Sri R.j.viswanadham, B.sc.,ll.m.,

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDANKI

Present: - Kum. P. Radhamma, M.A., M.L.,

Senior Civil Judge, Addanki

Wednesday, this the 12th day of March, 2014

ORIGINAL SUIT No.128/2011

Between:

Gunji Venkata Rao s/o.Venkateswarlu, aged about 46 years, Hindu, cultivation and business, permanent resident of Medarametla village of Korisapadu Mandal, Presently residing at Erukala Colony, Uppugunduru village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District ….Plaintif

AND

Komiri Kotaiah s/o.Veeraiah, aged about 34 years, Hindu, business, resident of Vijaya Nagar Colony, Martur village and Mandal.….Defendant

This suit coming on 10.03.2014 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch.Srinivasa Rao,Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri I.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for the defendant, and upon perusal of the material on record, upon hearing the counsel of both sides, 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 fled by the plaintif for recovery of Rs.4,30,186/- on the foot of a promissory note, and for costs.

2.The brief facts of the plaint, in nutshell, are as follows:

(a)The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- from the plaintif on 16.02.2011 for his business purpose and executed a promissory note on the same day, undertaking to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintif or on his order or demand.

Subsequently, despite of several demands made by the plaintif both personally and through mediators to discharge the due under Ex.A-1 promissory note, the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt and has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other.

Thereafter, the plaintif got issued a legal notice on 11.06.2011 under

Ex.A-2 demanding the defendant to discharge the debt under Ex.A-1, and the same was acknowledged by the defendant and the defendant sent a reply notice through his Advocate with all false allegations on 17.06.2011 under Ex.A-3. Hence, the present suit.

3.(a)On the other hand, the defendant fled his written statement assailing the averments mentioned in the plaint denying the 2 borrowing of amount of Rs.3,70,000/- on 16.02.2011 and further defencing that the suit promissory note must be a rank forgery one brought into existence purposefully. No consideration was passed under the said document. In fact, the defendant has purchased an extent of Ac.0.47 cents in S.No.823 and Ac.2.38 cents in S.No.824, totaling to Ac.2.85 cents of land from the plaintif under a stamped agreement of sale dated 16.02.2011 and in that connection, this defendant paid an amount of Rs.4,15,000/- towards advance on that date itself to the plaintif, and it was also agreed to get the land measured and to receive the balance of sale consideration for the extent arrived to and execute a proper sale deed in favour of the defendant by the plaintif with regard to the property sold by him to the defendant with his expenses in terms of the agreement of sale

dated 16.02.2011.

(b)Subsequently, the defendant demanded the plaintif several times both personally and through mediators to get the said land measured and to take the balance of sale consideration for the extent arrived it. But the plaintif did not evince any interest and has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other. So, the defendant got issued a legal notice dated 10.05.2011 to the plaintif demanding him to perform his part of contract under the agreement of sale. On receipt of the said notice, the plaintif got sent a reply admitting the execution of agreement of sale and receipt of advance amount, but denied to measure the land on the pretext that the said property was sold as of bill contract. So, there arose some ill-feelings between the plaintif and the defendant. In view of the said disputes, the plaintif, who is bent upon to cause loss and put the defendant to trouble to have unlawful gain, got fabricated the suit document and got issued a legal notice with a false claim, and later fled the present suit with all false and untenable allegations.

(c)In fact, the defendant has no necessity to borrow any amount from the plaintif, much less the amount covered under suit document relied on by the plaintif, which is a rank forgery one. This defendant got no business at all even otherwise, the plaintif is not entitled to claim interest as he claimed. Further, the suit promissory note is evidently a materially altered one. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

3

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated and materially altered?

3. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the suit claim?

4. To what relief?

5.In order to ensure the plaintiffs claim, the plaintif Gunji Venkata

Rao is examined as PW.1, and the 2nd attestor by name Tanneeru

Koteswara Rao is examined as PW.2, and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 through the plaintif/PW.1. After closure of the plaintiffs side evidence, the defendant Komiri Kotaiah is examined as DW.1, and the scribe of

Ex.A-1, by name G.Ramulu is examined as DW.2, and the 1st attestor of

Ex.A-1 by name Gunji Subba Rao is examined as DW.3. No documents are fled and marked on behalf of the defendant.

6.Heard arguments of the plaintif. The learned counsel for the defendant fled written arguments.

7.ISSUE Nos.1 & 2:

(a)It is the claim of the plaintif in the suit that he lent the amount of Rs.3,70,000/- to the defendant under Ex.A-1 and subsequently, the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt under Ex.A-1 pronote. Then, he got issued a legal notice demanding the defendant to repay the said amount . In turn, the defendant caused reply denying all the allegations which are made mention in the

Ex.A-2 legal notice. At the same time, the defence of the defendant is having three fold i.e. (1) the defendant has no necessity to borrow such a huge amount; (2) fabrication; and (3) material alteration of

Ex.A-1 pronote. The defendant pleads that basing on those three aspects, the suit may be dismissed.

(b)On going through the documents and occular evidence available on record, it is very clear that the plaintif tried to convince the Court to prove the execution and passing of consideration under

Ex.A-1 promissory note and got himself examined as PW.1 and examined the 2nd attestor by name Koteswara Rao as PW.2 to 4 corroborate the execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A-1.

On the other hand, unfortunately, the defendant examined himself as

DW.1 and examined the scribe by name Gunji Ramulu, and the frst attestor by name G.Subba Rao, of Ex.A-1, as DWs2 & 3 respectively, to corroborate the non-execution of the pronote and non-passing of consideration on the date of ExA-1 pronote i.e. 16.02.2011, which is apparently found on the suit promissory note.

(c)Regarding the means of the defendant, a new version was set up in the averments of Written Statement and it is also admitted by the plaintif in his evidence that this defendant had purchased an extent of Ac.2.85 cents of land comprised in S.Nos.823 & 824 from the plaintif Gunji Venkata Rao under a stamped agreement of sale dated 16.02.2011 i.e. the date of suit promissory note, and in that transaction, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.4,15,000/- to the plaintif towards advance amount on that day itself, and it was also agreed to get the land measured and then receive the balance sale consideration for the extent arrived to, and to execute a proper sale deed in favour of the defendant by the plaintif with his expenses, but subsequently, the plaintif did not evince any interest, and has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other despite of several demands made by the defendant both personally and through mediators, to get the said land measured and to take the balance sale consideration for the extent arrived. In that connection, the defendant got issued a legal notice dated 10.05.2011 to the plaintif demanding him to perform his part of contract under the agreement of sale and on receipt of said notice, the plaintif got issued a reply admitting the execution of agreement of sale, and receipt of advance amount, but denied to measure the land, because the said property was sold as of a bill contract. Thereupon, ill-feelings arose between the plaintif Gunji

Venkata Rao and the defendant Kotaiah. In view of the averments made by the defendant in his Written Statement and in his evidence, it is categorically admitted by the plaintif in his evidence regarding the existence of agreement of sale with the defendant and receiving consideration of Rs.4,15,000/- from him. So, in view of the above circumstances, it is substantially proved by way of admissions made by the plaintif in his evidence that the defendant paid Rs.4,15,000/- to the plaintif at the time of sale agreement dated 16.02.2011, and thus, with regard to the capacity of the defendant, it is proved that the defendant had no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the 5 plaintif, since the plaintif did not choose to measure the lands as well as registered the same in favour of the defendant as claimed by the defendant.

(d)It is argued by the defence counsel that the suit promissory note is materially altered one and it is a forged document, and his plea is that the defendant signed in empty promissory note and handed over the same to the plaintif, by which time, the total promissory note was empty and no such writings existing in the said promissory note, and that subsequently, the columns were flled up by the plaintif with the help of his henchmen and pressed the same into service is in question. In this regard, the scribe of Ex.A-1 by name

Gunji Ramulu and the 1st attestor of Ex.A-1 by name Gunji Subba Rao are examined as DWs1 & 2 respectively. The evidence of both these witnesses is not in corroboration to each other, and their evidence is not trustworthy, because, the scribe and the frst attestor i.e. DWs2 & 3 stated that the scribe Ramulu mentioned in Ex.A-1 the amount

Rs.70,000/- and flled up the entire body of the promissory note, by that time the presence of the defendant was not there. According to the version of scribe Ramulu, himself, plaintif and the frst attestor

Subba Rao were alone present by the time of execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note and no consideration was passed by that time. But it is the contrary to the evidence of plaintif. According to the plaintif, he lent Rs.3,70,000/- to the defendant and obtained Ex.A-1 promissory note.

(e)Regarding the place of execution of pronote itself is also vary from the evidence of each witness. According to the plaintif, the suit promissory note was scribed in the house of one Singarakonda, near RTC bus stand at Addanki. According to the evidence of PW.2

Koteswara Rao, the 2nd attestor, Ex.A-1 was scribed at Kalava Katta near bus stop. Whereas, according to the version of scribe, who is examined as DW.2, Ex.A-1 was scribed at his village Kothareddi palem.

It is the fact that there is no prohibition with regard to the place of execution of Ex.A-1, since at any place and at any point of time; the instrument can be executed, though the place of execution is in variation. The plaintif is a native of Medarametla. Both the plaintif and defendant, attestors and the scribe of Ex.A-1 are related to each other, which is admitted by the witnesses in their evidence. In those circumstances, there is no possibility to create a false document in favour of anybody. But apparently, it is on record that the evidence of 6 any one of the witnesses either on the plaintiffs side or defendantfs side is not corroborating with each other with regard to the place of execution of Ex.A-1 and passing of consideration under the same.

(f)The main and sole defect on the face of Ex.A-1 pronote is material alteration. It is visible from the naked eye that the writings and fgures in Ex.A-1 promissory note are totally got with variation regarding the ate, amount, so also the words in fgures. It is the version of the scribe of Ex.A-1 promissory note i.e. DW.2 that he wrote

Ex.A-1 by putting Rs.70-,000/- on the top of the pronote, and in words as ““ by leaving some space at the 10th line of the pronote. But at the 11th line of pronote, the writings “70,000/-“ was written by leaving a small space. There is no explanation ofered regarding this aspect. No one can write by leaving some space and fll up subsequent to that place. Even the fgure “70,000” in the body column and “70,000” on the top of the pronote are totally vary and not written by one person. It is traceable that in the top of the pronote ‘ 1 ‘ is altered as ‘ 7 ‘, and on the right side of the pronote, the numerical roman fgure was added before ‘ 6 ‘ i.e. after adding ‘ 1 ‘, thus the date of pronote is made as 16th. As per the own version of the scribe of

Ex.A-1 i.e. DW.2, his evidence is not corroborating with the recitals appended in the pronote. Therefore, it goes to show that DW.2 Gunji

Ramulu is not the scribe of Ex.A-1 pronote. On the other hand, on the top of the pronote ‘3f was added before ‘7f, as well as the recitals as “3,70,000/- “ “ is found with variation with the remaining portion i.e. “ “. So, the signatures of the attestors and scribe and the rest of the recitals in Ex.A-1 are vary as well as contrary to each and every one. As per the Negotiable

Instruments Act, if the document is found materially altered, such document is a void instrument and it cannot be taken into consideration and cannot be looked into.

(g)It is the well-settled principle that if the defence of a party is basing on the forgery or material alteration with regard to the pronote, certainly the party should seek permission to send the disputed instrument to the Hand Writing and Finger Prints Expert for comparison of the admitted and disputed documents, but in the present suit, either the plaintif or the defendant did not come forward seeking the said redressal by sending the suit promissory note to the

Expert. This is also a main lacuna on the part of both the defendant as well as the plaintif. Since it is already discussed above regarding the 7 material alteration and fabrication of the suit promissory note, this

Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Ex.A-1 promissory note is materially altered and pressed into service.

Accordingly, both these issues are answered against the plaintif.

8.ISSUE No.3:

In fact, the date of Ex.A-1 pronote is 16.02.2011, whereas the date of suit is 0212.2011 i.e. within 8 months after the existence of

Ex.A-1, the suit has been launched and therefore, a doubt is created in the mind of the Court from the above preponderance of the probabilities and circumstances. There is no substantial evidence to decree the suit basing on Ex.A-1 pronote in favour of the plaintif.

Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

9.ISSUE No.4:

In view of the foregoing discussion, the plaintif is not able to establish his claim basing in Ex.A-1 pronote, which is proved materially altered one and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

10.In the result, the suit is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of March, 2014.

Sd/-P.Radhamma,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Witnesses Examined-

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1: Gunji Venkata RaoDW.1: K.Kotaiah PW.2: Tanneeru Koteswara RaoDW.2: Gunji Ramulu DW.3: Gunji Subba Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A-:Suit promissory note 1/16.02.2011 Ex.A-:Office copy of the legal notice issued to the 2/17.06.2011defendant Ex.A-3/--:Reply notice issued by the defendant to the plaintif

FOR DEFENDANT:Nil

Ild/-P.R. S.C.J.,

ADDANKI.

// true copy // 8

Senior Civil Judge, Addanki.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDANKI

Present: - Kum. P. Radhamma, M.A., M.L.,

Senior Civil Judge, Addanki

Wednesday, this the 12th day of March, 2014

ORIGINAL SUIT No.128/2011

Between:

Gunji Venkata Rao s/o.Venkateswarlu, aged about 46 years, Hindu, cultivation and business, permanent resident of Medarametla village of Korisapadu Mandal, Presently residing at Erukala Colony, Uppugunduru village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District ….Plaintif

AND

Komiri Kotaiah s/o.Veeraiah, aged about 34 years, Hindu, business, resident of Vijaya Nagar Colony, Martur village and Mandal.….Defendant

This suit coming on 10.03.2014 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch.Srinivasa Rao,Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri I.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for the defendant, and upon perusal of the material on record, upon hearing the counsel of both sides, 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 fled by the plaintif for recovery of Rs.4,30,186/- on the foot of a promissory note, and for costs.

2.The brief facts of the plaint, in nutshell, are as follows:

(a)The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- from the plaintif on 16.02.2011 for his business purpose and executed a promissory note on the same day, undertaking to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. either to the plaintif or on his order or demand.

Subsequently, despite of several demands made by the plaintif both personally and through mediators to discharge the due under Ex.A-1 promissory note, the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt and has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other.

Thereafter, the plaintif got issued a legal notice on 11.06.2011 under

Ex.A-2 demanding the defendant to discharge the debt under Ex.A-1, and the same was acknowledged by the defendant and the defendant sent a reply notice through his Advocate with all false allegations on 17.06.2011 under Ex.A-3. Hence, the present suit.

3.(a)On the other hand, the defendant fled his written statement assailing the averments mentioned in the plaint denying the 2 borrowing of amount of Rs.3,70,000/- on 16.02.2011 and further defencing that the suit promissory note must be a rank forgery one brought into existence purposefully. No consideration was passed under the said document. In fact, the defendant has purchased an extent of Ac.0.47 cents in S.No.823 and Ac.2.38 cents in S.No.824, totaling to Ac.2.85 cents of land from the plaintif under a stamped agreement of sale dated 16.02.2011 and in that connection, this defendant paid an amount of Rs.4,15,000/- towards advance on that date itself to the plaintif, and it was also agreed to get the land measured and to receive the balance of sale consideration for the extent arrived to and execute a proper sale deed in favour of the defendant by the plaintif with regard to the property sold by him to the defendant with his expenses in terms of the agreement of sale

dated 16.02.2011.

(b)Subsequently, the defendant demanded the plaintif several times both personally and through mediators to get the said land measured and to take the balance of sale consideration for the extent arrived it. But the plaintif did not evince any interest and has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other. So, the defendant got issued a legal notice dated 10.05.2011 to the plaintif demanding him to perform his part of contract under the agreement of sale. On receipt of the said notice, the plaintif got sent a reply admitting the execution of agreement of sale and receipt of advance amount, but denied to measure the land on the pretext that the said property was sold as of bill contract. So, there arose some ill-feelings between the plaintif and the defendant. In view of the said disputes, the plaintif, who is bent upon to cause loss and put the defendant to trouble to have unlawful gain, got fabricated the suit document and got issued a legal notice with a false claim, and later fled the present suit with all false and untenable allegations.

(c)In fact, the defendant has no necessity to borrow any amount from the plaintif, much less the amount covered under suit document relied on by the plaintif, which is a rank forgery one. This defendant got no business at all even otherwise, the plaintif is not entitled to claim interest as he claimed. Further, the suit promissory note is evidently a materially altered one. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

3

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated and materially altered?

3. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the suit claim?

4. To what relief?

5.In order to ensure the plaintiffs claim, the plaintif Gunji Venkata

Rao is examined as PW.1, and the 2nd attestor by name Tanneeru

Koteswara Rao is examined as PW.2, and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 through the plaintif/PW.1. After closure of the plaintiffs side evidence, the defendant Komiri Kotaiah is examined as DW.1, and the scribe of

Ex.A-1, by name G.Ramulu is examined as DW.2, and the 1st attestor of

Ex.A-1 by name Gunji Subba Rao is examined as DW.3. No documents are fled and marked on behalf of the defendant.

6.Heard arguments of the plaintif. The learned counsel for the defendant fled written arguments.

7.ISSUE Nos.1 & 2:

(a)It is the claim of the plaintif in the suit that he lent the amount of Rs.3,70,000/- to the defendant under Ex.A-1 and subsequently, the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt under Ex.A-1 pronote. Then, he got issued a legal notice demanding the defendant to repay the said amount . In turn, the defendant caused reply denying all the allegations which are made mention in the

Ex.A-2 legal notice. At the same time, the defence of the defendant is having three fold i.e. (1) the defendant has no necessity to borrow such a huge amount; (2) fabrication; and (3) material alteration of

Ex.A-1 pronote. The defendant pleads that basing on those three aspects, the suit may be dismissed.

(b)On going through the documents and occular evidence available on record, it is very clear that the plaintif tried to convince the Court to prove the execution and passing of consideration under

Ex.A-1 promissory note and got himself examined as PW.1 and examined the 2nd attestor by name Koteswara Rao as PW.2 to 4 corroborate the execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A-1.

On the other hand, unfortunately, the defendant examined himself as

DW.1 and examined the scribe by name Gunji Ramulu, and the frst attestor by name G.Subba Rao, of Ex.A-1, as DWs2 & 3 respectively, to corroborate the non-execution of the pronote and non-passing of consideration on the date of ExA-1 pronote i.e. 16.02.2011, which is apparently found on the suit promissory note.

(c)Regarding the means of the defendant, a new version was set up in the averments of Written Statement and it is also admitted by the plaintif in his evidence that this defendant had purchased an extent of Ac.2.85 cents of land comprised in S.Nos.823 & 824 from the plaintif Gunji Venkata Rao under a stamped agreement of sale dated 16.02.2011 i.e. the date of suit promissory note, and in that transaction, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.4,15,000/- to the plaintif towards advance amount on that day itself, and it was also agreed to get the land measured and then receive the balance sale consideration for the extent arrived to, and to execute a proper sale deed in favour of the defendant by the plaintif with his expenses, but subsequently, the plaintif did not evince any interest, and has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other despite of several demands made by the defendant both personally and through mediators, to get the said land measured and to take the balance sale consideration for the extent arrived. In that connection, the defendant got issued a legal notice dated 10.05.2011 to the plaintif demanding him to perform his part of contract under the agreement of sale and on receipt of said notice, the plaintif got issued a reply admitting the execution of agreement of sale, and receipt of advance amount, but denied to measure the land, because the said property was sold as of a bill contract. Thereupon, ill-feelings arose between the plaintif Gunji

Venkata Rao and the defendant Kotaiah. In view of the averments made by the defendant in his Written Statement and in his evidence, it is categorically admitted by the plaintif in his evidence regarding the existence of agreement of sale with the defendant and receiving consideration of Rs.4,15,000/- from him. So, in view of the above circumstances, it is substantially proved by way of admissions made by the plaintif in his evidence that the defendant paid Rs.4,15,000/- to the plaintif at the time of sale agreement dated 16.02.2011, and thus, with regard to the capacity of the defendant, it is proved that the defendant had no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the 5 plaintif, since the plaintif did not choose to measure the lands as well as registered the same in favour of the defendant as claimed by the defendant.

(d)It is argued by the defence counsel that the suit promissory note is materially altered one and it is a forged document, and his plea is that the defendant signed in empty promissory note and handed over the same to the plaintif, by which time, the total promissory note was empty and no such writings existing in the said promissory note, and that subsequently, the columns were flled up by the plaintif with the help of his henchmen and pressed the same into service is in question. In this regard, the scribe of Ex.A-1 by name

Gunji Ramulu and the 1st attestor of Ex.A-1 by name Gunji Subba Rao are examined as DWs1 & 2 respectively. The evidence of both these witnesses is not in corroboration to each other, and their evidence is not trustworthy, because, the scribe and the frst attestor i.e. DWs2 & 3 stated that the scribe Ramulu mentioned in Ex.A-1 the amount

Rs.70,000/- and flled up the entire body of the promissory note, by that time the presence of the defendant was not there. According to the version of scribe Ramulu, himself, plaintif and the frst attestor

Subba Rao were alone present by the time of execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note and no consideration was passed by that time. But it is the contrary to the evidence of plaintif. According to the plaintif, he lent Rs.3,70,000/- to the defendant and obtained Ex.A-1 promissory note.

(e)Regarding the place of execution of pronote itself is also vary from the evidence of each witness. According to the plaintif, the suit promissory note was scribed in the house of one Singarakonda, near RTC bus stand at Addanki. According to the evidence of PW.2

Koteswara Rao, the 2nd attestor, Ex.A-1 was scribed at Kalava Katta near bus stop. Whereas, according to the version of scribe, who is examined as DW.2, Ex.A-1 was scribed at his village Kothareddi palem.

It is the fact that there is no prohibition with regard to the place of execution of Ex.A-1, since at any place and at any point of time; the instrument can be executed, though the place of execution is in variation. The plaintif is a native of Medarametla. Both the plaintif and defendant, attestors and the scribe of Ex.A-1 are related to each other, which is admitted by the witnesses in their evidence. In those circumstances, there is no possibility to create a false document in favour of anybody. But apparently, it is on record that the evidence of 6 any one of the witnesses either on the plaintiffs side or defendantfs side is not corroborating with each other with regard to the place of execution of Ex.A-1 and passing of consideration under the same.

(f)The main and sole defect on the face of Ex.A-1 pronote is material alteration. It is visible from the naked eye that the writings and fgures in Ex.A-1 promissory note are totally got with variation regarding the ate, amount, so also the words in fgures. It is the version of the scribe of Ex.A-1 promissory note i.e. DW.2 that he wrote

Ex.A-1 by putting Rs.70-,000/- on the top of the pronote, and in words as ““ by leaving some space at the 10th line of the pronote. But at the 11th line of pronote, the writings “70,000/-“ was written by leaving a small space. There is no explanation ofered regarding this aspect. No one can write by leaving some space and fll up subsequent to that place. Even the fgure “70,000” in the body column and “70,000” on the top of the pronote are totally vary and not written by one person. It is traceable that in the top of the pronote ‘ 1 ‘ is altered as ‘ 7 ‘, and on the right side of the pronote, the numerical roman fgure was added before ‘ 6 ‘ i.e. after adding ‘ 1 ‘, thus the date of pronote is made as 16th. As per the own version of the scribe of

Ex.A-1 i.e. DW.2, his evidence is not corroborating with the recitals appended in the pronote. Therefore, it goes to show that DW.2 Gunji

Ramulu is not the scribe of Ex.A-1 pronote. On the other hand, on the top of the pronote ‘3f was added before ‘7f, as well as the recitals as “3,70,000/- “ “ is found with variation with the remaining portion i.e. “ “. So, the signatures of the attestors and scribe and the rest of the recitals in Ex.A-1 are vary as well as contrary to each and every one. As per the Negotiable

Instruments Act, if the document is found materially altered, such document is a void instrument and it cannot be taken into consideration and cannot be looked into.

(g)It is the well-settled principle that if the defence of a party is basing on the forgery or material alteration with regard to the pronote, certainly the party should seek permission to send the disputed instrument to the Hand Writing and Finger Prints Expert for comparison of the admitted and disputed documents, but in the present suit, either the plaintif or the defendant did not come forward seeking the said redressal by sending the suit promissory note to the

Expert. This is also a main lacuna on the part of both the defendant as well as the plaintif. Since it is already discussed above regarding the 7 material alteration and fabrication of the suit promissory note, this

Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Ex.A-1 promissory note is materially altered and pressed into service.

Accordingly, both these issues are answered against the plaintif.

8.ISSUE No.3:

In fact, the date of Ex.A-1 pronote is 16.02.2011, whereas the date of suit is 0212.2011 i.e. within 8 months after the existence of

Ex.A-1, the suit has been launched and therefore, a doubt is created in the mind of the Court from the above preponderance of the probabilities and circumstances. There is no substantial evidence to decree the suit basing on Ex.A-1 pronote in favour of the plaintif.

Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

9.ISSUE No.4:

In view of the foregoing discussion, the plaintif is not able to establish his claim basing in Ex.A-1 pronote, which is proved materially altered one and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

10.In the result, the suit is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of March, 2014.

Sd/-P.Radhamma,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Witnesses Examined-

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1: Gunji Venkata RaoDW.1: K.Kotaiah PW.2: Tanneeru Koteswara RaoDW.2: Gunji Ramulu DW.3: Gunji Subba Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A-:Suit promissory note 1/16.02.2011 Ex.A-:Office copy of the legal notice issued to the 2/17.06.2011defendant Ex.A-3/--:Reply notice issued by the defendant to the plaintif

FOR DEFENDANT:Nil

Ild/-P.R. S.C.J.,

ADDANKI.

// true copy // 8

Senior Civil Judge, Addanki.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: ADDANKI

PRESENT : SRI R.J.VISWANADHAM,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDANKI

Monday, this the 22nd day of February,2016.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.98/2011

BETWEEN :

Batchu Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 43 Years,Hindu,Housewife,R/o.Medarametla village, Korisapadu Mandal. … PLAINTIFF

A N D 1.Desu Krishna Murthy, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 60 years.

2.Desu Sudhakara Rao,Krishna Murthy, 37 years. D1 and D2 are Hindus, business,R/o.Daivalaravuru Village of Korisapadu Mandal.

3.Amara Eswaramma, W/o.Prasada Rao, 38 years,hindu, Housewife,R/o.Black Gandhi Statue road, Chirala town.

4.Manne Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 42 years, Hindu,business,R/o.Medarametla Village, Korisapadu Mandal. … DEFENDANTS

This suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff according to good and bad qualities and for costs.

This suit coming on this day for trial before me in the presence of Sri B.Rama Kotaiah, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P.Ramaiah, Advocate for Defendants-1 and 2; and Sri G.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Defendant No.3; ;and Sri V.Anji Reddy, Advocate for Defendant No.4; and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following ;

J U D G M E N T

Memo filed stating not pressed the suit. Hence suit is dismissed . No costs.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of February, 2016.

Sd/- R.J.Viswanadham

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADDANKI

// Appendix of evidence //

Witnesses examined

Documents marked

--- NIL ---

Sd/- Sri R.J.Viswanadham

S.C.J.

// True Copy \\

SCJ, Addanki.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: ADDANKI

PRESENT : SRI R.J.VISWANADHAM,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDANKI

Monday, this the 22nd day of February,2016.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.98/2011

BETWEEN :

Batchu Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 43 Years,Hindu,Housewife,R/o.Medarametla village, Korisapadu Mandal. … PLAINTIFF

A N D 1.Desu Krishna Murthy, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 60 years.

2.Desu Sudhakara Rao,Krishna Murthy, 37 years. D1 and D2 are Hindus, business,R/o.Daivalaravuru Village of Korisapadu Mandal.

3.Amara Eswaramma, W/o.Prasada Rao, 38 years,hindu, Housewife,R/o.Black Gandhi Statue road, Chirala town.

4.Manne Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 42 years, Hindu,business,R/o.Medarametla Village, Korisapadu Mandal. … DEFENDANTS

This suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff according to good and bad qualities and for costs.

Cause of action for the suit arose when the first defendant as manager and kartha of the joint family consisting of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 is in physical possession and management of the plaint schedule property, when the second defendant who is the undivided son of first defendant and who addicted t bad ways of life and wasting the joint family property against the right of plaintiff and other sharers and contracting fictitious debts from third parties like the fourth defendant and when fourth defendant in collusion with the second defendant obtained a decree in

OS.No.42/2006 on the file of this Honourable court against the second defendant and

bringing item -2 of the plaint schedule property for sale in collusion with the second defendant against the rights of the plaintiff and when the D1 t D3 did not cooperate for amicable partition of schedule property and a Daivalaravuru village of Korisapadu Mandal where the plaint schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this court.

VALUATION : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, market value of the schedule property is Rs.6,22,040/-, in which plaintiff’s 1/4th share is Rs.1,55,510/-, and 3/4 of the same is Rs.1,16,632-50ps. Since the plaintiff is in joint and constructive possession of plaint schedule property along with D1 to D3 a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid U/Sec.34(2) of APCF and SV Act.

Plaint presented on: 30-08-2011 and filed on: 02-09-2011..

This suit coming on this day for trial before me in the presence of Sri B.Rama Kotaiah, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P.Ramaiah, Advocate for Defendants-1 and 2; and Sri G.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Defendant No.3; and Sri V.Anji Reddy, Advocate for Defendant No.4; and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court doth order and decree;

i. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed; and

ii. that each party do bear their own costs; (plaint schedule is herewith appended)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 22nd day of February, 2016.

Sd/- Sri R.J.Viswanadham

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADDANKI

TABLE OF COSTS

( C.M. and F.C. not filed. )

Sd/- Sri R.J.Viswanadham

S.C.J.

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned with in the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

// True Copy \\

S.C.J., Addanki.