Ms. Potla Swathi Bhavani

1 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.17/2023

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamanchili.

Monday, this the 21 st day of April, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No.17/2023

Between:

Panduri Durgarao, S/o Pydiyya, aged 55 yrs, Business, R/o Kothuru village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Plaintiff

And

Ruttala Krishnamurthy, S/o Appanna, aged about 50 yrs, R/o Kothali Village, Yellamanchili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 09.04.2025 in the presence of Sri Y. Nageswararao,Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri R. Govindarao, Ld. Counsel for the Defendant. Having heard both sides, perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,84,666/- (Rupees Two Lakh

Eighty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Six only) being the Principal and interest due a promissory note dated 30.03.2021 executed by the defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and for costs.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) from the Plaintiff on 2 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.17/2023 30.03.2021 for the purpose of family expenses and executed the suit promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Subsequently, despite several demands made by the

Plaintiff for repayment, the Defendant kept postponing repayment on one pretext or the other. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.

3.The Defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint and further submitting that he never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in his favour. The

Defendant did labour contracts by supplying labour in and around

Yellamanchili and in this connection, the Plaintiff had approached him for supply of labour for work at a hill situated near Kothuru. The Defendant supplied labour to the Plaintiff and after some objection from the forest department, the Plaintiff stopped the work. The Plaintiff paid Rs.30,000/- to the Defendant in this connection and obtained blank promissory note signed by the Defendant from him. After the receipt of legal notice dated 09.04.2021 issued by the Plaintiff, the Defendant raised dispute before the elders and by then the defendant paid Rs.30,000/- along with interest to the Plaintiff. The

Plaintiff then agreed to withdraw the further proceedings. However, when the

Defendant asked for return of the said blank promissory note, the Plaintiff stated that it was misplaced and took advantage of the promissory note available with him and filed this present suit for wrongful gain in collusion with the attesters and scribe.

4.Basing on the Plaint and Written Statement, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the Defendant?

3 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.17/2023

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim amount?

3. To what relief?

5.In support of his case, the Plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1. He also got examined PW2 on his behalf. On the other hand, the Defendant was himself examined as DW1 and he also got examined DW2.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Issues Nos.1 & 2:

The above issues are interconnected in facts and law and therefore, they are discussed together for reasoning and decision.

The Plaintiff filed his chief-examination affidavit as PW1 reiterating the contents of his plaint. He also got marked Ex.A1 in support of his case. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note dt.30.03.2021. PW2 is the 1st attester of the suit promissory note under Ex.A1. He corroborated the evidence of PW1 in his chief-examination affidavit.

8.In the cross-examination of PW1, he admitted that the Defendant used to previously do works for the forest department. He knows the

Defendant through those forest works and that those works were going on in his village till 2018. The Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff proved his case by way of his own examination as PW1 and by examining the attestor as PW2 and even the DW2 who is examined on behalf of the

Defendant, being the scribe, deposed against the version of the Defendant and supported the case of the Plaintiff and prayed to decree the suit.

4 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.17/2023

9. On the other hand, the Ld.Counsel for the Defendant argued that the burden is on Plaintiff to prove that the transaction took place but the plaint is not clear as to where the transaction took place. Although the Defendant admitted his signature on the promissory note, the circumstances under which such signature was made must be taken into consideration as the PW1 himself admitted that he knows the Defendant through forest works. He argued that while the PW1 and PW2 deposed that the promissory note was prepared by the Defendant and brought to him and it was actually scribed at

Panchadarla, the scribe/DW2 deposed that he scribed the promissory note at the house of the Plaintiff in Kothuru in the presence of the Plaintiff and the

Defendant. He further argued that the PW2 is a stock attester for the PW1 and the same is evidenced from the fact that the PW1 deposed in his cross- examination that he cannot state the exact number of promissory notes executed in his favour in which the PW2 is the attester. The PW2 also deposed that he signed on Ex.A1 at Panchadarla, whereas, the exchange of money took place at Kothuru, revealing that he signed on Ex.A1 even before the exchange of money took place.

10.The Ld. Counsel for the defendant further took the attention of this court to an admission in the cross-examination of PW1 that he previously issued a legal notice under Ex.B1 to the same Defendant dated 07.04.2021 and that the same was already settled. He argues that when once the

Defendant failed to repay money until the issuance of a legal notice, it is not prudent for the Plaintiff to once again lend money to the same Defendant inviting further trouble. Also, the Ex.A1 promissory note is dated 30.03.2021 and the legal notice under Ex.B1 is dated 07.04.2021, negating the statement of PW1 that he lent the Ex.A1 amount after settlement of the previous debt, as the previous debt is not discharged even until 07.04.2021, i.e. the date of issuance of legal notice. For all these reasons, the Ld.Counsel for the

Defendant argues that the suit of the Plaintiff has to be viewed with suspicion.

5 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.17/2023

11.It is rightly argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that promissory notes must be presumed to be executed for a consideration and that they are not compulsorily attestable documents. However, in such a case, where attestation is done and the attester and the scribe are examined, where the evidence of the P.Ws.1 to 3 is conflicting and rendering the case of the Plaintiff doubtful, it can be viewed with suspicion. There are glaring inconsistencies in the evidence of the Pws.1, 2 and DW2 as rightly pointed above by the Defendant.

12.The aspects pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the Defendant indeed weigh in favor of the defendant and make the existence of cause of action suspicious. The attestor also deposed that he signed on the promissory note at Panchadarla itself revealing that it was signed by him much before the exchange of money took place at Kothuru. The DW2, on the other hand, deposed that the entire transaction took place at Kothuru at the house of the Plaintiff. Further, the PW1 himself deposed that he lent this second loan to the Defendant after the clearance of the first one and admitted that it is the same loan mentioned under Ex.B1. However, clearly, the prior loan was not discharged by the time of lending of the suit promissory note amount, revealing that the PW1 deposed false. The Plaintiff failed to prove that the Defendant executed the suit promissory note for a lawful and valuable consideration. In these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the Defendant and consequently, the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit promissory note amount. Hence, the issues Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly, against the Plainitff.

6 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.17/2023

13.Issue No.3:

As the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the Defendant, the Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in the suit. Accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by adalat.ai software, formatted by the Stenographer, Sri.G.Sagar, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

Yellamanchili.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for:

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1: Panduri Durga Rao P.W.2: Pitta Sridhar

For Defendant:

D.W.1: Ruttala Krishna Murthy D.W.2: Garapati Abbaddam.

Exhibits Marked:

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original Promissory note dt.30.03.2021.

For Defendant:

--Nil--

Sd/- Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

Yellamanchili

1 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.11/2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamanchili.

Monday, this the 21 st day of April, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No.11/2020

Between:

Gudepu Rajarao, S/o Late Peda Konda, aged 50 yrs, Photographer, R/o Venkannapeta street, S.Rayavaram village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Plaintiff

And

1. Oduri Yesubabu, S/o Late Konda, aged about 49 yrs, Business, R/o Rajeev colony, Madigapeta, S.Rayavaram village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Oduri Mery Grace, W/o Yesubabu, aged about 45 yrs, Business, R/o Rajeev colony, Madigapeta, S.Rayavaram village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 11.04.2025 in the presence of Sri Nunna Subrahmanyam,Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri Datti Nookaraju, Ld. Counsel for the Defendant. Having heard both sides, perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,71,800/- (Rupees One Lakh

Seventy One Thousand and Eight Hundred only), being the Principal and interest due a promissory note dated 20.10.2016, executed by the

Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and for costs.

2 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.11/2020

02.The brief averments of the Plaint are that the Defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from the

Plaintiff on 20.10.2016 for their family necessities and executed the suit promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Thereafter, in spite of several demands made by the

Plaintiff, the Defendants failed to repay the suit promissory note amount. The issuance of legal notices dated 09.11.2018 & 04.10.2019 by the Plaintiff was also in vain. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.

03.The Defendants filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint and further submitting that they never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in his favour. The signatures on the suit promissory note do not belong to them and they are forged by the Plaintiff with the assistance of the scribe and attesters, who are his henchmen. The suit promissory note is materially altered with overwritings and corrections and prayed to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the plaint and written statement, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the Defendants?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim amount as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

05.On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff got himself examined as

PW1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked through him. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Defendants, in spite of ample opportunities and conditional orders. Hence, the same was closed.

3 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.11/2020

06.Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff. The arguments of

Defendants was treated as nil. Perused the record.

07. Issues Nos.1 & 2:

The above issues are interconnected in facts and law and therefore, they are discussed together for reasoning and decision.

To substantiate his case, the Plaintiff got himself examined as

PW1 and he got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the original suit promissory note dt.20.10.2016. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.09.11.2018.

Ex.A3 is the original postal acknowledgment of 2nd Defendant. Ex.A4 is the returned postal cover of 1st Defendant dt.09.11.2018. Ex.A5 is the registered lawyer notice got issued by him to the 2nd Defendant dt.04.10.2019. Ex.A6 is the two postal receipt Nos.RN872508721 and RN872508735IN. Ex.A7 is the original postal acknowledgment from 1st Defendant. Ex.A8 is the original postal acknowledgment from 2nd Defendant. The chief-examination affidavit of

P.W.1 is nothing but a reiteration of the contents of the plaint. In his cross- examination, apart from some mere suggestions and their denials, nothing substantial is elicited in favour of the Defendants to disprove the case of the

Plaintiff. For that matter, a compromise was also reported on behalf of the

Defendants on 14.12.2022. In any case, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Defendants.

08.Though the Defendants raised many contentions in their written statement, they failed to prove any of them by entering into the witness box or by adducing any other cogent and reliable evidence in support of their case.

Their contention is that they never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in his favour and they further contend that the suit promissory note is materially altered. However, a promissory note is not a compulsorily attestable document and a striking out at the name of 4 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.11/2020 one attester and insertion of another name of an attester is not fatal in the facts of the present case as the Defendants failed to prove any of the averments of their written statement and even the cross-examination of PW1, they did not elicit anything in support of the case of the Defendants. They even failed to prove their allegation of forgery in any manner.

09.Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the Defendants failed to prove their case by placing cogent and convincing material on their behalf.

In these circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the suit promissory note under Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, the issues Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the

Defendants.

10. Issue No.3:In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,71,800/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy One Thousand and Eight Hundred only) to the Plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from the date of filing of this suit till date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by adalat.ai software, formatted by the Stenographer, Sri.G.Sagar, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

Yellamanchili.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for:

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Gudepu Rajarao --none-- 5 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.11/2020

Exhibits Marked:

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is the original suit promissory note dt.20.10.2016. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt.09.11.2018. Ex.A3 is the original postal acknowledgment of 2nd Defendant. Ex.A4 is the returned postal cover of 1st Defendant dt.09.11.2018. Ex.A5 is the registered lawyer notice got issued by him to the 2nd Defendant dt.04.10.2019. Ex.A6 is the two postal receipt Nos.RN872508721 and RN872508735IN. Ex.A7 is the original postal acknowledgment from 1st Defendant. Ex.A8 is the original postal acknowledgment from 2nd Defendant.

For Defendants:

--Nil--

Sd/- Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

Yellamanchili.

1 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.49/2023

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamanchili.

Wednesday, this the 23 rd day of April, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No.49/2023

Between:

Kotaru Padma, W/o Kotaru Kanakeswara Rao, aged 37 yrs, R/o Dr.No.4-58, ASR Colony, Yellamanchili Municipality and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

…Plaintiff

And

1. Surla Bennayya Naidu, S/o Surla Ayyanna Naidu, aged about 47 yrs, R/o Dr.No.8-5, Kondala Agraharam, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Surla Satyanarayana, S/o Surla Naga babu, aged about 32 yrs, R/o Dr.No.2-258,Kondala Agraharam,MakavarapalemMandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 21.04.2025 in the presence of Sri K.N.Durga Prasad,Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri. R. Govindarao, Ld. Counsels for the Defendants. Having heard both sides, perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.6,46,133/- (Rupees Six Lakhs

Forty Six Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Three only) being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 12.07.2020 executed by the

Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees

Four Lakhs only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and for costs.

2 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.49/2023

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that the Defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) from the Plaintiff on 12.07.2020 for the purpose of family expenses and executed the suit promissory note in her favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Subsequently, despite several demands made by the

Plaintiff for repayment, the Defendants kept postponing repayment on one pretext or the other. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.

3.The 2nd Defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint and further submitting that the Defendants, husband of the Plaintiff, K. Lakshmibai, D. Jagdish, K. Nani and C.H. Lakshmi are jointly doing real estate business together and in the said business transaction, both the Defendants jointly signed on a blank promissory note and gave the same to the husband of the Plaintiff as he managed the business transactions. Thereafter, some disputes arose between the parties and the husband of the Plaintiff fabricated the said blank promissory note signed by the Defendants available with him with an intention to grab the money with the active collusion of the attestors and scribe. The Defendants never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in her favour. The suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. The Plaintiff is only entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% per annum and prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the Plaint and Written Statement, the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the Defendants?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim amount?

3 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.49/2023

3. To What relief?

5.In support of her case, the Plaintiff got herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1. She also got examined PW2 on her behalf. On the other hand, the 1st Defendant was himself examined as DW1 and no other oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the Defendants.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Issues Nos.1 & 2:

The above issues are interconnected in facts and law and therefore, they are discussed together for reasoning and decision.

The Plaintiff filed her chief-examination affidavit as PW1 reiterating the contents of her plaint. She also got marked Ex.A1 in support of her case. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note dt.12.07.2020. PW2 is the scribe of the suit promissory note under Ex.A1. He corroborated the evidence of PW1 in his chief-examination affidavit.

8.In the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, apart from some mere suggestions and their denials, nothing substantial is elicited in favour of the

Defendant. On behalf of the Defendant, the 1st Defendant got himself examined as DW1. He filed his chief-examination affidavit reiterating the contents of the written statement. In his cross-examination, the witness admitted his signature and signature of the 2nd Defendant on the suit promissory note, but denied that consideration was passed thereunder. It is his plea that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration, but he failed to prove the allegation of absence of consideration.

4 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.49/2023

9.In this case, though the Defendant raised many contentions in his written statement, he failed to prove any of them by adducing any cogent and reliable evidence of independent nature in support of his case. The sole testimony of DW.1 is insufficient to disprove the case set up by the Plaintiff. The signatures on the suit promissory note are categorically admitted. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Defendant failed to rebut the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff and that consideration was passed under Ex.A1 promissory note. The suit promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 is valid and binding on the Defendants. Hence, the issues Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly, in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

10.Issue No.3:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the

Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants are directed to pay an amount of

Rs.6,46,133/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Six Thousand One Hundred and

Thirty Three only) to the Plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) from the date of filing of this suit till date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by adalat.ai software, formatted by the Stenographer, Sri.G.Sagar, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

Yellamanchili.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for:

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1: Kotaru Padma P.W.2: Selamsetti Surya Prakash

For Defendants:

5 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.49/2023

D.W.1: Surla Bennayya Naidu

Exhibits Marked:

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original Promissory note dt.12.07.2020

For Defendants:

--Nil--

Sd/- Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

Yellamanchili.

1 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.49/2024

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamanchili.

Thrusday, this the 24 th day of April, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No.49/2024

Between:

Boddeda Venkata Lakshmi, W/o VijayaBhaskar Swami Naidu, aged 52 yrs, cultivation, R/o Narayanapuram village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Plaintiff

And

Kanithi Uma Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Late Buchachari, aged about 38 yrs, R/o 4-7-84, Kothapeta Street, Yellamanchili Municipality, Anakapalli District.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 22.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Sudhakar,Ld.Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.3,96,493/- (Rupees Three

Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Three only) being the

Principal and interest due under a promissory note dated 16.06.2021

executed by the deceased borrower/Kanithi Buchari during his lifetime now in the hands of the defendant being the principal and interest due on the promissory note dt.16.06.2021 during his life time in favour of the Plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and for costs.

2 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.49/2024

02.The brief averments of the plaint are that the husband of the

Defendant by name Kanithi Buchari during his life time, on 16.06.2021, borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under promissory note from the Plaintiff for the purpose of his family expenses and to clear sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Thereafter, the Plaintiff during the life time of above Kanithi Buchari made several demands for repayment, but he postponed the payment on some pretext or the other.

Meanwhile, on 31.08.2023 the said Kanithi Buchari died leaving behind the defendant as his legal representative. The Plaintiff, showing the liability of the defendant, demanded the defendant to discharge the above promissory note due amount along with interest and the defendant agreed to repay the above promissory note due amount out of the assets of deceased Kanithi Buchari, but she kept postponing the payment of the said promissory note. On that the plaintiff got issue a regd. Lawyer notice dt.29.01.2024 to the defendant but she received the said notice and kept silent. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of money.

03.In this suit, although the Defendant entered appearance, she was set ex parte on 29.10.2024 for her failure to file written statement within the statutory period.

04.In the Plaintiff’s ex parte evidence, the Plaintiff was examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A6.

05.Heard the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff and perused the record.

06. Now the point for determination is:

01. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit

amount along with costs and interest as prayed for ?

02. To what relief ?

3 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.49/2024

07. Point No.1:

It is the contention of the Plaintiff that the deceased borrower by name Kanithi Buchari borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under promissory note for the purpose of his family expenses and to clear his sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% and in spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff the deceased borrower and subsequently the Defendant failed to discharge debt.

08.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the Plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and she filed her affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief wherein she reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit of P.W.1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that, P.W.1 got marked

Ex.A.1 to A6. To prove the transaction took place between the Plaintiff and the deceased borrower, the P.W.1 got marked Ex.A1 i.e, the suit promissory note and deposed that the deceased borrower borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- on 16.06.2021 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in her favour. The evidence of P.W.1 to that effect has been unrebutted and intact.

Exs.A2 to A6 were also marked. Ex.A2 is the Office copy of the Legal notice dt.29.01.2024. Ex.A3 is the original Postal receipt dt.29.01.2024. Ex.A4 is the online postal track consignment dt.30.10.2024. Ex.A5 is the original acknowledgment. Ex.A6 is the original reply notice dt.01.02.2024. It seems that in spite of several demands made by the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not make any attempts to repay the amount. The oral evidence of P.W.1 stood unchallenged. The oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A6 prove the transaction of borrowing by the deceased borrower and execution of promissory note by him. When execution is duly proved, this Court is duty bound to invoke legal presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. In this suit, the Defendant did not contest or deny the suit 4 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.49/2024 claim. So also she did not rebut the presumptions against her. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

09. Point No.2:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the

Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant is directed to pay for Rs.3,96,493/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Three only) to the Plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs only) from the date of filing of this suit till date of realization and shall be recovered from the assets of the deceased/Kanithi Buchari, which are now in the hands of Defendant.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Sri.G.Sagar directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

Yellamanchili.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for:

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Boddeda Venkata Lakshmi -none-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Ex.A1: Original Promissory note dt.16.06.2021- Nil- Ex.A2 is the Office copy of the Legal notice dt.29.01.2024. Ex.A3 is the original Postal receipt dt.29.01.2024. Ex.A4 is the online postal track consignment dt.30.10.2024. Ex.A5 is the original acknowledgment. Ex.A6 is the original reply notice dt.01.02.2024.

Sd/- Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

Yellamanchili.

1 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.220/2024

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamanchili.

Wednesday, this the 23 rd day of April, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No.220/2024

Between:

State Bank of India, Rambilli Branch, rep by its Branch Manager, Vemulakonda Sasikanth, S/o VGB Sanyasi Raju, aged 53 yrs, R/o Rambilli village and Mandal, Anakapalli Dist. …Plaintiff

And

Rajana Raju, S/o Nookaraju, aged about 35 yrs, R/o Dr.No.H.No.6-25, Narappavari Kompalu, Krishnampalem village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli District.

...Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 21.04.2025 in the presence of Sri N.R.S.T.Roy,Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present suit is filed by the Plaintiff-bank against Defendant for recovery of loan amount by praying this court to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the Plaintiff-bank and against the Defendant for an amount of Rs.1,97,688/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand Six

Hundred and Eighty Eight only) with subsequent interest and also for costs of the suit.

2 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.220/2024

02.The brief averments of the plaint are that the Defendant applied for a loan through digital banking facility for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 27.07.2023 through his SB account. The Plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Defendant under Loan

Ac.No.42117827302 and the said amount was transferred to the Defendant’s account under X press credit loan. Accordingly, the Plaintiff bank granted the said loan to the defendant repayable with monthly installments interest at the rate of 14.05% p.a. with raising and falling conditions. The defendant availed the said laon facility with the plaintiff Bank. In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the debt under loan. The plaintiff bank issued lawyer’s notice dt.03.07.2024 to the defendant but the

Defendant did not turn up to settle loan due. The Plaintiff-bank further submitted that the Defendant has to pay an amount of Rs.1,97,688/- (Rupees

One Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Eight only) and costs. The Plaintiff-bank prayed this court to decree the suit.

03.In this suit, although the summons were served on Defendant through court personally, he did not turn up to deny or contest the suit claim.

The Defendant remained absent without any representation on the date fixed for his appearance. Hence, this court set the Defendant ex parte on 08.04.2025.

04.In the Plaintiff’s ex parte evidence, the Plaintiff was examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4.

05.Heard the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff and perused the record.

06. Now the points for determination are;

01. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit

amount from the Defendant as prayed in the suit ?

02. To what relief ?

3 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.220/2024

07. Point No.1:

The Plaintiff-bank submitted that the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the bank under X press Credit Loan and accordingly the Plaintiff-bank sanctioned loan and the Defendant failed to repay the same in spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff-bank. The

Defendant was set exparte. The Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the statement copy of SB Account

No.30507324392, dt.02.07.2024. Ex.A2 is the statement copy of loan account

No.42117827302, dt.02.07.2024. Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice, dt.03.07.2024. Ex.A4 is the terms and conditions dt.26.07.2023. The

Defendant remained ex parte. Hence, the unchallenged testimony of PW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 proved the case of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the Defendant as prayed in the suit. This

Court answers the point No.1 accordingly in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

08. Point No.2:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the

Plaintiff bank. Accordingly, the Defendant is directed to pay for Rs.1,97,688/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Eight only) to the Plaintiff bank with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on the

principal amount of Rs.1,97,688/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand

Six Hundred and Eighty Eight only) from the date of filing of this suit till date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Sri.G.Sagar directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

Yellamanchili.

4 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.220/2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for:

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1:Vemulakonda Sasikanth -Nil-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is the statement copy of SB Account No.30507324392, dt.02.07.2024.

Ex.A2 is the statement copy of loan account No.42117827302, dt.02.07.2024.

Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice, dt.03.07.2024.

Ex.A4 is the terms and conditions dt.26.07.2023.

For Defendant:

- Nil-

Sd/- Swathi Bhavani Potla,

Principal Civil Judge (JD),

Yellamanchili.