Psvb Krishna Sai Teja

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NARSAPUR

PRESENT: Sri P.S.V.B. Krishna Sai Teja, Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapur

FRIDAY, THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020

O.S. No. 141 OF 2016

Between

Maturu Krishnaveni, W/o. Venkata Seetharamayya, Aged 67 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.17-29, Behind RTC Bus Shelter, Gandhi Bomma Centre, Mogalthuru … Plaintiff

AND

Yelakki Ravi, S/o. Yelakki Gowda, Aged 34 years, Male, Hindu, D.No. 17-29, Sri Maruthi Ayyangari Bakery,

Near Gandhi Bomma Centre, Mogalthuru-534281 ... Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 24.02.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff, and of Sri Ch. Danayya Naidu, Advocate for Defendant, 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 by the plaintiff to evict the defendant from plaint schedule property and to hand over possession of the plaint schedule property by fixing a day, and to grant decree for ` 90,000/- in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant directing him to pay arrears of rents from July 2015 to June 2016 with a further interest at 12% p.a., and also to grant decree for unauthorized use and occupation of the schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and leased the schedule property to the defendant 5 years back for selling bakery items alone for a period of three years orally for `5,000/- p.m. on condition that defendant has to pay the rent in first week of every succeeding month. It is submitted that whenever the defendant made payments towards rents, the plaintiff used to issue receipt. The mode of payment of rent is month to month payable in first week of every succeeding month and there is no deposit of advance for the lease and the defendant shall vacate the 2 premises by 2014. It is further submitted that at the request of defendant, the plaintiff extended the lease for a further period up to December 2015 orally by enhancing the rent at the rate of `7,500/- p.m. It is further averred that without the permission of the plaintiff, defendant started manufacturing unit of bakery and damaged premises and violated the lease condition and also fell due of ` 45,000/- till December 2015 and prolonging his stay in the premises without paying rents. There upon plaintiff got issued a statutory eviction notice to the defendant on 10.01.2016 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises duly by paying the entire dues of rents to the plaintiff and to deliver its vacant possession. The defendant after receiving the notice, gave a reply with false and untenable allegations. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that on 01.09.2009, plaintiff leased out the plaint schedule property i.e., three shops-rooms to the defendant for a rent of ` 3,000/- per month, and on the same day plaintiff and defendant executed Rent Deed for one year scribed by husband of plaintiff i.e., M.V.Sitaramayya. As per the terms and conditions of the rent deed, the defendant has to pay monthly rent of `3,000/- for three shop-rooms i.e., including the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and this defendant has to pay electricity charges to the

Electricity Department. At the time of executing the rend deed, as per the terms and conditions, this defendant has paid `15,000/- to the plaintiff towards advance and the plaintiff has to return the said advance amount to this defendant at the time of vacating the premises. It is submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the rent deed, defendant is paying rents every month to the plaintiff regularly and also paying electricity charges to the Electricity Department without any due. It is submitted that the defendant is doing bakery business in the three shop-rooms and has been paying profession tax to the Mogalthur Gram Panchayat every year. In the month of

September, 2013, the plaintiff enhanced the rent after four years of the said rent deed from ` 3,000/- to ` 3,800/- per month for the three shop-rooms and he never committed default in paying the arrears of rents.

3

(ii) The defendant further contended that in the 2nd week of December 2015, the plaintiff and her husband demanded the defendant to vacate the 3 shop-rooms including the plaint schedule property otherwise to disconnect the electricity service connection through electricity department. It is further contended that plaintiff illegally and unlawfully disconnected the electricity connection in the schedule premises on 08.01.2016 through electricity department, thus he sustained heavy loss. The defendant further submitted that defendant has no source of income except the above said bakery business and his entire family is depended on the income arrived from running bakery. The defendant further contended that the intention of the plaintiff is to give the shops to a new tenant for higher rents and further alleged that the plaintiff did not follow the procedure to evict the defendant from the schedule shop-rooms and that there are no merits and bonafides in the case of the plaintiff. Submitting thus, prays the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial of the suit:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from schedule property and further direction to handover vacant possession to plaintiff ?

2. Whether the defendant committed default in payment of rent to schedule property ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent from July, 2015 to June, 2016, as prayed for ?

4. To what relief ?

5. To prove the respective contentions, Plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 and during the course of cross-examination by defendant, Ex.B1 was marked. The evidence of PWs 2 to 3 are eschewed as they failed to turn up. In spite of giving chances to adduce defendant evidence, defendant failed to turn up, and on 25.07.2019, this court closed the evidence of defendant.

6. Heard and perused the record.

4

ISSUE No.1 :

7. Lease is a transfer of ‘right of enjoyment’ of an immovable property for a certain period, in consideration of a price paid or promised to be paid. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to factum of jural relationship. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he leased out plaint schedule property premises to the defendant for three years about five years back and defendant shall vacate the premises by 2014. It is further submitted that at the request of defendant, plaintiff extended the lease period upto December 2015. It is also contended by the plaintiff that plaint schedule premises is leased out to the defendant for selling unit but not for manufacturing, but the defendant started manufacture unit and violated lease condition. It is also contended by the plaintiff that due to road widening, plaint schedule property was damaged and he required the schedule property for doing repairs. It is also urged by the plaintiff that defendant is liable to be evicted from the plaint schedule premises for willful default, act of waste and for bonafide requirement. It is also urged by the plaintiff that the lease with regard to plaint schedule property is terminated by December 2015.

8. Duration is an essential element of every lease. For ascertaining the term of the lease, Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act classified leases into two categories.

(i) Leases from year to year , when the lease is made for agriculture or manufacturing purposes.

(ii) Leases from month to month, when the lease is made for any other purpose.

Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act categorically enumerates that where a lease is made for agriculture or manufacturing purposes, it is deemed to be a lease for year to year and when the purpose is neither agriculture nor manufacturing, the leases are for ‘other purposes’. Therefore, when the leases are made for residential purposes or for running hotel or shops or for any other purpose which could not be included in the category of agriculture on manufacturing purpose, they may come under category of ‘other purpose’. In the present case, it is the contention of the plaintiff that he leased 5 out the plaint schedule premises to the defendant to run bakery. Hence, it is clear that the lease is not for agriculture or manufacturing purpose and it falls in the category of other purposes.

9. According to Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, lease for agriculture or manufacturing pruposes may be terminated by giving six months notice and the lease given for any other purposes may be terminated by giving 15 days notice. Notice to quit is, therefore a necessary preclude to legal determination of tenancy at the instance of lessor or lessee. In the present case, plaintiff issued statutory notice which is marked as Ex.A1 directing the defendant to vacate the premises. Plaintiff by issuing the statutory notice complied the statutory requirement, further the lease is also terminable by the end of December 2015. In the light of above discussion, the fact that the defendant remained in the possession of plaint schedule premises even after issuing statutory notice by plaintiff entitles the plaintiff for eviction of defendant from schedule property. Accordingly, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE Nos.2 AND 3 :

10. The contention of the plaintiff is that he leased out the plaint schedule premises for `5,000/- per month and subsequently at the request of defendant he extended the lease period for one year i.e., till December 2015 by enhancing rent from `5,000/- to `7,500/- . It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant did not pay the rent for the last six months and fell in due `45,000/- till December 2015 and committed willful default.

11. On evaluating the evidence of PW1, during the course of cross-examination,

PW1 deposed that she cannot say the specific date and month when she enhanced the rent from `3,000/- to `5,000/-. PW1 categorically admitted that except oral evidence there is no documentary proof to show that defendant used to pay rent of `5,000/- per month. PW1 also deposed that she cannot state how many years back she leased out the plaint schedule property shops to the defendant. PW1 also deposed that she 6 cannot state from which year to which year defendant committed default of arrears of rent and also admitted that she has no documentary proof to show that defendant paid rent of `7,500/- per month to her. Further when defendant confronted Photostat copy of rent agreement which is marked as Ex.B1, plaintiff stated that as per the said rent deed the defendant agreed to pay `3,000/-. Plaintiff also during the course of cross- examination categorically admitted that she enhanced the rent from `3,000/- `3,800/- in the month of September, 2013. Further plaintiff also admitted that defendant used to deposit the rentals of `3,800/- per month since the date of filing of the suit in O.S.

No.1/2016.

12. On appraisal of evidence of PW1, there is no documentary evidence to show that lease amount with regard to plaint schedule premises is `5,000/- per month initially and subsequently it was enhanced to ` 7,500/- per month. On the other hand the admitted fact during the course of cross-examination made by the plaintiff stating that she enhanced rent from `3,000/- to `3,800/- in the month of September clearly established the fact that the lease of plaint schedule property premises was only for `3,000/- per month initially and subsequently it was enhanced to `3,800/- per month. The main contention of the plaintiff is that plaintiff committed willful default in paying the arrears of rent. However, during the course of cross-examination, plaintiff stated that she cannot state from which years to which year the defendant committed default of arrears of rent.

The admitted fact that defendant is depositing the rentals @ `3,800/- per month since the date of filing of the suit in O.S.No. 1/2016 establishes the fact that defendant was not irregular in paying the rents. On evaluating the evidence, PW1 categorically failed to establish that plaint schedule property premises was leased out to the defendant for a rent of `5,000/- p.m. and subsequently it was enhanced to ` 7,500/- per month.

Further, plaintiff also failed to establish that defendant committed willful default in paying the arrears of rent. In the light of above discussion, issues 2 and 3 are answered against the plaintiff.

7

ISSUE No.4:

13. In the result, the suit is decreed partly with costs directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule premises within two months from the date of decree, failing which plaintiff is at liberty to get the same done by following the due process of law.

The relief with regard to arrears of rent from July 2015 to June 2016 is dismissed.

Plaintiff is required to pay the Court Fee and on payment of such court fee, decree shall be drawn.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court, this the 19 th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- Sri P.S.V.B. Krishna Chaitanya

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Maturu Krishnaveni --- P.W.2: J. Victor (Eschewed) P.W.3: P. Varma (Eschewed)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex. A1 : Statutory legal notice dt. 10.01.2016 Ex. A2 : Reply notice dt. 13.01.2016 Ex. A3 : Original Certificate issued by Mandal Legal Services Committee, Narsapur vide Legal Aid No. 8/2016 with regard to payment of Court Fee.

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1 : Photostat copy of lease agreement dt. 01.09.2019.

Sd/- Sri P.S.V.B. Krishna Chaitanya

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NARASAPUR

Present: Sri P.S.V.B. Krishna Sai Teja, Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapur

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

C.C.No. 337 OF 2014

Between:

The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Narasapuram Town P.S. ... Complainant

A N D

Tirumani Durga Rao, S/o. Bala Raju, Aged 28 years, C/A.K. Kshatriya, Mallampudi village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District … Accused

This case is coming before me on 13.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for Prosecution, and of Sri Y.D. Phanikar, Legal Aid Counsel for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasapuram Town P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC in Crime

No. 73/2014.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(i) The Hon’ble Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur endorsed a private complaint filed by the PW1-Tirumani Bhavani. Basing on it, on 03.05.2014, the prosecution registered the same as a case in Crime No. 73/2014 under Section 498-A of IPC r/w 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the A1 to A5 and issued FIR and took up investigation.

(ii) The case of prosecution is that the marriage of P.W.1-Tirumani Bhavani was performed with the A1 on 22.02.2011 at Venkataswara Swamy Temple as per the Hindu Caste customs and rites. At the time of marriage the parents of PW1 gave 2 `1,00,000/- towards dowry and ` 20,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams besides presenting Household articles worth ` 30,000/- to the A1. At the beginning of the marriage on the first night itself, the A1 stated to the PW1 that he does not like her and she is not suitable to him and the dowry given by them is not sufficient and if he marries another girl, he will get lakhs of rupees as dowry, and therefore started ill- treating the PW1 and used to come to the house in drunken state and used to beat the PW1 indiscriminately and when the PW1 informed the same to A2 to A5, they did not take any action against the A1 and they also used to treat the PW1 as a servant maid and demanded for `50,000/- and when she expressed her inability all the accused used to beat the PW1 indiscriminately. PW1 bore all the harassment with a hope that they will change their attitude but the accused did not change their attitude. In the month of June 2012 all the accused beat the PW1 and demanded `50,000/- towards additional dowry and when she refused the same, all the accused necked out the PW1 from their house, as such the PW1 reached to her parents house at Peechupalem. The father of PW1 several times placed the matter before the elders to lead matrimonial life but the accused did not heed the words of elders.

As such, PW1got issued a registered notice dt. 21.09.2012 to the A1 demanding maintenance of `5,000/- but the A1 did not give any reply nor paid any amount towards maintenance.

(iii) The further case of prosecution is that after thorough investigation, prosecution came to conclusion that only the husband of defacto-complainant committed offence and no offence was established against the remaining accused.

Hence the prosecution served notice to the defacto-complainant and also obtained permission from the SDPO, Narsapur for deletion of names of A2 to A5 from the FIR.

After completion of investigation, prosecution filed charge sheet against the accused i.e., A1 alleging that he is liable for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of

IPC. Hence the Charge, 3

3. On perusal of material available on record, Additional Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Narasapur took cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC against the accused. Thereafter, this case was transferred to this Court as per the

Proceedings of the Hon’ble District Court, West Godavari, Eluru in Dis.No. 1157, dt.

31.12.2016.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused is examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., on hearing both sides, charges under Section 498-A of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 to 5 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P4. On behalf of the defendant Ex.D1 was marked.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence and his plea was a total denial and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is -

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Sec.

498-A of I.P.C.?

P O I N T :

10. PW1 is the defacto-complainant who set criminal law into motion. The cardinal principal of criminal justice system is that prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no dispute with regard to factum of marriage between PW1 and accused. The evidence of PW1 is that at the time of her marriage her parents gave cash of ` 1,00,000/- and customary expenses of 4 `50,000/- besides 1 sovereign of gold to the accused towards dowry. PW1 deposed that they lived happily for a period of three years and thereafter accused harassed her physically and mentally for additional dowry and also harassed her by saying that he married against his will. PW1 deposed that accused also tried to tie her neck with her hair and accused also tried to throw her from the running train while going to Hyderabad. PW1 deposed that she informed all these facts to her parents and placed the matter before elders and accused promissed before elders that he will look after without causing any harassment and troubles but the accused did not change his attitude.

During the course of cross-examination, PW1 deposed that she did not state

before police that accused tried to tie her neck with her hair. PW1 also deposed that

she did not state to the police that the accused tried to push her from running train.

PW1 also deposed that she cannot say the date when accused beat her and necked out from his house.

11. The evidence of PW2 who is the sister of PW1 is that at the time of marriage, her parents presented cash of `1,00,000/- towards dowry and also gave cash of `50,000/- towards lanchanams. PW2 deposed that accused harassed PW1 for

additional dowry and she deposed that she came to know the same fact through

PW1. During course of cross-examination, PW2 deposed that she has no personal knowledge about demand of additional dowry made by the accused. PW2 deposed that she was not examined by the police.

12. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 are not helpful to the case of prosecution. PWs 3 and 4 turned hostile. The evidence of PW5 who is the investigating officer is procedural in nature. He deposed about registering FIR in this case after receiving court endorsement, examining the witnesses and filing charge sheet after completion of investigation.

5

13. The prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 498-A IPC has to establish essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A as follows:

(1) A woman was married; (2) She was subjected to cruelty; (3) Such cruelty consisted in –

i) Any lawful conduct as was likely to drive such woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or physical; ii) Harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any of her relations to meet the lawful demand; iii) The woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or any relation of her husband.

14. On evaluating the evidence of PW1, she did not elicit how much additional dowry was demanded by the accused. It is settled law that court to act upon evidence of any witness must be reliable, trustworthy and cogent. PW1 during her chief examination deposed that accused tried to tie her neck with her hair and accused tried to throw her from running train. During the course of cross- examination, PW1 deposed that she did not state before the police that accused tried to tie her neck with her hair and also deposed that she did not state before police that accused tried push her from the running train. The evidence of PW2 is hearsay in nature. During cross-examination of PW2, she categorically deposed that she has no personal knowledge about demand of additional dowry made by the accused. PW2 also deposed that she was not examined by the police. PW2 also did not specify the additional dowry demanded by the accused. PW3 who is the mother of PW1 deposed that she does not know anything about the facts of the case. On evaluating the evidence of prosecution, the evidence of PW1 lacks consistency and corroboration from the other witnesses.

1)In a decision reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 between state of A.P. vs

M. Madhusudhana Rao wherein it was discussed by the Hon’ble

Apex Court that “Every harassment does not amount to cruelty 6

within the meaning of Section 498-A. For the purpose of Section

498-A, harassment simplicitor is not cruelty and it is only when

harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or

any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for

property etc. that it amounts to cruelty punishable under Section

498-A IPC.”

2)In a decision reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73 between State of West

Bengal Vs Orilal Jaiswal wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed that “In a criminal trial, the charges made against the accused must

be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. This requirement does not

stand altered in a case of Section 498-A IPC.”

15. The cardinal principal of criminal justice system is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On evaluating the evidence of prosecution, it consists inconsistencies and evidence of PW1 lacks corroboration. In view of above discussion, prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

16. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec. 498-A of IPC, and he is acquitted u/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused who is in judicial remand shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The accused is directed to execute bond for ` 5,000/- under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before appellate court, if any, appeal is preferred.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- P.S.V.B.KRISHNA SAI TEJA

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : T. Bhavani -- NONE -- P.W.2 : Malladi Lakshmi P.W.3 : K. Vara Lakshmi P.W.4 : M. Nageswara Rao P.W.5 : Jana Sateesh, Investigating Officer

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Private Complaint of PW1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 Ex.P4: Original FIR

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1 : Portion of text marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1

M.O’s MARKED:

-- NIL –

Sd/- P.S.V.B.KRISHNA SAI TEJA

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of Cases tried by PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARSAPUR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Release on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prior to 03.05.2014 03.05.2014 19-05-2014 26.06.2014** ** On execution of NBW, accused has been in judicial remand since 13.01.2020, and produced before the Court on the date of judgment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 03-11-2017 13-03-2020 19-03-2020 Due to non-production of witnesses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No. 337/2014 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cr.No. 73/2014 of Narasapuram Town P.S. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion: Calling Village ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tirumani Durga Rao, S/o. Bala Raju, Aged 28 years, C/A.K. Kshatriya, Mallampudi village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence : u/Sec. 498-A of I.P.C.

Finding : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec. 498-A of IPC, and he is acquitted u/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused who is in judicial remand shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The accused is directed to execute bond for ` 5,000/- under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before appellate court, if any, appeal is preferred.

Sd/- P.S.V.B.KRISHNA SAI TEJA

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru Copy to the Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NARASAPUR

Present: Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja, Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapur

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

O.S. No. 67 OF 2019

Between:

Chamakuri Ramakrishna, S/o. Tulasidas, Aged 48 years, Male, Hindu, Property, D.No.4-147, Seetharamapuram South, Narasapur Mandal … Plaintiff

AND

Boddu Rambabu, S/o. Lakshmana Rao, Aged 45 yrs., Male, Hindu, Employee, D.No. 2-2-1/8, Ponnapalli, 2nd Ward, Narasapur-534275 … Defendant

This suit has come before me on 12.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Satyakrishna, Advocate for plaintiff; and of Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the defendant; and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of ` 1,31,000/- being the principal and interest due under promissory note dated 11.12.2017 executed by the defendant, and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that on 11.12.2017 defendant borrowed an amount of ` 1,00,00/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts, and on the even date executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ ` 2/- per month per hundred with yearly compound rests payable on demand either to the plaintiff or his order. Subsequently, in spite of demands made by the plaintiff personally and through elders, defendant did not turn up to repay the pronote debt. Then the plaintiff got issued a registered notice dt.

25.02.2019 demanding the defendant to discharge the pronote debt, but the defendant did not receive or come forward for repayment of pronote debt. Hence, the suit.

2

3. After receipt of summons from the Court, the defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that he had no necessity to borrow any amount either from the plaintiff or from anybody and never happened to execute suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 11.12.2017. It is further submitted that the plaintiff doing money lending business and his friend one Kopanathi

Hanumantha Rao borrowed an amount of `50,000/- from the plaintiff, at that time the defendant signed as surety on empty promissory note, subsequently the said Kopanathi

Hanumantha Rao died due to heart attack. It is further submitted that the plaintiff in furtherance of his malafide intention against this defendant, brought into existence of the suit promissory note by way of filing the empty promissory note in collusion with the attestors and scribe. It is further submitted that there are neither merits nor bonafides of the plaintiff in filing the suit. Submitting thus, prays the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on theabove pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

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

3) To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, Plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and also got examined PW2 and got marked Exs. A1 to A3. Defendant himself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked.

6. Heard arguments.

7. ISSUE Nos. 1 AND 2:

Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act enumerates until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made.

a) of consideration that- every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; 3

b) as to date- that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;

c) as to time of acceptance- that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;

d) as to time of transfer- that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;

e) as to order of endorsements- that the endorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;

f) as to stamps- that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;

g) that holder is a holder in due course that the holder of a negotiable instrument is hold in due course; provided that, where the instrument has been contained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.

Hence, the presumption under section 118 of Negotiable instruments Act is in favour of plaintiff and burden lies on the defendant to rebut the presumption.

8. The Court has to look whether the promissory note was executed by the defendant or not. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant borrowed an amount of `1,00,000/- on 11.12.2017 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour in the presence of PW2 who is the attestor. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time and further contended that he merely stood as surety for his friend Kopanathi Hanumantha Rao when he borrowed amount of `50,000/- from plaintiff.

9. The rules laid down under Sections 59, 91, 92 and 144 of Indian Evidence Act says any fact recorded in a document shall be proved with the aid of those documents only. Plaintiff /PW1 to establish the fact with regard to execution of promissory note got marked Ex.A1 which is promissory note dt. 11.12.2017. PW1 also got examined PW2 who is the attestor of the promissory note. PW2 in his chief affidavit deposed that defendant borrowed an amount of `1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 11.12.2017.

10. The case of the defendant is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note. It is further contended that he merely acted as surety for his friend Kopanathi Hanumantha Rao when he borrowed an amount 4 of `50,000/- from the plaintiff. It is further contended that the plaintiff brought into existence the suit promissory note in collusion with attestors and scribe. On evaluating the evidence of DW1 during his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that signature on Ex.A1 belongs to him. It is settled law that admitted facts need not be proved. Defendant failed to fortify his contention that he acted as merely surety for his friend Kopanathi Hanumantha Rao when he borrowed `50,000/- from the plaintiff. In the present case, except making bare allegations, defendant failed to fortify his contention.

11. There is no necessity for the plaintiff, attestor to falsely implicate defendant. With the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 established that the defendant executed promissory note of ` 1,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff. Defendant except making mere allegation failed to fortify his contentions. Hence the contentions of the defendant remain unproved. Hence with the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act the burden to prove suit promissory note is untrue, invalid and not binding lies on the defendant. Accordingly, the Issues Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3:

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay an amount of ` 1,31,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

Thirty One Thousand only) with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter interest @ 6% per annum till the date of realisation on the principal amount of ` 1,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this 18 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- Sri P.S.V.B. Krishna Sai Teja

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasapur 5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Chamakuri Ramakrishna D.W.1: Boddu Rambabu P.W.2: Inti Naga Venkateswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1: Original Promissory Note dt. 11.12.2017 Ex.A2: Office copy of Legal Notice dt. 25.02.2019 Ex.A3: Returned Legal Notice of defendant, dt. 28.02.2019.

FOR DEFENDAN: -- Nil --

Sd/- Sri P.S.V.B. Krishna Sai Teja

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narasapur

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NARASAPUR

Present: Sri P.S.V.B. Krishna Sai Teja, Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapur

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

C.C.No. 56 OF 2019

Between:

State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mogalthur Police Station ... Complainant

A N D

1. Padavala Yesubabu, S/o. Chandra Rao, Aged 49 years, Kapu, Cultivation, Pippallavarithota, H/o. Ramannapalem village, Mogalthur Mandal.

2. Padavala Yajna Anjinarayana Chandraprasad @ Chandu Prasad, S/o. Yesubabu, Aged 22 yrs., Kapu, Cultivation, Pippallavarithota, H/o. Ramannapalem (V), Mogalthur Mandal … Accused

This case is coming before me on 12.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for Prosecution, and of Sri G. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogalthur P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 506, 354(D) r/w 34 of IPC in

Crime No. 95/2016 of Mogalthur P.S.

2. It is the case of prosecution that A1 is the brother-in-law of defacto- complainant and A2 is the son of A1. Defacto-complainant and accused are having landed properties in Adaviparra and there are deep rooted ill-feelings between them.

Whileso, on 26.04.2016 at 8:00 a.m., while the defacto-complainant was collecting coconuts from her coconut garden, both the accused came there and pushed her with hands, made her fell down, abused her in vulgar language, harassed sexually using criminal force, assaulted and outraged her modesty. Accused also taken her 2 photos and threatened her that they will post her photos into Facebook. On seeing the same, LW2 intervened and when he questioned the acts of accused, both the accused came upon him with a crowbar, threatened that they will kill them. LWs 3 to 5 witnessed the incident. Later defacto-complainant lodged report to police.

(ii) Having received the report, the same was registered as a case in

Crime No. 95/2016 u/Sec. 447, 506, 354-D r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, PW3-S.I. of Police visited the scene of offence, prepared Rough Sketch, collected ample evidence and arrested the accused on 13.05.2016 and released them on bail. After completion of investigation, PW3 filed charge sheet before the court. Hence, the Charge.

3. On perusal of material available on record, Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Narasapur took cognizance for the offence under Section 447, 354(D),

506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and on hearing both sides, charges under Sections 447, 506, 354-D of IPC has been framed by

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur on 12.03.2018 and the same

is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, this case was transferred to this Court as per the Proceedings of the Hon’ble District Court, West Godavari, Eluru in Dis.No. 3108, dt. 14.05.2019.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P5.

3

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution, and their plea was a total denial and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is -

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under

Section 447, 506, 354-D of IPC ?

P O I N T :

10. LW.1-P. Anantha Lakshmi is the defacto-complainant who set criminal law into motion. However, the prosecution filed the memo that whereabouts of LW1 were not known, as such her evidence was closed. The cardinal principal of criminal justice system is that prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. PWs 1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Considering their evidence, the learned A.P.P. sought permission to put questions in nature of cross-examination and same was permitted. During course of cross-examination by learned A.P.P. nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW1 and PW2 except marking documents.

11. The evidence of PW2 who is the investigating officer is procedural in nature.

He deposed about registering FIR, examining the witnesses, visiting the scene of offence and preparing rough sketch. On evaluating the evidence of prosecution, there is no evidence to establish that accused committed offence under sections 447, 506, 354D of IPC. Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused.

4

12. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 447, 506, 354-D of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled. The accused are directed to execute bond for `10,000/- under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, this the 18 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- P.S.V.B.KRISHNA SAI TEJA

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur

PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE :

P.W.1: Y. Nageswara Rao -- None-- P.W.2: T. Srinu @ Srinivasarao P.W.3: D.J. Ratnam

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 -- Nil -- Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P3 : Report of complaint Ex.P4 : Original FIR Ex.P5 : Rough Sketch of Scene of Offence

M.O’s MARKED:

-- Nil –

Sd/- P.S.V.B.KRISHNA SAI TEJA

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur 5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of Cases tried by PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARSAPUR --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Release on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26.04.2016 10.05.2016 12.05.2016 12.05.2016 (Sec. 41-A of Cr.P.C) (Station Bail) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.12.2019 13.03.2020 18.03.2020 Due to non-production of witnesses --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No. 56/2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cr.No. 95/2016 of Mogalthur P.S. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion: Calling Village ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Padavala Yesubabu, S/o. Chandra Rao, Aged 49 years, Kapu, Cultivation, Pippallavarithota, H/o. Ramannapalem village, Mogalthur Mandal.

2. Padavala Yajna Anjinarayana Chandraprasad @ Chandu Prasad, S/o. Yesubabu, Aged 22 yrs., Kapu, Cultivation, Pippallavarithota, H/o. Ramannapalem (V), Mogalthur Mandal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : u/Sec. 447, 506, 354-D of IPC

Finding : A1 and A2 are not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 447, 506, 354-D of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled. The accused are directed to execute bond for `10,000/- under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/- P.S.V.B.KRISHNA SAI TEJA

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NARASAPUR

PRESENT: SRI P.S.V.B. KRISHNA SAI TEJA, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasapur

Tuesday, this the 12th day of April, 2022

O.S. No. 280 OF 2021

Between:

Bank of Baroda, Narsapur represented by its Senior Branch Manager, R/o D.No.6-4-11, Kavali Complex, Kotipallivari street, Narsapur, West Godavari District, NPJCJ. … Plaintiff

AND

1. Kavuru Kanaga Durga, W/o Rambabu, Hindu, Age 39 yrs, Female, R/o D.No.2-113/A, Adavipalem, Kontheru, W.G.Dist 534260.

2. Nilla Bhulakshmi, W/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Age 55 yrs, Female, R/o D.No.26-4-5, Ramayya Hall, Doddipatla Road, Palakol, W.G.Dist., 534260.… Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 04.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Satya Krishna, advocate for plaintiff, and the defendant was set exparte, and upon perusing the plaint, and other material papers available on record, and upon hearing, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,24,516/- with subsequent interest and costs basing on the term loan agreement dated 21.02.2018.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

That the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff bank for loan and submitted an application dt.11.02.2018 and the plaintiff agreed to grant to agricultural cash credit loan for a duration of 5 years which is repayable every year with interest. Accordingly, the plaintiff granted loan and the 1st defendant took a loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for cultivation in order to raise crop, and executed term loan agreement dt.21.02.2018 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 7% at half yearly rests. The plaintiff has opened an account in the name of 1st defendant for the purpose of loan transactions vide No. 404408651000547 and the 1st defendant has operated the said 2 account by availing the loan limit granted. The 2nd defendant agreed to be the guarantor to the 1st defendant, having execute a deed of guarantee in favor of the plaintiff on 21.02.2018. Thereafter the Vijaya Bank was merged with Bank of Baroda under the scheme of amalgamation published in the Gazette of India vide G.S.R.NO.2(E), dt.02.01.2019 and with effect from 01.04.2019.

Subsequently, on verification of the account of the 1st defendant and relevant documents furnished by her it was found that the Voter Identity card and the revenue record such as Pattadar passbook adangals and possession certificate are not genuine. After coming to know the fraud committed by the 1st plaintiff, defendant got issued registered legal notice on 04.06.2020 calling upon the defendants to repay the entire loan amount with interest. In spite of notice the defendants did not come forward to pay the due amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3.On 04.03.2022 D1 and D2 were set exparte as there was no representation.

4.In lieu of chief examination affidavit of P.W.1, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8.

5.Heard counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for determination is –

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the loan amount as prayed for?

P O I N T:

7.In order to establish the facts mentioned in the plaint, the Deputy Manager, Bank of

Baroda deposed as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the Original Loan Application dt.11.02.2018, Ex.A2 is the Original Loan Sanctioned Letter dt.21.02.2018, Ex.A3 is the

Original Loan Agreement -cum- Hypothecation Deed, dt.21.02.2018, Ex.A4 is the Original

Letter of Guarantee, dt.21.02.2018, Ex.A5 is the True Extract copy of Account

No.404408651000547, dt.31.03.2020, Ex.A6 is the Copy of Registered Legal Notice dt.04.06.2020, Ex.A7 is the Original Postal Acknowledgment of D1 dt.16.06.2020, Ex.A8 is the

Original Postal Acknowledgment of D2 dt.16.06.2020. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly supports the averments of the plaint that the 1st defendant took loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 21.02.2018 for cultivation in order to raise crop and executed Ex.A3 loan agreement in favour of 3 the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 7% at half yearly rests. The 2nd defendant agreed to be the guarantor to the 1st defendant, having executed a deed of guarantee in favor of the plaintiff on 21.02.2018. Subsequently, after coming to know the fraud committed by the 1st defendant, then the plaintiff got issued Ex.A6 Registered Notice, dt. 04.06.2020.

8. On placing sufficient evidence by the plaintiff/PW1 and marking Exs.A1 to A8, his evidence established that 1st defendant received the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and executed

Ex.A3 on 21.02.2018. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs. A1 to A8, categorically establishes the execution of Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. Therefore, the burden shifts on the defendants to disprove the case of plaintiff, but the defendants did not challenge the testimony of P.W1. Thus the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A8 remains unchallenged as defendants did not appear and cross examined P.W1. The liability of 2nd defendant is the same liability of the 1st defendant since 1st and 2nd defendants are jointly and severally liable. The evidence of P.W1 and

Exs.A1 to A8 establish the suit claim. Thus, the plaintiff claimed the suit claim against the defendants. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff against the defendants.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendants for an amount of Rs.1,24,516/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, and 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Dictated to my Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the Open Court, this the 12 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri.P.S.V.B. Krishna Sai Teja,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Kolli Hemantha Sai Kumar Exparte 4

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.A1: Original Loan Application dt.11.02.2018 - Nil - Ex.A2: Original Loan Sanctioned Letter dt.21.02.2018 Ex.A3: Original Loan Agreement -cum- Hypothecation Deed, dt.21.02.2018 Ex.A4: Original Letter of Guarantee, dt.21.02.2018 Ex.A5: True Extract copy of Account No.404408651000547, dt.31.03.2020 Ex.A6: Copy of Registered Legal Notice dt.04.06.2020 Ex.A7: Original Postal Acknowledgment of D1 dt.16.06.2020 Ex.A8: Original Postal Acknowledgment of D2 dt.16.06.2020

Sd/- Sri.P.S.V.B. Krishna Sai Teja,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur