liable to pay any amount to them. In view of the respective pleadings, it is clear that the preliminary burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that she is entitled for recovery of the amounts relating to the loan transaction as claimed by her in the plaint and the burden is also squarely upon her to prove that the employees of the defendants committed acts as alleged in the plaint and that she is entitled for the damages of Rs.5,00,000/-. In order to discharge such burden, the plaintiff examined herself as Pw.1 and also examined a third party as Pw.2.

9.The defendants got Pws.1 and 2 cross-examined. During her cross-examination, Pw.1 stated that she earlier used to do business and that she has no avocation by the date of evidence. She stated that she filed

APNE0A0007632024 8 the present suit as the manager of the 2nd defendant insisted her to sell the house even though, she paid the loan amount. She admitted about the obtaining loan of Rs.10,00,000/- but stated that she cannot say how many installments were paid by her regularly as she is not educated. She stated that she does not know how much amount was collected by the bank towards insurance but stated that she filed a document to show that an amount of Rs.31,732/- is deducted towards insurance. She admitted about filing SA.348/2018 before Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and also admitted about direction to her to deposit an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- for granting of the stay and further admitted that she only paid

Rs.75,000/- and failed to pay the balance amount. She stated that she filed the documents before the court to show that the bank collected excess amount of Rs.2,48,000/- from her and she cleared loan by obtaining loan from the private financiers. She also stated that she filed the document

before the court to show that the defendant bank collected interest from her

till 12.02.2022. She however admitted that the bank officials received

Rs.25,000/- from her and issued Ex.A1 share certificate to her. She denied the other suggestions given to her on the lines of written statement averments.

10.Pw.2 filed his chief affidavit reiterating the facts as narrated in the chief affidavit of Pw.1 and corroborated her evidence in all material particulars. During his cross-examination, he stated that he is the neighbour of Pw.1 and stated that he is resident of Kamati Street. He stated that he was not personally present when Pw.1 obtained loan and he stated that

Pw.1 paid an amount of Rs.12,48,000/- at the time of closing the loan apart from making payments earlier. He stated that he was not present when the

APNE0A0007632024 9 defendant bank deducted an amount of Rs.31,732/- as insurance as stated by him. He admitted that the defendant bank issued notice to Pw.1 after declaring her accounts as NPA and also obtained order from the court to take possession of the house of Pw.1. He also admitted that the Hon’ble

Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam directed the payment of

Rs.1,50,000/- by Pw.1 to the defendants for granting stay and that Pw.1 paid only an amount of Rs.75,000/-. He admitted that he did not give any report to the police that the officials of the defendant bank highhandedly came to the house of Pw.1 and locked it. He denied the other suggestions given to him on the lines of written statement averments.

11.On the other hand, the present manager of the 2nd defendant filed his chief examination affidavit as Dw.1 and reiterated the written statement averments in it. During his cross-examination, he stated that he was transferred to the 2nd defendant branch in the month of August, 2025 and stated that he does not have personal knowledge about the loan transaction and acquaintance with Pw.1 and stated that he is deposing evidence based on records. He admitted that their bank lends amounts only to share holders and admitted that Pw.1 purchased the shares worth of

Rs.25,000/- and did not made any transactions with the bank after closing the loan account. While he stated that Pw.1 can take back the amount of

Rs.25,000/-, he admitted that the bank did not issue any written notice to

Pw.1. He denied the suggestion that the life of the borrower was insured while granting the loan as per the directions of the RBI and stated that only building of Pw.1 was insured against the fire accident. He admitted that bank received an amount of Rs.70,000/- from Pw.1 in four installments after her account was declared as NPA and denied the suggestion that the loan

APNE0A0007632024 10 account became regular once payments are accepted from Pw.1. He admitted that loan was granted to the plaintiff by considering the rents from the house of Pw.1. He denied the suggestion that Pw.1 failed to repay the loan amount as per the schedule only due to the harassment of their staff and that she paid excess amount of Rs.2,48,000/- and that they are also liable to pay damages for their actions apart from returning the insurance amount and share certificate. He denied the other suggestions given to him on the lines of the plaint averments.

12.Before proceeding with the merits of the case, it is important to reiterate a settled principle of law that the court shall look into the aspect of the limitation for filing of any suit irrespective of the fact whether the question is raised by the defendants or not. In the present case, as per the plaint averments, the plaintiff obtained loan from the defendant bank on 12.02.2015. Even though, the loan tenure is up to 12.02.2022, the plaintiff cleared the entire loan on 06.12.2018 itself and closed the account. The plaintiff claimed limitation for filing the present suit as loan tenure is till 12.02.2022 and also basing on the fact that the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 04.10.2019 and the defendants issued reply on 19.10.2019. The present suit is filed on 19.04.2022. Hence, the suit would be within period of limitation only if the period of issuance of legal notice or the period of loan tenure is taken as the date of raising of the cause of action and not the date of closure of the loan. However, as per the Limitation Act, the limitation period to file a suit seeking recovery of money is three years from the date on which the amount becomes due and limitation period to file the suit for damages is one year from the date of alleged act. As per the plaint averments itself, as the loan account was closed on 06.12.2018, the

APNE0A0007632024 11 transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants ended on that day and if really there is any amount due, the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit within three years from the date of closure of the account i.e., on or before 06.12.2021. Moreover, as it is clear even as per the plaint averments that the loss of the prestige that occurred to the plaintiff due to the acts of the defendant is during the pendency of the suit, the suit for recovery of damages ought to have been filed at least within one year from the date of closure of the loan account. The limitation cannot be computed from the date of demanding the payment of the amount or the date of completion of original loan transaction as claimed by the plaintiff. Hence, even as per the plaint averments, the present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and as such the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, in order to give findings of all the issues, this court is inclined to consider the evidence adduced by the both sides.

13.The 1st contention of the plaintiff is that she paid an amount of

Rs.25,000/- to the defendants and obtained Ex.A1 share certificate. It is her contention that the defendants did not repay the amount to her. However, there is nothing in the plaint to show that the plaintiff sought to surrender the share certificate with the defendant bank and that the defendants refused to repay the amount to her. The plaintiff demanded the amount along with the other amounts as claimed in the suit and even in Ex.A8 reply notice, it was categorically stated that the plaintiff is entitled for her share capital amount without any interest and dividend if she closes the same voluntarily. A perusal of Ex.A1 goes to show that as per the terms and conditions, the share holders are entitled for dividends and other benefits only if they maintained a loan account. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to receive the

APNE0A0007632024 12 amount of Rs.25,000/- from the defendants by surrendering Ex.A1 certificate. Instead of doing same, she demanded repayment of Rs.25,000/- as if the defendants are liable to repay the same to her with interest. The manner in which the claim is made by the plaintiff is not proper and hence, she is not entitled for the amount as claimed by her in the plaint. However, she is at liberty to surrender Ex.A1 share certificate either directly or by way of issuing notice to the defendants and is entitled to receive the amount of

Rs.25,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the defendants bank.

14.The plaintiff also claimed that she paid an amount of

Rs.31,732/- to the defendants towards insurance and that she is entitled for return of that amount. However, it is the case of the defendants that only an amount of Rs.3,703/- was deducted towards building insurance and that no other amount was collected from the plaintiff. Except her oral evidence, the plaintiff could not file any document before the court to show that an amount of Rs.31,732/- was collected from her towards insurance premium. A borrower is not entitled for recovery of insurance amount from the lender after discharging the loan account as the purpose of collecting insurance amount is to secure the security or life of the borrower during the loan tenure so that the loan amount can be recovered even in the event of any unfortunate incident to the borrower or secured property. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek recovery of an amount of Rs.3,703/- paid by her towards insurance premium and as she failed to prove that she paid an amount of Rs.31,732/- as insurance, she is not entitled for that amount.

15.The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant bank collected excess amount of Rs.2,48,000/- from her and that she is entitled for that amount along with interest. She pressed her claim on the ground that the

APNE0A0007632024 13 defendants calculated interest up to 12.02.2022 that is the period of loan tenure even though, she cleared the loan on 06.12.2018 itself. However, the claim made by the plaintiff is misguided and not in accordance with the regular financial practice. While granting any loan, the financial institution will fix the monthly installments which will carry both the interest portion and the principal portion. The actual share of the interest and principal will change for every installment but generally accepted financial practice which this court can take judicial notice is that in the beginning EMIs, more amount will be deducted towards payment of interest and less amount towards

principal amount and as the loan tenure progresses, the share of the

interest will continue the decrease and the share of principal will increase. It is an accepted financial practice and when once a borrower obtains a loan from any financial institution by agreeing to the terms and conditions, they cannot challenge the manner of the calculation of the EMI amounts. Hence, merely because the Plaintiff cleared the entire loan amount before the agreed tenure does not entitle her to claim exemption of interest. Moreover, the Plaint is silent about the manner in which the Plaintiff came to the conclusion that she paid an excess amount of Rs.2,48,000/-. Hence, the claim of the plaintiff that she is entitled for recovery of the Rs.2,48,000/- from the defendants cannot be accepted as the claim of the excess payment is not established.

16. The plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendants towards damages on the ground that the employees of the defendants went to her property and threatened the defendants and thereby made the tenants to vacate the property. It is also her claim that her loan account was declared as NPA even though, she paid the installments

APNE0A0007632024 14 regularly. The plaintiff has mentioned about the payments made by her in her plaint and also in her chief affidavit. The plaintiff filed Ex.A2, Ex.A3 and

Ex.A5 and the defendants also got marked Ex.B1 statement of account. All the loan statements tally with the payments as narrated in the plaint and chief affidavit of Pw.1. However, the entries clearly goes to establish that the plaintiff did not pay the loan installments as per the schedule fixed in the

EMI and she paid the amounts irregularly. There is no payment of EMI amount between 09.05.2015 to 30.09.2015 and she paid an amount of

Rs.57,851/- on that day. Similarly, she did not pay the installments in the month of October, 2015, December, 2015 to February, 2016, April, 2016 to

June, 2016, August, 2016 to October, 2016, December, 2016 and January, 2017, March, 2017 to June, 2017 and again in September, 2017. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted at the time of arguments that the actual amounts paid by the plaintiff are more than the amounts that are due to be paid if the amount is calculated from 09.03.2015 to 16.10.2017.

However, in loan transactions basing on the repayment through EMIs, the frequency of the payment of EMI amount is as important, if not more important than payment of the amount due. The statements filed by the plaintiff itself clearly goes to show that she was very irregular in payment of the loan amounts. As such, the declaration of the loan account as NPA by the defendant bank cannot be found fault with. Moreover, the question of deciding the correctness or otherwise of the declaration of NPA is not within purview of this court and it is for the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide the same. As such, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants declared the loan as NPA without following rules cannot be accepted. As far as the contention of the plaintiff that the staff of the 2nd defendant came and

APNE0A0007632024 15 threatened her tenants are concerned, except the self serving statement of

Pw.1, there is nothing on record to prove the same. Even though, Pw.2 is also examined, his cross-examinationclearly reveals that he has no knowledge about the facts of the case and he only deposed evidence to support Pw.1 as she is his neighbour. Moreover, if really there is any deficiency in providing services by the bank, the plaintiff shall approach the proper forum and her avenue is not file civil suit. Even otherwise, the plaintiff could not establish the claim that she suffered damage to her reputation and that she could not pay the EMIs regularly due to the acts of the employees of the 2nd defendant. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of damages as prayed for by her.

17.In view of the discussion made above, it is clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and the evidence produced by her is not sufficient to grant any of the reliefs claimed in the suit. As such, the present suit filed is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, issues 1 to 6 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

Issue No.7:

18.In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Nellore.

APNE0A0007632024 16

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Plaintiff: Defendants:

Pw.1: V.RamulammaDw.1:V.Sridatta, Branch Manager

Pw.2: D.Nageswara Rao

Documents Marked for

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original share certificate issued by the defendants in G.No.335/A

dated 11.02.2015 under receipt No.047333.

Ex.A2: Original loan passbook.

Ex.A3: Original savings account passbook of the plaintiff maintained with defendant’s bank.

Ex.A4: Office copy of petition filed by PW1 before Debt Recovery Tribunal,

Visakhapatnam in IA No.1622/2018 in SA No.348/2018.

Ex.A5: Attested copy of loan account statement of PW1 with defendant bank.

Ex.A6: Legal notice dated 04.10.2019 along with postal receipts.

Ex.A7: Acknowledgments (2 in number).

Ex.A8: Served copy of reply notice dated 19.10.2019.

Defendants:

Ex.B1: Attested copy of the statement of account of Pw.1 in defendant’s branch for the period 12.02.2015 to 06.12.2018.

APNE0A0007632024 17

Ex.B2: Attested copy of letter of authorisation dated 05.08.2025.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Nellore.

APNE0A0029262022 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::NELLORE

Present: - Sri P.Bharadwaja, I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore

Monday, this the 13th (Thirteenth) day of April, 2026

OS No.574/2022

Vallam Loka Nadham, Son of Late Vallam Muneaiah, Hindu, aged about 64 years, residing at D.No.3/201-17, Narassaya Gunta, Z.P. High School Road, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

... Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Vallam Ramaiah, Son of Late Muneiah, Agriculturist, Hindu, aged about 60 years, resident of Narayanareddy Pet, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Vallam Muniprasad, Son of Late Muneiah, Hindu, aged about 42 years, agriculturist, resident of Narayana Reddy Pet Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

3. Vallam Mahalakshamma, Wife of Ramaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, resident of Narayana Reddy Pet, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

4. Vallam Vamsee, Son of Vallam Ramaiah, Hindu, aged about 30 years, resident of Narayana Reddy Pet, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

... Defendants

This suit is coming on 08.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri N.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff andSri Mallireddy, S.

APNE0A0029262022 2

Advocate for the defendants 1, 3 and 4 and 2nd defendant remained ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till to-day, this

Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed the present suit against defendants 1 to 4 seeking preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of one share to him. He is also seeking direction to the 4th defendant to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month for use and occupation of the shop rooms in the suit schedule property from the date of suit till the date of possession and for other allied reliefs.

2. The brief averments in the plaint are :

The plaintiff, the 1st defendant, father of the 2nd defendant by name

Muneiah, one Lakshmaiah and Ravi are the sons and one Subbamma is the daughter of one Vallam Muneiah. The suit schedule property originally belonged to Muneiah and he constructed house and shop rooms in the suit schedule property with the joint family funds by running businesses such as sundry shop, cloth business and by running private bus. Subbamma was given in marriage by paying considerable amount towards her share.

Muneiah died in the year 1990 and his sons Ravi, Muneiah (father of 2nd defendant) and Lakshmaiah died in the years 1991, 2006 and 2014 respectively. The plaintiff, the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant succeeded the suit schedule property after their deaths and are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff went to Gudur 30 years ago due to his employment and the 1st defendant used to reside in the suit schedule property with the permission of the plaintiff and the father of the 2nd defendant and the rents collected from the shop rooms used to be shared between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. From the month of April, 2022, the 4th defendant who is running business in the shop rooms failed to pay

APNE0A0029262022 3 the rents of Rs.4,000/- towards the share of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff demanded the defendants 1 and 2 for partition of the suit schedule property, but they did not come forward. The 1st defendant mutated his name in property tax records with the consent of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant and used to pay taxes by deducting the amount from the rents. The plaintiff came to know prior to filing of the suit that the 1st defendant executed a settlement deed dated 07.06.2022 bearing document No.1748/2022 in favour of 3rd defendant who is his wife without having full rights over the property. The settlement deed is not valid and binding on the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The document did not confer any rights upon the 3rd defendant. In the settlement deed, dated 07.06.2022, there is a clear recital that the 1st defendant got the property from his ancestors and as there is no partition of the property, the plaintiff is entitled for share in the suit schedule property. The 4th defendant being son of defendants 1 and 3 is running business in the three shop rooms and earning around Rs.1,00,000/- per month and he is liable to pay the share of rents of Plaintiff and 2nd defendant. Hence, the suit.

3.The 2nd defendant remained ex-parte in the suit and the remaining defendants filed common written statement opposing the suit claim. Brief averments in the written statement are:

All the material allegations made in the plaint except the admitted ones are false and the suit is not maintainable. The relationship of the parties and others as narrated in the plaint is true. It is also true that the father of the plaintiff, 1st defendant and others by name Muneiah died intestate in the year 1990. However, the contention in the plaint that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Muneiah and that he constructed the house and shop rooms in the suit schedule property is false. It is true

APNE0A0029262022 4 that the 1st defendant is residing in the suit schedule property along with his family members but the contention in the plaint that the 1st defendant is residing with the consent of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and that he used to pay rents to the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is false. The suit schedule property originally belonged to gramakantam and the 1st defendant occupied the property around 35 years ago and he constructed a ACC roofed house and ACC roofed shop rooms in the site in the year 2009 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property since then by paying property tax and by obtaining the electricity connection. The 1st defendant executed settlement deed in favour of 3rd defendant in respect of the suit schedule property and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. As the suit schedule property is gramakantam land, the nature of the property is mentioned as ancestral property in the settlement deed and taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

4.Basing on the above mentioned pleadings the following issues were originally settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2?

2. Whether the suit schedule property is a gramakantam land occupied by the 1 st defendant?

3. Whether the 1 st defendant has right to execute registered settlement deed in favour of 3 rd defendant?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the preliminary decree of partition of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

APNE0A0029262022 5

5. Whether the 4 th defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-

to the plaintiff for use or occupation of the shop situated in the

suit schedule property?

6. To what relief?

5.During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Ex.A1 on his behalf. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of registered settlement deed bearing document No.1748/2022 dated 07.06.2022 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 3rd defendant. He examined the 2nd defendant as Pw.2 and Ex.A2 is marked through him. Ex.A2 are the photographs (4 in number) along with CD.

6. On the other hand, the 4th defendant examined himself as

Dw.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 documents were marked through him. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of registered settlement deed dated 07.06.2022 bearing document No.1748/2022 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 3rd defendant. Ex.B2 is the bill information for the months of January, 2024 to

December, 2025 issued by Assistant Executive Engineer, Operations,

APSDCL. Ex.B3 is the online copy of property tax DCB. The sister of plaintiff and the 1st defendant is examined as Dw.2.

7. Heard both the sides. Perused the record.

Issues 1 to 4 :

8.It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property originally belonged to his father and that his father constructed a house and shop rooms in the suit schedule property and that his father died intestate leaving behind him, the 1st defendant and the father of the 2nd defendant as his legal heirs and that the 1st defendant is residing in the suit schedule

APNE0A0029262022 6 property along with his family members with the consent of the plaintiff and the father of the 2nd defendant and that he used to pay the share of the plaintiff in rents regularly apart from paying property tax and electricity bills in his name from out of the rents. It is his further contention that the 4th defendant who is none other than son of the 1st defendant is in possession of three shop rooms doing business and that an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month used to be paid to the plaintiff towards his share of rent and that the 4th defendant failed to pay rents from April, 2022 and that the plaintiff came to know on enquiry that the 1st defendant executed Ex.A1 settlement deed in respect of entire property in favour of 3rd defendant, even though, he is entitled only for 1/3rd share and that the document is not valid and binding upon him. On the other hand, the contesting defendants raised a plea that the suit schedule property is gramakantam land and that the 1st defendant occupied the site and made constructions in the property in the year 2009 and that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property and later executed Ex.A1 settlement deed in favour of 3rd defendant and that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant has no right to seek for partition. From the pleadings, it is clear that the the defendants are denying the contention of the Plaintiff that the suit schedule property is ancestral property. As such, the preliminary burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that the suit schedule property is situated in patta land and that it originally belonged to his father which was later succeeded by him along with the 1st defendant and father of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff shall also prove that his father made constructions in the suit schedule property and that he used to receive rents from the 1st defendant towards his share. As the defendants are denying the joint possession, the burden is also upon the plaintiff to prove that he along with the 2nd defendant are in joint possession of the suit schedule property along with family of 1st defendant. In order to discharge his burden, the

APNE0A0029262022 7 plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit as Pw.1 and reiterated the plaint averments in it. Even though, the 2nd defendant did not file any written statement, he filed his chief affidavit as Pw.2 supporting the case of the plaintiff in toto and corroborated the evidence of Pw.1 in all material particulars.

9.The defendants got Pws.1 and 2 cross-examined. During his cross-examination, Pw.1 admitted that he did not file any document to show that the suit schedule property originally belonged to his father and that he made constructions in it. He further admitted that he did not file any documents to show that his father used to do several businesses and also used to run private bus. He admitted that he mentioned the suit schedule property as ACC sheet roofed house and shop rooms and added that there is RCC roofed house and shop rooms. He admitted that he did not file any revenue record pertaining to Sy.No.371/2 along with plaint. He admitted that he did not file any document to show that himself and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that defendants 1 and 4 used to pay monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- to him. He stated that he does not know how when his father purchased the suit schedule property and admitted that he did not file the title document of his father. He denied the other suggestions given to him on the lines of written statement averments.

10.During his cross-examination, Pw.2 admitted that he did not file any written statement in the suit even though he was arraigned as 2nd defendant. He stated that the suit schedule property is patta land and not

Government land but stated that he does not know the survey number of the land. He however stated that the patta of the land is in the name of his grandmother by name Seshamma. He further stated that the tax receipts

APNE0A0029262022 8 standing in the name of his grandmother were filed in the present case to show that the suit schedule property is joint family property. He however admitted that no receipts were filed to show that defendants 1 and 4 paid monthly rents of Rs.4,000/- to Pw.1. He denied the other suggestions given to him on the lines of written statement averments.

11.On the other hand, the 4th defendant filed his chief examination affidavit as Dw.1 and reiterated the written statement averments in it. Dw.2 also filed her chief examination affidavit corroborating the evidence of Dw.1 in all material particulars. During his cross-examination, Dw.1 stated that they shifted from the suit schedule property to Nellore as the property became dilapidated. He admitted that there are three shop rooms in the suit schedule property and a house on the back side. He denied the suggestion that one of the shop room is given to RMP and another shop room is given to cell phone shop recently. He admitted that he did not file any document to show that his father constructed house in the suit schedule property around 35 years ago. He further admitted that no proof is filed to show that the property is gramakantam land. He admitted that there is a recital in Ex.A1 that the suit schedule property is ancestral property, but added that the same was mentioned at Registrar office. He admitted that the front portion of the suit schedule property is with ACC roofedsheet and the house is with

RCC roof. He is confronted with Ex.A2 photographs and he admitted the same.

12.During his further cross-examination dated 25.02.2026, he admitted that he did not file any document before the court to show that his father got exclusive right over the suit schedule property. He admitted that there is a recital in Ex.A1 that the suit schedule property is neither assigned land nor related to the Government. He admitted that there is a recital in

Ex.B1 that there is a ACC roofed house in 57 ankanams. He admitted that

APNE0A0029262022 9 the suit schedule property was not mutated in the name of his mother after the execution of Ex.A1.

13.During her cross-examination, Dw.2 stated that she was born and brought up at Narayanareddypeta and that she got married in 1960s.

She further admitted that there is a recital in her chief affidavit that her parents gave amount towards her share at the time of marriage but added that no such amount was given. She however admitted that she did not file any suit against Pw.1 and the defendant seeking partition of the suit schedule property. She admitted on suggestion that she was born and brought up at suit schedule property. She denied the suggestion that her father and brothers used to look after the business earlier and added that the 1st defendant alone looked after the business. She admitted that the son of Pw.1 married her last daughter and later obtained divorce after settlement. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing false at the instance of Dw.1.

14.A perusal of the evidence goes to show that the plaintiff has examined himself and the 2nd defendant who is the son of his brother in support of his case that the suit schedule property originally belonged to his father and that he got 1/3rd share in the property. However, the plaintiff failed to file any document before the court to show that the property originally belonged to his father and that he constructed house and shop rooms in it. If really, the property was constructed by the father of Pw.1, there ought to have been documentary proof like property tax receipts or electricity bills standing in the name of father of Pw.1. Moreover, Pw.2 stated during his cross-examination that the patta was given in the name of his paternal grandmother Seshamma who is the none other than the mother of Pw.1. He also stated in the later portion of his cross examination that

APNE0A0029262022 10 property tax receipts used to stand in the name of Seshamma and asserted that the tax receipts were filed in this case. The evidence of Pw.2 is contrary to the case of Pw.1 in that while Pw.1 is claiming that his father purchased the suit schedule property, the evidence of Pw.2 is to the effect that patta was given to the mother of Pw.1. The above mentioned contradictions in the case of the plaintiff is not explained anywhere at any stage. If really, the father of the plaintiff purchased the property, the same ought to have been by way of registered document and the plaintiff ought to have filed such a document before the court. Moreover, the plaintiff is residing at Gudur for more than 30 years as per his own admission and he did not either plead or prove that the suit schedule property was held joint as per the family arrangement and that the 1st defendant held the property jointly on behalf of him and father of Pw.2. Except oral allegations, no document is filed before the court to show that name of the 1st defendant is mutated in the property tax documents and electricity registers with the consent of Pw.1 and Pw.2.

No document is also filed to show that the plaintiff or the 2nd defendant received any rents from the 1st defendant or 4th defendant at any point of time towards their share in the suit schedule property.

15.Under Hindu Law, there is a presumption that a family of a father and brothers living together is a joint family. But there is no presumption that the property is a joint family property and the burden to prove the joint-ness of the property is on the person who is asserting the same. In the present case, the plaintiff miserably failed to prove that his father originally got the suit schedule property and constructed house and shop rooms in it and that the property was held jointly by him, Pw.2 and the 1st defendant after the death of their father. It is true that the defendants failed to file any documents to show that the suit schedule property is situated in gramakantam land and that the 1st defendant constructed house

APNE0A0029262022 11 in it in the year 2009 with his own funds. However, it is well settled principle of law that, in any suit, the plaintiff shall prove his case on its own merits and not basing on the weakness of the case of the defendants. The failure on the part of the defendants in producing documents would have been material if the plaintiff adduced any evidence in support of his claim.

However, the plaintiff failed to do so and on the other hand, it is a fact even as per the plaint averments that the family of the 1st defendant is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff himself averred in his plaint that the 1st defendant is living in the house along with his family members by paying the property tax and electricity charges. It is also averred that the 4th defendant who is none other than the son of the defendants 1 and 3 is running business in the three shop rooms situated in the suit schedule property. As such, it is clear that the defendants 1, 3 and 4 are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and there is nothing on record to suggest that they held the property jointly either with Pw.1 or Pw.2. As such, the contention of the plaintiff regarding his share in the suit schedule property and his contention regarding the joint possession over the property cannot be accepted.

16.In the light of discussion made above, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule property is his ancestral property and that he has a share in it and that he is in joint possession of the same. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of preliminary decree for partition as prayed for by him. Even though, the 1st defendant failed to prove that the suit schedule property is situated in gramakantam land, the same is not a necessary to come to a conclusion in the present suit. As the rights of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant over the suit schedule property are not established, they have no right to question the execution of Ex.A1 by the 1st defendant in favour of 3rd defendant.

APNE0A0029262022 12

Moreover, it is clear from the record that Dw.2 is the sister of Pw.1 and the 1st defendant and as she stated in her evidence that she did not receive any amount towards her share at the time of her marriage, the present suit is bad for non-joinder of her as one of the defendants. Further, the suit schedule property is described as ACC roofed shop rooms and ACC roofed house. However, during cross-examination, Pw.1 admitted that both the shop rooms and house were RCC roofed. Hence, the description of the suit schedule property in the plaint is also not proper. For all the above mentioned reasons, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.

Accordingly, issues 1 to 4 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants 1, 3 and 4.

Issue No.5:

17.The plaintiff also sought an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month from the 4th defendant for his use and occupation of the shop rooms in the suit schedule property. However, as main suit for partition itself is being dismissed, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief for recovery of amounts as claimed by him. Even otherwise, the plaintiff did not pay court fee for the relief claimed by him and as such, he is not entitled for the relief.

Accordingly, issue No.5 is also answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.6:

18.In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore.

APNE0A0029262022 13

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Plaintiff: Defendants:

Pw.1: V.LokanadhamDw.1:V.Vamsi

Pw.2: V.Muni Prasad Dw.2:K.Subbamma

Documents Marked for

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of registered settlement deed bearing document

No.1748/2022 dated 07.06.2022 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 3rd defendant.

Ex.A2:Photographs (4 in number) along with CD.

Defendants :

Ex.B1:Certified copy of registered settlement deed dated 07.06.2022 bearing document No.1748/2022 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 3rd defendant.

Ex.B2:Bill information for the months of January, 2024 to December, 2025 issued by Assistant Executive Engineer, Operations, APSDCL.

Ex.B3:Online copy of property tax DCB.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Nellore.

APNE0A0084842021 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION):: NELLORE.

Present:- Sri P.Bharadwaja,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore.

Friday, this the 15th (Fifteenth) day of May, 2026

O S.No.920/2021

Between:

Maddena Subrahmanyam, S/o.Late Venkaiah @ Venkaiah Nayudu, Hindu, aged about 72 years, D.No.11/391, Thookumani Mitta, Santhapet, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. …… Plaintiff

And

Pallipati Raghava Kumar, S/o.Raghavulu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Plot No.32, 1st street, M.P.Nagar, Manumasiddhi Nagar, Nellore City, … Defendant SPSR Nellore District.

This suit is coming on 21.04.2026 for final hearing before me in presence of Smt.P.Gnana Prasumnaba, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Siva

Krishna, Advocate for the defendant andthe matter having stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

1.The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property and seeking delivery of possession to him and for other allied reliefs.

APNE0A0084842021 2

2.Brief averments in the plaint are that:

The plaintiff and his brothers purchased an extent of Ac.2-87 cents of land in Sy.No.71 and Ac.1-07 cents in Sy.No.74 through a registered sale deed dated 26.07.1978 bearing document No.1910/1978 from Pathri Gopal

Sundaram and others and they had been in possession and enjoyment of the total Ac.3-95 cents of land since date of sale deed. Subsequently, the plaintiff and the legal heirs of his brother and some others formed a lay out by dividing the land into plots and plots 8 to 10 and 30 to 32 were kept in their joint possession. Subsequently, the other persons relinquished their shares in plots 8 to 10 and 30 to 32 in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff became the absolute owner of all the plots. In the year 2013, the plaintiff constructed a foundation in plots 30, 31 and 32 and raised an Asbestos Cement Roof Zinc

Sheet house in an extent of 360 square feet in plot No.32 which is the suit schedule property. Later, the plaintiff got admitted in the hospital due to heart disease. At that time, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to lease ACC Zinc Sheet House to him for dairy farm and when the plaintiff replied that there is no electricity connection, the defendant agreed to arrange the electricity facility. The plaintiff gave the property on rent to the defendant for monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the brothers of the plaintiff executed a relinquishment deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of plots 8 to 10 and 30 to 32 on 30.09.2020. In the month of June, 2021, the plaintiff approached the defendant and asked him to pay the rent and also demanded him to vacate the property on the next month. The defendant paid the rent but refused to vacate the suit schedule property and demanded the plaintiff to sell the property to him for cheap rate. When the plaintiff refused, the defendant threatened that he will not vacate the property. The defendant is highhanded person and having men power and

APNE0A0084842021 3 the police did not take any action in spite of complaint given by the plaintiff by stating that the dispute is civil in nature and hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant appeared before the court and filed his written statement opposing the suit claim. Brief averments in the written statement are:

All the material allegations made in the plaint are false and all the material allegations are specifically denied. The mother-in-law of the defendant by name Duvvuru Saraswathamma acquired an extent of 22 ankanams of Government site in Sy.No. 56 of Manumasiddi Nagar in the year 2013 and she raised an asbestos sheet house in the site.

Saraswathamma is paying house tax and electricity bills since the date of occupation of the land. Later, Saraswathamma settled the property in the name of her daughter by name Baby Glory Kumari in 2019 who is wife of the defendant and since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of property by paying the house tax and electricity bills. The plaintiff created a fabricated document with a dishonest intention as if the property is situated in Sy.No.71 and 74. The suit schedule property belongs to the Government and except the wife of the defendant, no other person has any right over the same.

There is no cause of action to file the suit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing on the above mentioned pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.

No.71 and 74 of Kotturu Area of Nellore Municipal

Corporation?

APNE0A0084842021 4

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5.During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2 documents. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 26.07.1978 bearing document No.1910/1978. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of relinquishment deed dated 30.09.2020 bearing document

No.6852/2020 executed in his favour. He examined Pw.2 on his behalf.

6. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as Dw.1 and examined his wife as Dw.2. Exs.B1 to B6 were marked through Dw.1.

Ex.B1 are the electricity bills (3 in number) standing in the name of DB Glory

Kumari. Ex.B2 is the online house tax receipt dated 23.02.2023. Ex.B3 is the online house tax receipt dated 24.04.2019. Ex.B4 is the electricity bill dated 06.09.2025. Ex.B5 is the electricity payment receipt dated 08.09.2025. Ex.B6 is the online house tax receipt for the period 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2026. An advocate commissioner was appointed during the pendency of the suit and he filed his report. The advocate commissioner was examined as Dw.3 and his report was marked as Ex.C1. Ex.C1 is the report of the advocate commissioner filed on 21.03.2025 along with annexed documents.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the defendant. After conclusion of the trial and when the matter is posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed

I.A.Nos.22/2026 and 23/2026 and they were dismissed on 03.02.2026.

Basing on the representation of the plaintiff that he preferred CRP

No.711/2026 before Hon’ble High Court against the orders of this court, time

APNE0A0084842021 5 was granted till 21.04.2026. However, the plaintiff failed to get any stay orders and also did not get ready for submission of arguments. Hence, the arguments of the plaintiffs treated as heard. Perused the record.

Issues 1 and 2:

8.It is the case of the plaintiff that he jointly purchased the land along with his brothers under Ex.A1 registered sale deed and that he later converted the land into plots of which the suit schedule property is one of the plot and that the other share holders relinquished their rights in the suit schedule plot and some other plots by executing Ex.A2 in his favour. It is his further contention that he raised a zinc sheet house in the suit schedule property and gave the same on rent to the defendant and that the defendant later refused to vacate the property on his demand and threatened to sell the property to him for cheaper rate and refused to vacate the property. Hence, he is seeking for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property.

On the other hand, the case of the defendant is of complete denial. It is his case that the suit schedule property is not situated in Sy. No.71 and 74 of

Kothuru area as claimed by the plaintiff and that it is situated in Sy.No.56 of

Manumasiddi nagar. It is his contention that the suit schedule property is

Government land and that his mother-in-law occupied the same and raised a construction and later orally gifted the same to his wife who is now in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. It is clear from the defence taken by the defendant that he is not only denying the landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and him, but he also denying the very identity of the suit schedule property by claiming that the property is not patta land but Government land and that it is not situated in Sy.No.71 and 74 as being claimed by the plaintiff but situated in Sy.No.56 of Manumasiddi nagar.

Hence, the burden is solely upon the plaintiff to establish the identity of the

APNE0A0084842021 6 suit schedule property and also to prove the landlord and tenant relationship.

In order to discharge such burden, the plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 and examined his daughter as Pw.2.

9.The defendant got Pws.1 and 2 cross-examined. During his cross-examination, Pw.1 stated that he is an illiterate and stated that suit schedule property is situated in plot No.30, 31 and 32 and denied the suggestion that the property is only in plot No.32 even as per his case. He admitted that even as per his case, he acquired full rights over the suit schedule property after execution of Ex.A2. He stated that he can file document before the court to show that he leased out the suit schedule property to the defendant. He however admitted that he does not have any electricity payment receipts or tax receipts relating to the suit schedule property with him. He admitted that a surveyor was appointed to identify the property and that the surveyor gave a report that the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.56 which is Government Canal Poramboku land and not in

Sy.Nos.71 and 74 as being claimed by him. He added that the surveyor issued a false report. He denied the other suggestions given to him on the lines of the written statement averments.

10.During her cross-examination, Pw.2 stated that she is looking after the suit proceedings as Pw.1 is suffering from ill health. She also asserted that the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.74 and stated that she does not know whether the property is shown as vacant site in

Ex.A2 or not. She also admitted that there are no documents in the name of her father to show that there is a room in suit schedule property. Even though, she stated that she tried to obtain electricity connection in the name of her father after Ex.A2, she admitted that she cannot file any letter addressed to the Electricity Department. She pleaded ignorance about the

APNE0A0084842021 7 appointment of advocate commissioner and the report of the surveyor filed along with the commissioner report. She stated that she can file surveyor report before the court to show that the suit schedule property is in Sy.No.74 as claimed by her.

11.On the other hand, the defendant filed his chief examination affidavit and reiterated the written statement averments in it. Dw.2 who is the wife of Dw.1 also deposed on the same lines as that of Dw.1 and corroborated his evidence in all material particulars. During his cross- examination, Dw.1 admitted that he is working as Record Assistant in Nellore

Municipal Corporation and further admitted that his father used to work as mason in Nellore Municipal Corporation during his life time. He stated that he has no acquaintance with Pw.1 prior to filing of the suit and further stated that he does not have knowledge about Exs.A1 and A2 transactions. He however denied the suggestion that he took the suit schedule premises on rent from

Pw.1 and that he used to pay rent regularly till June, 2021. He admitted that he did not file any patta before the court to show that her mother-in-law acquired the suit schedule property and further admitted that he does not have any proof to show that her mother-in-law raised construction in the property. He also admitted that there are no documents to show that his mother-in-law orally gifted the property to his wife. He denied the suggestion that he obtained the wrong survey report from the surveyor as he is also working in Nellore Municipal Corporation. He however admitted that he was present when the advocate commissioner visited the suit schedule property.

He stated that his mother-in-law is residing in the suit schedule property as on the date of giving of evidence and denied the suggestions to the contrary.

12.Dw.2 stated in her cross-examination that her mother got the property in the year 2013 and constructed house in the year 2014 but

APNE0A0084842021 8 admitted that they do not have any documents in proof of the same and further admitted that there is no document to show that her mother gifted the suit schedule property to her. She stated that her mother is living in the property from the date of its occupation. She admitted that basement was laid for plots adjacent to the suit schedule property and added that there was a house on one side. She denied the suggestions given to her on the lines of plaint averments.

13.Dw.3 is the advocate commissioner appointed in this case and he deposed that he secured the presence of the Surveyor after being appointed as advocate commissioner in I.A.No.938/2024 to locate the suit schedule property and that he issued notice to the both sides and visited the suit schedule property on 13.02.2025 at about 3.30 PM. He further deposed that the Surveyor surveyed the suit schedule property by measuring the same from the beginning of the street and located the suit schedule property in Sy.No.56 of Manumasiddi Nagar which was identified as canal poramboku land. He stated that the Surveyor issued a sketch and that he prepared

Ex.C1 report and filed it in the court.

14.During his cross-examination, he stated that the surveyor brought FMB along with him but admitted that he did not enclose the FMB relating to the Sy.No.71 and 74 of Kothuru area and Sy.No.56 of

Manumasiddi Nagar to the sketch issued by him. He stated that he cannot say the survey numbers which was measured by the surveyor in addition to the suit schedule property. He stated that there is a small ACC sheet roofed house in the suit schedule property and stated that he did not measure the house and did not note down the house door number. He stated that the surveyor prepared rough sketch in his presence and fair sketch later. He admitted that he did not file the rough sketch along with his report.

APNE0A0084842021 9

15.A perusal of the evidence goes to show that the plaintiff has only examined himself and his daughter in support of his claim apart from marking

Exs.A1 and A2 documents. However, Exs.A1 and A2 are no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff as the defendant is not denying the execution of

Exs.A1 and A2 but it is his contention that the location of the suit schedule property is not in Sy.No.71 and 74 of Kothuru area as being claimed by the plaintiff and that there is no landlord and tenant relationship. Hence, Exs.A1 and A2 does not prove the case of the plaintiff in any manner. Coming to the oral evidence, the evidences of Pws.1 and 2 is self serving and the plaintiff could not examine any third parties before the court either to establish that the suit schedule property where the defendant is residing is situated in

Kothuru Area and that there is a landlord and tenant relationship between him and the defendant. If really, the shed in the suit schedule property is constructed by the plaintiff before letting it out to the defendant, the electricity service connection would have been taken in the name of the plaintiff and not in the name of the defendant or any other third party. Moreover, if really there is a landlord and tenancy relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the said fact would have been known to third parties in the neighbourhood and the plaintiff could have examined any one of them to prove his case. A normal suit for eviction is maintainable only when the landlord and tenant relationship is admitted by the defendant. On the other hand, when the very title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and very identity of the suit schedule property is denied by the defendant in his written statement, the plaintiff ought to have converted the suit into a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. The defendant categorically denied the title of the suit schedule property and also denied the nature of the suit schedule property as patta land. In psite of the same, the plaintiff could not

APNE0A0084842021 10 produce any documents before the court to show that the suit schedule property is situated in Kothuru and that it is a patta land. Moreover, Dw.3 is appointed as advocate commissioner on the request made by the plaintiff himself and he filed Ex.C1 report along with the surveyor sketch which clearly establishes that the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.56 of

Manumasiddi nagar and not in Sy.No.71 and 74 of Kothuru Area. The plaintiff tried to explain away the same by suggesting to Dw.1 that the surveyor helped him as Dw.1 is also an employee in Nellore Municipal Corporation.

However, the plaintiff did not raise any objection on the order of this court directing the advocate commissioner to take the assistance of the mandal surveyor and as per Ex.C1, it is clear that the plaintiff participated in the proceedings before the advocate commissioner. Hence, he cannot now be permitted to question the surveyor’s sketch as it is against his case. The advocate commissioner report and the documents filed along with it clearly goes to show that the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.56 of

Manumasiddi Nagar and the said finding is fatal to the case of the plaintiff.

16.The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable even if his case is taken on face value. As it is the contention of the plaintiff that he is the landlord and that the defendant is his tenant and that the defendant refused to vacate the suit schedule property in spite of his demand, the plaintiff ought to have issued notice to the defendant under section 106 of T.P.Act and the present suit ought to have been filed only later. However, no such notice was issued by the plaintiff and hence, the present suit is not maintainable.

17.The defendant got marked Exs.B1 to B6 documents on his behalf which clearly goes to show that the house tax receipts and electricity bills are initially in the name of the mother-in-law of Dw.1 and later, in the name of Dw.2. As the plaintiff admitted the possession of the family of the

APNE0A0084842021 11 defendant over the suit schedule property and as he could not disprove the fact that the documents produced by the defendant are not related to the suit schedule property, this court is inclined to believe that the family of the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property by paying the house tax and electricity charges. Hence, the case of the plaintiff is not maintainable on this ground also.

18.In the light of the discussions made above, it is clear that the plaintiff failed to prove his contention that the suit schedule property is located in Sy.No.71 and 74 of Kothuru as claimed by him. He is also failed to prove the landlord and tenant relationship between him and the defendant.

The plaintiff also failed to issue section 106 of T.P. Act notice before filing the present suit. The evidence adduced by the both sides also clearly goes to show that the plaintiff failed to establish any of the claims made by him in the plaint and the defendant established his defence by adducing probable defence. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs as claimed by him in the suit. Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.

Issue No.3:

19. In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Nellore.

APNE0A0084842021 12

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Pw.1: M.SubrahmanyamDw.1:P.Raghava Kumar

Pw.2: V.VaniDw.2:D.Baby Glory Kumari

Dw.3:T.Ravi, Advocate Commissioner, Nellore.

Documents Marked for

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 26.07.1978 bearing document No.1910/1978.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of relinquishment deed dated 30.09.2020 bearing document No.6852/2020 executed in favour of the plaintiff.

Defendant:

Ex.B1: Electricity bills (3 in number) standing in the name of DB Glory

Kumari.

Ex.B2: Online house tax receipt dated 23.02.2023.

Ex.B3: Online house tax receipt dated 24.04.2019.

Ex.B4: Electricity bill dated 06.09.2025.

Ex.B5: Electricity payment receipt dated 08.09.2025.

Ex.B6: Online house tax receipt for the period 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2026.

APNE0A0084842021 13

Documents marked through Dw.3:

Ex.C1: Report of the advocate commissioner filed on 21.03.2025 along with annexed documents.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Nellore.

APNE0A0006192024 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION):: NELLORE.

Present:- Sri P.Bharadwaja,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore.

Friday, this the 15th (Fifteenth) day of May, 2026

O S.No.140/2024

Between:

Jakkampudi Krishnaiah, S/o.Hanumaiah, Hindu, …… Plaintiff Business, aged 60 years, Tekkemitta, Nellore.

And

Pothanaboina Veera Narayana, S/o.Chinna Raghavulu, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Venkampeta Village, Gudluru Mandalam, Nellore … Defendant District.

This suit is coming on 04.05.2026 for final hearing before me in presence of Sri N.Sudheer Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri V.Nagaraju,

Advocate for the defendant andthe matter having stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

1.The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant basing on a promissory note for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,44,754/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Four only) along with subsequent interest and for other allied reliefs.

2.Brief averments in the plaint are that:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh only) from the plaintiff on 06.02.2018 for his necessities and executed

APNE0A0006192024 2 a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same date agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. After repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- on 30.01.2021 towards part payment and endorsed the same on the back side of the promissory note.

Subsequently, the defendant postponed the payment of balance amount on one pretext or other in spite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff.

Hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 19.01.2024 and the defendant received the same but neither paid the amount nor issued any reply. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit. The defendant is doing real estate business and he is not an agriculturist and hence, he is not entitled for the benefit of Debt Relief Laws. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant appeared before the court and filed his written statement opposing the suit claim. Brief averments in the written statement are:

All the material allegations made in the plaint except admitted ones are false. It is true that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note on 06.02.2018 agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum. However, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant made part payment of Rs.1,000/- on 30.01.2021 and received legal notice dated 19.01.2024 are all false. The defendant discharged the entire amount taken from the plaintiff and requested him to return the promissory note. However, disputes arose between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding rate of interest. The suit promissory note is barred by limitation. The part payment endorsement on the suit promissory note is a forged one. There is no cause of action to file the suit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

APNE0A0006192024 3

4. Basing on the above mentioned pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether the part payment endorsement dated 30.01.2021 on the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the defendant discharged the debt taken

from the plaintiff under suit promissory note ?

3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

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

5) To what relief?

5.During the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 documents. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note

dated 06.02.2018 for an amount of 1,00,000/- executed by the defendant₹

in his favour. Ex.A2 is the part payment endorsement dated 30.01.2021 for an amount of Rs.1,000/- made on the back side of Ex.A1. Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice dated 19.01.2024 along with postal receipt. Ex.A4 is the postal track consignment. He also examined one of attestors of Ex.A1 as

Pw.2.

6. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as Dw.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

7.Heard both the sides. Perused the record.

Issues 1 to 4:

APNE0A0006192024 4

8.It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from him under Ex.A1 and that he made part payment of Rs.1,000/- under Ex.A2 part payment endorsement and that he did not pay the balance amount in spite of repeated demands made by him and inspite of receiving Ex.A3 legal notice. On the other hand, while the defendant is admitting the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note, he is denying Ex.A2 part payment transaction and he is also denying the receipt of Ex.A3 legal notice. Hence, the plaintiff was invited to commence the trial and he filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and reiterated the plaint averments. He also examined one of the attestor of

Ex.A1 as Pw.2 and the witness also deposed on the same lines as that of

Pw.1 and corroborated his evidence in all material particulars.

9.The defendant got Pws.1 and 2 cross-examined. During his cross-examination, Pw.1 stated that he is doing pickles business at

Tekemitta, Nellore and that the defendant belongs to his native village. He stated that the defendant gave two Rs.500/- notes to him on the date of

Ex.A2 and denied the suggestion that the defendant discharged the entire amount due under Ex.A1 and that he filed the present suit due to political disputes.

10.Pw.2 stated in his cross-examination that he does not have any acquaintance with the defendant and that he does not know whether the defendant was present at the time of Ex.A1 transaction or not and stated that Pw.1 informed him about giving money to one of his fellow villager. He however stated that Ex.A1 transaction took place at a rice shop situated at

Tekkemitta in the year 2018 and further stated that he acted as 1st attestor and one Adusumalli Murali Krishna acted as 2nd attestor on Ex.A1.

APNE0A0006192024 5

11.On the other hand, the defendant filed his chief examination affidavit as Dw.1 and reiterated the written statement averments in it. During his cross-examination, he admitted that himself and Pw.1 belongs to the same village and further admitted about borrowing Rs.1,00,000/- from Pw.1 under Ex.A1. He denied his signatures on a postal acknowledgment which was confronted to him. He stated that he did not issue any legal notice to

Pw.1 demanding return of Ex.A1 promissory note. He stated that the scribe of Ex.A2 by name Jakkampudi Narasimhulu is the brother’s son of Pw.1 and denied the other suggestions given to him on the lines of the plaint averments.

12.A perusal of record goes to show that the execution of Ex.A1 is admitted by the defendant in his written statement itself and hence, there is no burden on the plaintiff to prove its execution. Even though, Pw.2 stated that he does not have acquaintance with the defendant and gave wavering answers relating to the execution of Ex.A1, the same need not be considered as the defendant admitted the execution of Ex.A1 and also receiving Rs.1,00,000/- under it from Pw.1. As far as the execution of Ex.A2 is concerned, the plaintiff only examined himself. However, the defendant could not elicit anything from the cross-examination of Pw.1 so as to show that the evidence of Pw.1 regarding the execution of Ex.A2 is false. Except denying the signatures on Ex.A2 as forged, no plausible explanation is given by the defendant in his written statement as to why he did not take any steps to get back Ex.A1 promissory note if he really discharged the entire amount. The written statement and the evidence of the defendant is silent as to the date on which he discharged the amount taken under Ex.A1 and why he did not receive the promissory note in spite of paying the amount. No person was examined to prove the case of the defendant that

APNE0A0006192024 6 he discharged the amount. Moreover, the defendant did not take any steps

before the court to prove that the signatures on Ex.A2 part payment

endorsementdoes not belongs to him. If really the case of defendant is true and the plaintiff refused to return Ex.A1 due to the disputes relating to the interest, then the defendant ought to have issued legal notice to the plaintiff seeking return of promissory note or he ought to have at least taken action against the the plaintiff after filing of the suit. The fact that the defendant remained silent without taking back Ex.A1 in spite of discharging the entire debt is not plausible and is against general human conduct. Hence, this court is not inclined to accept the defence taken by the defendant and is inclined to believe that Ex.A2 endorsement is made by defendant after making part payment. Ex.A2 endorsement saves the limitation for filing of the present suit. As the evidence of Pw.1 that the defendant did not repay any portion of the amount taken under Ex.A1 except the part payment of

Rs.1,000/- under Ex.A2 stands proved, the defendant is liable to repay the amount along with accrued interest. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that the defendant is doing real estate business. Even though, the defendant stated in his evidence that he is doing cultivation, he did not produce any evidence to prove the same. As Ex.A1 transaction is a private commercial transaction and as there is nothing on record to show that the defendant is entitled for reduction of the interest as a small farmer, the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest as per the contract rate. Accordingly, issues 1 to 4 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No. 5:

13. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.2,44,754/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Four only). The plaintiff is also granted interest on the principal

APNE0A0006192024 7 amount of 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakhs only) at 12% per annum from the₹ date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Nellore.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Pw.1: J.KrishnaiahDw.1:P.Veeranarayana

Pw.2: G.Venkateswarlu

Documents Marked for

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 06.02.2018 for an amount of ₹1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2: Part payment endorsement dated 30.01.2021 for an amount of

Rs.1,000/- made on the back side of Ex.A1.

Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice dated 19.01.2024 along with postal receipt.

Ex.A4: Postal track consignment.

Defendant: -NIL-

Sd/- P.Bharadwaja

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Nellore.