Smt.r.m.subhavalli

1

OS 41/18 R.M.S.V

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE : PILER.

Presented by: Smt. R.M. Subha Valli

Principal Junior Civil Judge 

cum Judicial 1st class Magistrate, Piler. 

Thursday, this the Twentieth day December, 2018.

 O.S. 41/2018

Between

Adusupalli Reddirama Chowdary, S/o Chengaiah Naidu, aged 75 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Bollinernivaripalli, H/o Chinnagottigallu Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. …. Plaintiff

And 

A.Hrinatha Naidu, S/o Subba Rayulu Naidu, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation and Business, residing at Daddalavaripalli, Rompicherla Mandal, 

Chittoor District. ….. Defendant

This is suit came before me on 19.12.2018 in the presence of plaintiff counsel Sri G.Sivakumar Reddy, and Sri P.Nagabhushanam, Advocate for defendant and on hearing both sides, this court doth delivered the following

Judgment. 

J U D G M E N T

 (Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,66,200/­)

1. This is a suit filed by plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,66,200/­ from defendant as he executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff of

Rs.1,00,000/­ on 27.04.2015 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a., and for suit costs.

 2. The brief averments of the plaint as follows:­

The plaintiff contented that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 27.04.2015 for his legal and family 2

OS 41/18 R.M.S.V

necessities agreeing to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and in evidence thereof the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day and the said promissory note is scribed by the defendant himself and attested by one B.Rajagopal naidu and Ramakrishnama Naidu and in their presence the defendant received the consideration thereunder and in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to repay the debt, hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the above suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount basing on suit promissory note executed by the defendant in faovur of the plaintiff, hence the suit.

3.Per contra, the defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts except those allegations which are specifically and clearly admitted herein to be true and correct and rest are put to strict proof with legal and documentary evidence and that the allegation made in paragraph 3 of the plaint that he borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 27.04.2015 for his family and legal necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to him or to his order on demand and that in evidence thereof executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day itself before the attestors by receiving the consideration thereof and the further allegations made in paragraph 4 of the plaint that in spite of repeated demands by the plaintiff the defendant failed to repay the debt and hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the above suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount basing on the suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff is a distant relative of the defendant and the plaintiff used to put borewell points traditionally in agricultural fields, hence the defendant approached the plaintiff in the first week of December 2017 for 3

OS 41/18 R.M.S.V

set up of bore point in his fields and for that the plaintiff agreed to set up bore point in the fields of defendant on condition of issue of empty cheque in his favour, as per the demand of plaintiff the defendant issued empty cheque bearing No.214534 in favour of plaintiff to drawn on ICICI Bank, Tirupati branch, as per the instructions by the plaintiff, the defendant dug borewell in his fields but the bore well was failed and after that the defendant requested the plaintiff to return back the cheque issued by him but the plaintiff does not return the cheque and filed the present suit by forging the signature of defendant and a criminal case vide C.C.No.505/2017 filed before the Hon’ble

Additional Junior Civil judge Court for wrongful gain and the plaintiffs came

with present suit with ulterior motive and that the alleged cause of action in paragraph No.7 of the plaint is totally false and there is no cause of action for the above suit and the plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs much less for the recovery of amount from the defendant and the allegations made in plaint are hereby denied and this defendant reserves his right to file additional written statement with the permission of this Hon’ble Court at appropriate point of time, and hence prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the both side pleadings, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial :

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dt.27.04.2015 of Rs.1,00,000/­ is true, valid and binding on the defendant or not ?

2. Whether the plaintiff filed the suit within jurisdiction of this court or not ?

3. Whether the plaintiff filed the suit within limitation period or not ?

4. whether the plaintiff is entitle the relief as he prayed or not ?

5. To what relief ?

4

OS 41/18 R.M.S.V

5.To establish his case, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also adduced P.W.2 evidence and Ex.A.1 marked on his behalf.

6.On the other side, defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and no document was marked on his behalf.

7.Plaintiff’s side documents :

Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note, dt.27.04.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/­.

8.Both side arguments. ­Heard.

9.Now the point for determination :

Issue Nos.1 to 4 :

It is a suit for recovery of promissory note amount which was executed allegedly by defendant, for that plaintiff filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,66,200/­ from defendant towards that defendant executed

Exbit A1 on 27.04.2015 of Rs.1,00,000/­ in favour of PW1 with an interest of 24% per annum. To establish the same the plaintiff himself examined as PW1,

PW1 reiterated in his chief affidavit same as the plaint contents and said that the defendant himself scribed the promissory note and asttested by one

B.Rajagopal Naidu and Ramakrishna Naidu and the consideration of

Rs.1,00,000/­ passed by him to the defendant in presence of attestors. As per

PW1 inspite of repeated demands defendant fails to choose to pay the promissoy note amount, so PW1 filed this present suit.

10.But PW1 to prove the contents of Exbit A1 he himself examined as

PW1 and produced Exbit A1 which was executed by defendant on 27.04.2015 agreeing to repay interest at 24% per annum.

11.PW1/Plaitifff contended that the defendant borrowed

Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note by agreeing to 5

OS 41/18 R.M.S.V

repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum. The defendant to disporve the same he himself examined as D.W.1 by filing his chief affidavit, in it he reiterated written statement contents as contended in his written statement that the plaintiff is a distant relative of the defendant and the plaintiff used to put borewell points traditionally in agricultural fields, hence the defendant approached the plaintiff in the first week of December 2017 for set up of bore point in his fields and for that the plaintiff agreed to set up bore point in the fields of defendant on condition of issue of empty cheque in his favour, as per the demand of plaintiff the defendant issued empty cheque bearing No.214534 in favour of plaintiff to drawn on ICICI Bank, Tirupati branch, as per the instructions by the plaintiff, the defendant dug borewell in his fields but the bore well was failed and after that the defendant requested the plaintiff to return back the cheque issued by him but the plaintiff does not return the cheque and filed the present suit by forging the signature of defendant and a criminal case vide C.C.No.505/2017 filed before the Hon’ble Additional Junior

Civil judge Court for wrongful gain and the plaintiffs came with present suit

with ulterior motive and that the alleged cause of action in paragraph No.7 of the plaint is totally false and there is no cause of action for the above suit and the plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs much less for the recovery of amount from the defendant and the allegations made in plaint are hereby denied and this defendant reserves his right to file additional written statement with the permission of this Hon’ble Court at appropriate point of time, and hence prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

12.Further, defendant cross examined P.W.1 and P.W.1 in his cross examination said that Ex.A.1 was scribed at his house and said at that time both B.Rajagopal Naidu and C.Ramakrishna Naidu and himself and defendant present and at 9.30 A.M. Ex.A.1 is scribed. P.W.1 denied that the defendant never executed EX.A.1 and both B.Rajagopal Naidu and C.Ramakrishna Naidu 6

OS 41/18 R.M.S.V

are not there and at the time of filing suit he has obtained both attestors signatures by creating Ex.A.1. P.W.1 further said that he has obtained crop loan and having that much lumpsum amount with him and P.W.1 denied that he has not having capacity to give lumpsum amount to defendant and further denied that he is the relative of defendant and he is doing bore point works in villages and denied that in defendant’s land he made bore point and obtained blank cheque and forged defendant signature and filed this case. P.W.1 further denied that he has not received any consideration towards Ex.A.1.

13.To prove his contention, P.W.1 adduced P.W.2 evidence who is asttestor of Exhibit A.1 and P.W.2 said in his chief examination that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from plaintiff on 27.04.2015 for his family and legal necessities and agreed to repayt he same along with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and in evidence thereof the defendant executed demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff ont he even date i.e., on 27.04.2015 and said promissory is scribed byt he defendant himself and attested by him and Ramakrishna Naidu and that the consideration of Rs.1,00,000/­ is passed byt he plaintiff to the defendant in his presence and in the presence of Ramakrishna Naidu. But defendant cross examined P.W.2 and P.W.2 in his cross examination said that on 27.04.2015 Ex.A.1 was executed at the house of plaintiff and at the time of execution himself, scribe and attestor and defendant were present and one

Hari executed Ex.A.1 in between 9.00 to 10.00 A.M., and said the defendant himself brought revenue stamp and bond and the Ex.A.1 entire contents are in

English lanugage and the defendant signed two times in Enlish lanugage in

Ex.A.1 and the revenue stamps may be one or two affixed and said he has signed in English and Ramakrishna Naidu signed in Telugu and the plaintiff gave Rs.1,00,000/­ Rs.1,000/­ x Rs.100/­ denominations. P.W.2 denied that at the time of execution of Ex.A.1 he was not present and at the time of filing 7

OS 41/18 R.M.S.V

the suit he has signed in Ex.A.1. P.W.2 further denied that the plaintiff doing bore pointing for that he obtained blank cheque and filed this case by forging the defendant signature and said filed cheque bounce case ont he file of the

Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Piler.

14.To disprove the contention of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1. D.W.1 in his cross examination denied the signature on promissory note and denied that on 27.04.2015 he never took B.Rajagopal

Naidu, C.Ramakrishnama Naidu also with him and went to plaintiff’s house and executed Ex.A.1 and in his favour after receiving amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ and denied that Ex.A.1 is executed by himself with his own handwriting and also denied he is having habit of signing blank promissory ntoe, cheque and any other paper and other paper. But D.W.1 in his chief affidavit mentioned as the plaintiff is a distant relative of him and he used to put borewell points traditionally in agricultural fields, hence he approached the plaintiff in the first week of December 2017 for set up of bore point in his fields and for that the plaintiff agreed to set up bore point in his fields on condition of issue of empty cheque in his favour, and said as per the demand of plaintiff he issued empty cheque bearing No.214534 in favour of plaintiff to drawn on ICICI Bank,

Tirupati branch, as per the instructions by the plaintiff, he dug borewell in his fields but the borewell was failured and after that he requested the plaintiff to return back the cheque issued by him but the plaintiff does not return the cheque and filed the present suit by forging his signature and a criminal case vide C.C.No.505/2017 before the Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil Judge Court for wrongful gain and the plaintiffs came with present suit with ulterior motive.

D.W.1 admitted the cheque bounce case pending on the file of Hon’ble ADM

Court, Piler. D.W.1 denied that he has borrowed amount from the plaintiff and to evade the same he is deposing false.

8

OS 41/18 R.M.S.V

15.As per section 3 and 4 of Evidence Act.

 When ever it is provided by the Act that the court shall presume a fact it shall regard such fact as proved unless untile it is disproved, the word 'proved' and disproved have been definied in section 3 of evidence Act apply the said principle behind section 118(a) of Nogitiable Instrument Act the court shall presume a Negotiable Instrument Act to be for consideration unless and until it is disproved and presumed that consideration passed. It is necessary the defendant to disprove the existance of consideration by way of direct evidence or cogent and covenyance evidence by way of producing evidence

before court. 

16.As per section 118(a) Once Execution of pronote admitted burden lies upon defendant to establish that it is not supported by consideration, defendant fails to disprove the execution of Exbit A.1, but there is no proof about the consideration was passed or not. Then the burden lies on defendant.

17. But as per section 118(g) that the holder of a negotiable Instrument is a holder in due course, the defendant has to discharge his burden that the Exbit

A.1 was obtained fraud or for unlawful consideration and PW1/Plaintiff is not lawful owner of the said holder of negotiable instrument. But present case the defendant did not discharge his burden. So, as per Section 118(g) contains a mandate that until the contrary is proved the holder of a negotiable instrument shall be presumed to be a holder in due course in view of the statutory presumption in the instant case the PW1/plaintiff is the holder of the instrument in due course on its own right. The defendant not rebutted the same, then the court either believe the defence or exist or considers its existence to be reasonably probable. But in this case the mandatory presumption not rebutted by proof of evidence simple plea taken in written statement that he has not borrowed any amount, so, the defendant not 9

OS 41/18 R.M.S.V

discharge his burden, unless until it is disproved the said fact is proved. But in the present case in hand there is no such evidence to disprove the contentions of plaintiff. So, invaribly due to not proved his plea and not discharged his burden as the plaintiff himself examined PW1 and produced

Exbit A.1, so plaintiff proved his contention.

18.As per section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act until the contrary is proved, the consideration presume shall be made that when every such instrument when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted for consideration where formal execution has to be proved, by producing document where a main signature appear in a document at a place where the execution of such a document would normally sign, then the signature may primafacie taken as having been put in token of execution, it is primafacie proof that the document was executed by the signatory as to be presumed under Sec.114 of Evidence Act. As in the present case in hand the plaintiff contended that the defendant himself scribed the suit pronote by receiving consideration but the defendant denied the same and defendant fails to prove that he has not borrowed any amount from the plaitniff and he never scribed and executed Ex.A.1 suit pronote, with regard to that defendant not adduced any evidence nor adduced any documentary evidence to prove his contention. 

19. The burden to disprove the passing of a consideration on a pronote shifts to the party who denies the passing of consideration, despite admitting the execution of the pronote, that too the defendant not disprove his contention that there is no consideration passed towards Exbit A.1. But with regard to passing consideration defendant not discharged his burden. Hence, the issue

No.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff against defendant.

20.Issue Nos.2 and 3 :

10

OS 41/18 R.M.S.V

As per Exbit A.1, the plaintiff residence is situated at Bollinenivaripalli,

H/o Chinnagottigallu Village and Mandal and the defendant is resident of

Daddalavaripalli, Rompicherla Mandal. The residence of plaintiff and residence of defendant comes within this court jurisdiction preview. Hence this court got jurisdiction for determining the suit, so, the plaintiff/PW1 filed suit

before within jurisdiction. Further the plaintiff/PW1 filed the suit on

31.01.2018 and defendant executed promissory note Exbit A.1 on 27.04.2015 of Rs.1,00,000/­ in favour of plaintiff/PW1 by agreeing with an intrerest of 24% per annum., and the plaintiff/PW1 filed suit within limitation, and defendant also not taken any plea with regard to basing on Exbit A.1 filed suit either within limitation period or not. But as discuss above it is clear suit filed with in limitation. Hence, issue Nos.2 and 3 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

21.ISSUE NO.4 :

Basing on issue Nos.1 to 3, the plaintiff proved his case by filing

Exibit A1. So, Plaintiff/PW1 is entitle the suit claimed amount of Rs.1,66,200/­

22.ISSUE NO.5 :

In the result, the suit is decreed of Rs.1,66,200­00 with an interest at 12% p.a., from the date of institution of suit to till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree to till the date of realization against the defendant on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000­00 against the defendant with costs. 

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 20th day of December, 2018.

Sd/­ Smt.R.M.Subhavalli.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER.

11

OS 41/18 R.M.S.V

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:­ DEFENDANT :

P.W.1: A.Reddirama ChowdaryD.W.1 : A.Harinatha Naidu P.W.2: B.Rajagopal Naidu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR 

PLAINTIFF:­ DEFENDANT : NIL

Ex.A.1 : Original promissory note, dt.27.04.2015 of Rs.1,00,000/­.

Sd/­ Smt.R.M.Subhavalli.

P.J.C.J,

PILER. 

1

OS 126/18 R.M.S.V

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE : PILER.

Presented by: Smt. R.M. Subha Valli

Principal Junior Civil Judge 

cum Judicial 1st class Magistrate, Piler. 

Thursday, this the Twentieth day December, 2018.

 O.S. 126/2018

Between

Mure Venkata Reddy, S/o Gani Reddy, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/at Reddivaripalli, H/o Vepulabilu Village and Post, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District. …. Plaintiff

And 

1. Smt.Y.Vijayakumari, W/o Late K.Sivaprasad Reddy, aged about 38 years, Hindu, employee.

2. K.Saran Teja Reddy, S/o Late K.Sivaprasad Reddy, aged about 19 years, Hindu.

3. K.Tarun Teja Reddy, S/o Late K.Sivaprasad Reddy, aged about 17 years, Hindu. Defendants 2 and 3 are minors represented by their natural guardian mother 1st defendant Y.Vijayakumari. Defendants 1 to 3 are residing at D.No.3­559/1, Ajantha Talkies road, Piler village, post and Mandal, 

Chittoor District. ….. Defendants

This is suit came before me on 18.12.2018 in the presence of plaintiff counsel Sri M.Bhavani shankara, and Sri M.Chandrakumar Reddy, Advocate for defendants and on hearing both sides, this court doth delivered the following Judgment. 

J U D G M E N T

 (Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,48,933/­)

1. This is a suit filed by plaintiff for directing the defendants to pay the suit amount and further interest payable by the defendants from and out of the 2

OS 126/18 R.M.S.V

estate of deceased K.Sivaprasad Reddy, son of Krishna Reddy, and for suit costs.

 2. The brief averments of the plaint as follows:­

The plaintiff contented that the one Late K.Sivaprasad Reddy, S/o

Krishna Reddy, D.No.3­559/1, Ajantha Talkies road, Piler village, post and

Mandal, Chittoor District borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 19.05.2016 for his family and legal necessities and for consideration received thereunder agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand, in evidence thereof the said Late K.Sivaprasad Reddy executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on even date i.e., on 19.05.2016 itself and that during the lifetime of the above K.Sivaprasad Reddy the plaintiff demanded him for discharge of the debt due under the promissory note, dt.19.05.2016 but the

Late K.Sivaprasad Reddy postponed for the same on some pretext or the other and that while so, the above said K.Sivaprasad Reddy died on 05.04.2018 and that the 1st defendant is the wife of the said K.Sivaprasad Reddy and the defendants 2 and 3 are the children of the said K.Siva Prasad Reddy and the said K.Sivaprasad Reddy died intestate leaving behind the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs, to succeeded the entire estate of the deceased K.Sivaprasad

Reddy so after his death the estate of deceased K.Sivaprasad Reddy is devolved upont he defendants 1 to 3 and the defendant sare in possession and enjoyment of the same with absoltue rights and that the deceased

K.Sivaprasad Reddy borrowed the suit debt for the family expenses and it is utilized for the welfares of the joint family consisting of the defendants 1 to 3 also hence the defendants are liable to discharge the above debt of the plaintiff, and further contended that after death of K.Sivaprasad Reddy the plaintiff demanded the defendants several times to discharge the debt by tendering the suit promissory note, dt.19.05.2016 but the defendants are evading and 3

OS 126/18 R.M.S.V

postponing for the same on some pretext or the other and as the defendants are evading to discharge the debt due to the plaintiff, the plaintiff constrained to issue a legal notice through his advocate on 16.05.2018 calling upon the defendants 1 to 3 to discharge the debt due under the promissory note and failed to comply the demands made in the notice and that after issuing of the notice the defendants are seriously trying to withdraw the death benefits of the deceased K.Sivaprasad Reddy including his earn leave salary to evade the suit debt, for which they are not entitled to do so, hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

3.Per contra, the defendant No.1 filed his written statement adopted by defendants 2 and 3 denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in lemini and that on 19.05.2016 Late Siva Prasad

Reddy, husband of the 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff for family and legal necessities and executed the suit promissory note is false and incorrect and the allegations that during the lifetime of Sivprasad

Reddy the plaintiff demanded him for discharge of the debt due under the suit promissory note but Siva Prasad Reddy postponed for the same is false and the allegations that after the death of said Sivaprasad Reddy the estate of

Sivaprasad Reddy is devolved upon the defendants 1 to 3 and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same with absoltue rights is false and incorrect and the allegations that the deceased Siva prasad Reddy borrowed the suit debt for the family expenses and it is utilized for the welfare of the joint family and hence the defendants are liable to discharge the suit debt is false and incorrect and denied the allegation that after the death of Sivaprasad

Reddy, the plaintiff demanded the defendants to discharge the debt by tendering the suit promissory note and also denied the other allegations mentioned in the plaint. The defendants further contended that the deceased 4

OS 126/18 R.M.S.V

Sivaprasad Reddy never borrowed the suit promissory note amount from the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint and there were real estate transactions between the plaintiff and the deceased Sivaprasad Reddy and the suit promissory note came into existence in the said real estate business and the deceased Siva

Prasad Reddy never borrowed the suit debt from the plaintiff and no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note and that the deceased Sivaprasad Reddy had no properties to succeed by the defendants as alleged in the plaint and that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the properties left by the said Sivaprasad Reddy and the deceased

Sivaprasad Reddy never borrowed the suit debt and never used the said amount for the welfare of the joint family as alleged in the plaint and hence prays to dismiss the suit with costs, in the interest of justice.

4. Basing on the both side pleadings, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial :

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dt.19.05.2016 of Rs.1,00,000/­ is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not ?

2. Whether the plaintiff filed the suit within jurisdiction of this court or not ?

3. Whether the plaintiff filed the suit within limitation period or not ?

4. whether the plaintiff is entitle the relief as he prayed or not ?

5. To what relief ?

5.To establish his case, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also adduced P.w.2 evidence and Exs.A.1 to A.3 marked on his behalf.

6.On the other side, none were examined and no document was marked.

7.Plaintiff’s side documents :

Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note, dt.19.05.2016 for Rs.1,00,000/­.

5

OS 126/18 R.M.S.V

Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.16.05.2018 along with postal receipt. Ex.A.3 : Served acknowledgment.

8.Both side arguments. ­Heard.

9.Now the point for determination :

Issue No.1 to 4 :

It is a suit for recovery of promissory note amount which was executed allegedly by defendant, for that plaintiff filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,48,933/­ from defendant towards that defendant executed

Exbit A1 on 19.05.2016 of Rs.1,00,000/­ in favour of PW1 with an interest of 24% per annum. To establish the same the plaintiff himself examined as PW1,

PW1 reiterated in his chief affidavit same as the plaint contents. As per PW1 inspite of repeated demands defendant fails to choose to pay the promissory note amount, so PW1 filed this present suit.

10.But PW1 to prove the contents of Exbit A1 he himself examined as

PW1 and produced Exbit A1 which was executed by defendant on 19.05.2016 agreeing to repay interest at 24% per annum.

11.PW1/Plaitifff contended that the defendant borrowed

Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum. The defendants contended in thier written statement that the deceased Sivaprasad Reddy never borrowed the suit promissory note amount from the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint and there were real estate transactions between the plaintiff and the deceased

Sivaprasad Reddy and the suit promissory note came into existence in the said real estate business and the deceased Siva Prasad Reddy never borrowed the suit debt from the plaintiff and no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note and that the deceased Sivaprasad Reddy had no properties to 6

OS 126/18 R.M.S.V

succeed by the defendants as alleged in the plaint and that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the properties left by the said Sivaprasad

Reddy and the deceased Sivaprasad Reddy never borrowed the suit debt and never used the said amount for the welfare of the joint family.

12.To establish his case P.W.1 adduced P.W.2 evidence. P.W.2 in his chief examination deposed thast one Late K.Sivaprasad Reddy borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from him on 19.05.2016 for his family and legal necessities and for the consideration received thereunder agreeing to repayt he same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand, in evidence thereof the said Late K.Sivaprasad Reddy executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on even date on 19.05.2016 byr eceiving consideration of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and that Late

K.Sivaprasad Reddy himself sribed the suit promissory note and he attested the siad promissory note on 19.05.2016. In his cross examiantion P.W.2 deposed that he know the plaintiff filed case against Sivarami Reddy for recovery of pronote amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ and said the promissory note executed at Reddyvaripalli, H/o Vepulabayalu and he saw the Sivarami Reddy who is scribe and he is working as teacher and residing near Ajantha Talkies,

Piler and denied the said person never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed promissory note and he signed as attestor at the time of filing of suit and also denied that at the instigation of plaintiff he is deposing in his favour.

13.For disproving the same the defendants neither appeared before court nor produced any proof showing that the deceased Sivaprasad Reddy never borrowed amount from the plaintiff as in Exhibit A.1, simply mentioned in written statement does not disprove the contention of plaintiff. Further, the defendants not taken any steps to disprove execution of Exhibit A.1.

7

OS 126/18 R.M.S.V

13.As per section 3 and 4 of Evidence Act.

 When ever it is provided by the Act that the court shall presume a fact it shall regard such fact as proved unless untile it is disproved, the word 'proved' and disproved have been definied in section 3 of evidence Act apply the said principle behind section 118(a) of Nogitiable Instrument Act the court shall presume a Negotiable Instrument Act to be for consideration unless and until it is disproved and presumed that consideration passed. It is necessary the defendant to disprove the existance of consideration by way of direct evidence or cogent and covenyance evidence by way of producing evidence

before court. The defendant No.1 in her written statement contended that

there is acquitance in between plaintiff with deceased Sivaprasad Reddy as they were doing real estate business and the said promissory note came into existence int he said real estate business.

14.As per section 118(a) Once Execution of pronote admitted burden lies upon defendants to establish that it is not supported by consideration, defendant fails to disprove the execution of Exbit A.1, but there is no pleading about the discharge of amount and also about the consideration was passed or not. Then the burden lies on defendants.

15. But as per section 118(g) that the holder of a negotiable Instrument is a holder in due course, the defendants have to discharge his burden that the

Exbit A.1 was obtained fraud or for unlawful consideration and PW1/Plaintiff is not lawful owner of the said holder of negotiable instrument. But present case the defendant did not discharge his burden. So, as per Section 118(g) contains a mandate that until the contrary is proved the holder of a negotiable instrument shall be presumed to be a holder in due course in view of the statutory presumption in the instant case the PW1/plaintiff is the holder of the instrument in due course on its own right. But defendant even not appear 8

OS 126/18 R.M.S.V

before court and not rebutted the contention of PW1/ Paintiff by adducing any

relevant evidence, the defendants not rebutted the same, then the court either believe the defence or exist or considers its existence to be reasonably probable. But in this case the mandatory presumption not rebutted by proof of evidence simple plea taken in written statement that he has not borrowed any amount, so, the defendants not discharge their burden, unless and until it is disproved the said fact is proved. But in the present case in hand there is no such evidence to disprove the contentions of plaintiff. So, invaribly due to not proved his plea and not discharged their burden as the plaintiff himself examined PW1 and produced Exbit A.1, so plaintiff proved his contention.

16.As per section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act until the contrary is proved, the consideration presume shall be made that when every such instrument when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted for consideration where formal execution has to be proved, by producing document where a main signature appear in a document at a place where the execution of such a document would normally sign, then the signature may primafacie taken as having been put in token of execution, it is primafacie proof that the document was executed by the signatory as to be presumed under Sec.114 of Evidence Act. As in the present case in hand the defendant agreed that he executed the promissory notes in favour of PW1 and defendants fails to prove that the deceased Sivaprasad Reddy not borrowed any amount from the plaitniff and he never executed Ex.A.1 suit pronote, with regard to that defendant not adduced any evidence and the defendant to disprove the said fact neither he appeared before court nor adduced any occular or ducumentary evidence to prove his contention. Except filing written statement and the defendants are not dare to face trail.

17. The burden to disprove the passing of a consideration on a pronote shifts to the party who denies execution of pronote under Ex.A.1 by deceased 9

OS 126/18 R.M.S.V

K.Sivaprasad Reddy. But with regard to passing consideration defendants not discharged their burden. As per Section 50(2) C.P.C, the legal representatives of deceased are liable to discharge the debt fromt he estate of deceased which they acquired and enjoying. Hence, the issue No.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff against defendants.

18.Issue Nos.2 and 3 :

As per Exbit A.1, the plaintiff residence is situated at Reddivaripalli, H/o

Vepulabailu, Piler Mandal and the defendants are residents of D.No.3­559/1,

Ajantha Talkies road, Piler village, post and Mandal, Chittoor District. The residence of plaintiff and residence of defendants comes within this court jurisdiction preview. Hence this court got jurisdiction for determining the suit, so, the plaintiff/PW1 filed suit before within jurisdiction. Further the plaintiff/PW1 filed the suit on 04.06.2018 and defendant executed promissory note Exbit A.1 on 19.05.2016 of Rs.1,00,000/­ in favour of plaintiff/PW1 by agreeing with an intrerest of 24% per annum., and the plaintiff/PW1 filed suit within limitation, and defendant also not taken any plea with regard to basing on Exbit A.1 filed suit either within limitation period or not. But as discuss above it is clear suit filed with in limitation. Hence, issue Nos.2 and 3 are decided in favour of plaintiff and asgainst the defendants.

19.Issue No.4 :

Basing on issue Nos.1 to 3, the plaintiff proved his case by filing Exibit

A.1 to A.3. So, Plaintiff/PW1 is entitle the suit claimed amount of

Rs.1,48,933/­

20.ISSUE NO.5 :

In the result, the suit is decreed of Rs.1,48,933­00 with an interest at 12% p.a., from the date of institution of suit to till the date of 10

OS 126/18 R.M.S.V

decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000­00 against the defendants with costs from and out of the estate of deceased K.Sivaprasad

Reddy. 

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 20th day of December, 2018.

Sd/­ Smt.R.M.Subhavalli.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER.

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:­ DEFENDANT :

P.W.1: M.Venkata ReddyNone. P.w.2 : M.Sahadeva Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR 

PLAINTIFF:­ DEFENDANT : NIL

Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note, dt.19.05.2016 for Rs.1,00,000/­. Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.16.05.2018 along with postal receipt. Ex.A.3 : Served acknowledgment.

Sd/­ Smt.R.M.Subhavalli.

P.J.C.J,

PILER. 

1

OS 17/18 R.M.S.V

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE : PILER.

Presented by: Smt. R.M. Subha Valli

Principal Junior Civil Judge 

cum Judicial 1st class Magistrate, Piler. 

Wednesday, this the Nineteenth day December, 2018.

 O.S. 17/2018

Between

Kotakonda Yellappa, S/o K.Gangaiah, aged about 60 years, Hindu, cultivation, r/o Prakasam Road, Piler Village, Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. …. Plaintiff

And 

S.Chinna Reddenna, S/o Yallaiah, aged about 50 years, Hindu, working as Process Server, 

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Piler Village, 

Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. ….. Defendant

This is suit came before me on 17.12.2018 in the presence of plaintiff counsel Sri M.Chandrakumar Reddy, and Sri T.Sivaprasad Reddy, Advocate for defendant and on hearing both sides, this court doth delivered the following

Judgment. 

J U D G M E N T

 (Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,54,600/­)

1. This is a suit filed by plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,54,600/­ from defendant as he executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff of

Rs.1,00,000/­ on 30.09.2015 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a., and for suit costs.

 2. The brief averments of the plaint as follows:­

The plaintiff contented that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 30.09.2015 for his family necessities 2

OS 17/18 R.M.S.V

agreeing to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and in evidence thereof the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day itself by receiving the consideration thereunder and subsequently the defendant failed to pay the same, thought he plaintiff demanded several times and whenever demanded he has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other, hence the plaintiff got issued a legal demand notice, dt.15.12.2017 through his counsel demanding the defendant to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note and the defendant received the legal notice on 16.12.2017 and failed to give any reply notice and failed to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note, hence the plaintiff is forced to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount based on the suit promissory note with further interest and costs.

3.Per contra, the defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of all the allegations made in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted herein and that the allegations made in para No.3 of the plaint that the defendant had borrowed an amount of rs.1,00,000/­ on 30.09.2015 with rate of interest 24% p.a., from the plaintiff for his family necessities and after receiving the consideration amount the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same principal with interest either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand are all false and incorrect and that the allegations mentioned in para No.4 of the plaint are all false and incorrect and the plaintiff is put to strict proof and that the defendant had never executed any suit promissory note to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is the stranger to the defendant and it is utterly false to state that the plaintiff had demanded the defendant to 3

OS 17/18 R.M.S.V

discharge the said debt due under the suit promissory note, but the defendant evaded paying same on some pretext or the other are all false and incorrect and the defendant had never signed in the suit pronote and the signatures int eh suit pronote are not of the defendant, the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same and the plaintiff for the best known reasons known to him had filed the suit against the defendant and that the defendant had not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time as alleged in the plaint and there is no cause of action to file the suit and the particulars of valuation shown in the plaint are all false and incorrect and that he is a court employee and he is getting a salary to his needs and he has no need to borrow any amount from the plaintiff as he is well and sufficient, as such the defendant has no need or necessity to borrow amounts neither from the plaintiff nor from third parties and that the plaintiff fabricated and created the alleged suit promissory note by forging the signature of the defendant with the collusion of the attestors to get wrongful gain, as such the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount as he had not borrowed any amount as alleged in the plaint or executed a suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and that he is reserving his right to file additional written statement if any at appropriate time, hence prays to dismiss the suit with costs, in the interest of justice.

4. Basing on the both side pleadings, the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial :

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dt.30.09.2015 of Rs.1,00,000/­ is true, valid and binding on the defendant or not ?

2. Whether the plaintiff filed the suit within jurisdiction of this court or not ?

3. Whether the plaintiff filed the suit within limitation period or not ?

4. whether the plaintiff is entitle the relief as he prayed or not ?

4

OS 17/18 R.M.S.V

5. To what relief ?

5.To establish his case, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to

A.3 marked on his behalf.

6.On the other side, none were examined and no document was marked.

7.Plaintiff’s side documents :

Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note, dt.30.09.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/­. Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.15.12.2017. Ex.A.3 : Served acknowledgment.

8.Both side arguments. ­Heard.

9.Now the point for determination :

Issue No.1 :

It is a suit for recovery of promissory note amount which was executed allegedly by defendant, for that plaintiff filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,54,600/­ from defendant towards that defendant executed

Exbit A1 on 30.09.2015 of Rs.1,00,000/­ in favour of PW1 with an interest of 24% per annum. To establish the same the plaintiff himself examined as PW1,

PW1 reiterated in his chief affidavit same as the plaint contents. As per PW1 inspite of repeated demands defendant fails to choose to pay the promissoy note amount, so PW1 filed this present suit.

10.But PW1 to prove the contents of Exbit A1 he himself examined as

PW1 and produced Exbit A1 which was executed by defendant on 30.09.2015 agreeing to repay interest at 24% per annum.

11.PW1/Plaitifff contended that the defendant borrowed

Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum. The defendant contended in his written statement that the defendant had not borrowed any amount from 5

OS 17/18 R.M.S.V

the plaintiff at any point of time as alleged int he plaint and there is no ause of action to file the suit and the particulars of valuation shown int he plaint are all false and incorrect and that the defendant is a court employee and he is getting a salary to his needs and he has no need to borrow any amount fromt he plaintiff.

12.For disproving the same the defendant neither appeared before court nor produced any proof showing that he he has repaid the amount due under

Exhibit A.1, simply mentioned in written statement does not disprove the contention of plaintiff. Further, the defendant not taken any steps to disprove that he never signed in Exhibit A.1 and defendant side even not tried to cross examine the P.W.1 and defendant called absent and plaintiff side reported no further evidence. So, both side evidence closed.

13.As per section 3 and 4 of Evidence Act.

 When ever it is provided by the Act that the court shall presume a fact it shall regard such fact as proved unless untile it is disproved, the word 'proved' and disproved have been definied in section 3 of evidence Act apply the said principle behind section 118(a) of Nogitiable Instrument Act the court shall presume a Negotiable Instrument Act to be for consideration unless and until it is disproved and presumed that consideration passed. It is necessary the defendant to disprove the existance of consideration by way of direct evidence or cogent and covenyance evidence by way of producing evidence

before court. 

14.As per section 118(a) Once Execution of pronote admitted burden lies upon defendant to establish that it is not supported by consideration, defendant fails to disprove the execution of Exbit A.1, but there is no pleading about the consideration was passed or not. Then the burden lies on defendant.

6

OS 17/18 R.M.S.V

15. But as per section 118(g) that the holder of a negotiable Instrument is a holder in due course, the defendant has to discharge his burden that the Exbit

A.1 was obtained fraud or for unlawful consideration and PW1/Plaintiff is not lawful owner of the said holder of negotiable instrument. But present case the defendant did not discharge his burden. So, as per Section 118(g) contains a mandate that until the contrary is proved the holder of a negotiable instrument shall be presumed to be a holder in due course in view of the statutory presumption in the instant case the PW1/plaintiff is the holder of the instrument in due course on its own right. But defendant even not appear

before court and not rebutted the contention of PW1/ Paintiff by adducing any

relevant evidence, the defendant not rebutted the same, then the court either believe the defence or exist or considers its existence to be reasonably probable. But in this case the mandatory presumption not rebutted by proof of evidence simple plea taken in written statement that he has not borrowed any amount, so, the defendant not discharge his burden, unless until it is disproved the said fact is proved. But in the present case in hand there is no such evidence to disprove the contentions of plaintiff. So, invaribly due to not proved his plea and not discharged his burden as the plaintiff himself examined PW1 and produced Exbit A.1, so plaintiff proved his contention.

16.As per section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act until the contrary is proved, the consideration presume shall be made that when every such instrument when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted for consideration where formal execution has to be proved, by producing document where a main signature appear in a document at a place where the execution of such a document would normally sign, then the signature may primafacie taken as having been put in token of execution, it is primafacie proof that the document was executed by the signatory as to be presumed under Sec.114 of Evidence Act. As in the present case in hand the 7

OS 17/18 R.M.S.V

defendant agreed that he executed the promissory notes in favour of PW1 and defendant fails to prove that he has not borrowed any amount from the plaitniff and he never executed Ex.A.1 suit pronote, with regard to that defendant not adduced any evidence and the defendant to disprove the said fact neither he appeared before court nor adduced any occular or ducumentary evidence to prove his contention. Except filing written statement and he was not dare to face trail and fials to cross examine P.W.1 subsequently reported no futher evidence on his behalf.

17. The burden to disprove the passing of a consideration on a pronote shifts to the party who denies the passing of consideration, despite admitting the execution of the pronote, that too the defendant not disprove his contention that there is no consideration passed towards Exbit A.1. But with regard to passing consideration defendant not discharged his burden. Hence, the issue

No.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff against defendant.

18.Issue No.2 :

As per Exbit A.1, the plaintiff residence is situated at Prakasam road,

Piler Village, Post and Mandal and the defendant is working as Process Server at Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Piler Village, Post and Mandal. The residence of plaintiff and residence of defendant comes within this court jurisdiction preview. Hence this court got jurisdiction for determining the suit, so, the plaintiff/PW1 filed suit before within jurisdiction. Hence, issue No.2 is also decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

19.Issue No.3 :

Further the plaintiff/PW1 filed the suit on 08.01.2018 and defendant executed promissory note Exbit A.1 on 30.09.2015 of Rs.1,00,000/­ in favour of plaintiff/PW1 by agreeing with an intrerest of 24% per annum., and the 8

OS 17/18 R.M.S.V

plaintiff/PW1 filed suit within limitation, and defendant also not taken any plea with regard to basing on Exbit A.1 filed suit either within limitation period or not. But as discuss above it is clear suit filed within limitation. Hence, issue

No.3 also decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

20.Issue No.4 :

Basing on issue Nos.1 to 3, the plaintiff proved his case by filing Exibit

A1 to A.3. So, Plaintiff/PW1 is entitle the suit claimed amount of Rs.1,54,600/­

21.ISSUE NO.5 :

In the result, the suit is decreed of Rs.1,54,600­00 with an interest at 12% p.a., from the date of institution of suit to till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree to till the date of realization against the defendant on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000­00 against the defendant with costs. 

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 19th day of December, 2018.

Sd/­ Smt.R.M.Subhavalli.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER.

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:­ DEFENDANT :

P.W.1: K.YellappaNone.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR 

PLAINTIFF:­ DEFENDANT : NIL

Ex.A.1 : Original promissory note, dt.30.09.2015 of Rs.1,00,000/­.

9

OS 17/18 R.M.S.V

Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.15.12.2017.

Ex.A.3 : Served acknowledgment.

Sd/­ Smt.R.M.Subhavalli.

P.J.C.J,

PILER. 

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD.

Present : Smt.R.M.SUBHA VALLI,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Piler.

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

Frida y, the Twenty First day of December, 2018.

O.S.No. 194 of 2018

Between Smt.G.Padmavathamma, W/o G.Muni Raja, aged about 41 years, Hindu, r/at Tarigonda Village and Post, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District. … Plaintif

And

1. Smt G.Leelavathamma, wife of Late G.Venkatramana, aged about 60 years.

2. R.Venkatramana, Son of Siddappa, aged about 55 years.

3. G.Nagulappa, Son of Venkatappa, aged about 65 years.

4. G.Narasimhulu, Son of Nagulappa, aged about 39 years,

5. G.Ramadevi, wife of Narasimhulu, aged about 34 years

6. G.Sreenivasulu, Son of Nagulappa, aged about 46 years. All are Hindus, residing at Devalam Street, Tarigonda village and Post, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Defendants

This suit came before me on 21.12.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Dwarakanatha Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the Defendants remained exparte, and upon hearing on both and having stood over for consideration, this Court doth delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

(Suit for permanent injunction)

1. The plaintiff filed this suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from entering into any sort of transactions/ alienating the Plaint Schedule Property and also defendants 2 to 6 and their men, agents and followers, from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for suit costs.

2.The brief facts of the plaint contents are as follows :

The plaintiff contended that the father of the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Plaint Schedule property and he had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights during his life time and the father of the plaintiff executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the Plaint schedule property in sound disposing state of mind out of love and affection dt. 23.06.2000. The said will is last and final testamentary document. The father of the plaintiff namely

G.Venkataramana died on 25.04.2002 and as per the recitals of the said

Will the 1st defendant has to enjoy the Plaint Schedule proeprty without alienating the Plaint Schedule property and after her demise, this plaintiff who is the only daughter will succeeded the Plaint schedule property, so after demise of the 1st defendant this plaintiff will become the absolute owner of the Plaint schedule property as per the said registered will dt.

23.06.2000. There was a partition in between the Plaintiff’s father

Venkatramana and the defendants 2 and 3 in respect of the Plaint schedule survey number on 20.06.2000 in which the Plaint schedule property was allotted to the father of Plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that under the suit registered will executed by the father of the plaintiff

dt. 23.06.2000 the defendants 2 and 3 were attestors the 1st defendant

and along with the two other attestors, who got ample knowledge, about the suit Will and its incorporated pleadings and conveyance, thus, the defendants 1 to 3 stood as an attestors to the knowledge of the other defendants 4 to 6 as the defendants 4 and 6 are sons of the 3rd defendant and 5th defendant is the wife of 4th defendant, defendants 2 and 3 played active role in arranging the suit property to the plaintiff under the suit

Will. Thus, the acts of the defendants is nothing but estopped by conduct and deed, in view of the defendants 1 to 3 attestation, who attested specifically knowing the contents of the suit registered Will and about its existing schedule. Even then the present highhanded acts of the defendants are most unnatural and they have no right to middle with the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff further submitted that, after death of her father dt. 24.04.2002 the 1st defendant is trying to alienate the Plaint Schedule property and she is also trying to create some nominal and sham documents in respect of the Plaint schedule property in favour of the defendants 2 to 6, for which all the defendants vice versa are not entitled to do so. The name of this plaintiff is also mutated in all concerned records i.e., house tax and electricity bill and this plaintiff is paying the same till today. The possession of this innocent plaintiff is open, continuous and uninterrupted to the knowledge of everybody including the defendants herein. The 1st defendant is also residing in the suit schedule house along with this plaintiff and this plaintiff never objected her to reside in the plaint schedule house and both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are residing in the plaint schedule house. The plaintiff submitted that the defendants 2 to 6 demanded this plaintiff to sell away the suit property for that this plaintiff declined to sell away the suit property. The defendants have no iota of interest or right over the suit schedule property and they never in possession and enjoyment of the same at any point of time. But the defendants proclaiming int he village that they created and about to create some nominal and sham documents with hand in glow with 1st defendant and trying to change the physical features of the Plaint Schedule property and the defendants 2 to 6 are trying to enter into the Plaint Schedule Property by denying the right, title and possession of this innocent plaintiff over the suit schedule propert, for which the defendants are not entitled to do so, as the defendatns 2 to 6 are strangers and the 1st defendant is vested with limited rights, hence the present suit reliefs are well maintainable against all the defendants . When the 1st defendant with active collusion of one

S.Abdul Rasheed tried to create some documents and the above said

S.Abdul Rasheed tried to enter into the peaceful possession of this plainitff over the Plaint schedule property, then the plaintiff got filed suit as OS 241 of 2016 on the file of this court and the same was decreed with costs and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further submitted that, due to the above said reasons the defendants are trying to occupy the suit schedule property for the reasons best known to them. As stated supra, the defendants have no right to do so. About two days back with the plaintiff was in the suit schedule property, the defendants 2 to 6 and their men objected the plaintiff, for that the plaintiff questioned their highhanded acts, then the defendants 2 to 6 and their men left the place saying that they will not allow the plaintiff in enjoying the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is a law abiding and docile person and she is unable to resist the high handed acts of the defendants. The defendants 2 to 6 are powerful person followed by many un ruly elements, if they succeed in their attempts the plaintiff will be put to much loss and hard ship. The plaintiff apprehends that the defendants 2 to 6 in collusion with 1st defendant is trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without having any valid right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

3.After numbering the suit, summons were issued to defendants and the case was posted to 10.09.2018. On 10.09.2018 Sri G.Ramana,

Advocate filed Vakalat for D2 to D6. D1 called absent. No representation.

Hence, D1 is set exparte and the case was posted for filing of written statement of D2 to D6. On 20.11.2018 D2 to D6 called absent. No representation. Written statement not filed within statutory period.

Hence, D2 to D6 are set exparte and case posted for plaintiff evidence.

4.To establish her case, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and also marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 on her behalf.

5.On the other side, the defendants called absent. No representation, written not filed within statutory period. Hence, D1 to D6 are set exparte.

6.Plaintiff’s documents :

Ex.A.1 : Original registered sale deed, dt.23.06.2000. Ex.A.2 : Partition deed of Khararnama (subject to objection marked). Ex.A.3 : House tax receipt dt.17.02.2018. Ex.A.4 : Three Electricity Bills. Ex.A.5 : Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.241 of 2016 dt. 24.11.2016. Ex.A.6 : Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.241 of 2016 dt. 24.11.2016.

7. In support of her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. Exhibit A1 is Original registered sale deed, dt.23.06.2000. Ex.A2 is Partition deed of Khararnama (subject to objection marked). Ex.A3 is House tax receipt dt. 17.02.2018. Ex.A4 is three electricity bills. Ex.A5 is Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.2 41 of 2016 dt. 24.11.2016. Ex.A6 is Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.241 of 2016 dt. 24.11.2016. The evidence of PW-.1 is supported by Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.6 and the defendants did not appear before court to disprove the contention of plaintiff and even though after having knowledge of filing suit against them and engaged counsel defendants are not dare to face the trial by appearing before court and fails to file written statement and remained set exparte. After taking legal assistance the defendants not shown any interest for filing written statement to contesting case and after lapse of 97 days the defendants are set exparte the Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.6 are not unrebutted by defendant. Hence the evidence of PW-.1 and Ex,A.1 to Ex.A.6 proved the claim of the plaintiff so plaintiff is entitled as he prayed. Hence, the testimony of PW.1 and the documents remained un-rebutted by the defendants.

8. The plaintiff filed simply permanent injunction suit by producing documents Exs.A.1 to A.6 for granting permanent injunction as discussed supra, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and primafacie proved her contention and the plaintiff came to court with clean hands without any malafide intention by producing Exs.A.1 to A.6 documents and they are not unrebutted, presumption can be drawn unless and until any fact disproved shall be deemed to be proved.

9.In the above facts and circumstances, the plaintiff proved her case beyond all probable and relevant evidence and she is entitled for permanent injunction.

10.In the result, suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from entering into any sort of transactions/alienating the Plaint schedule property during her life time and also restraining the defendants 2 to 6, their men, agents, followers, relatives and servants, from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 21 st day of December, 2018.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER. FAC Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS :

P.W.1 : G.Padmavathamma

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF : Ex.A.1 : Original registered sale deed, dt.23.06.2000. Ex.A.2 : Partition deed of Khararnama (subject to objection marked). Ex.A.3 : House tax receipt dt.17.02.2018. Ex.A.4 : Three Electricity Bills. Ex.A.5 : Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.241 of 2016 dt. 24.11.2016. Ex.A.6 : Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.241 of 2016 dt. 24.11.2016.

FOR DEFENDANTS : Nil.

P.JCJ., Piler.

FAC JCJ.,

Vlpd.,

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

Present : Smt R.M.Subhavalli,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad

Frida y, the Twenty First day of December, 2018.

O.S.No. 194 of 2018

Between Smt.G.Padmavathamma, W/o G.Muni Raja, aged about 41 years, Hindu, r/at Tarigonda Village and Post, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District. … Plaintif

And

1. Smt G.Leelavathamma, wife of Late G.Venkatramana, aged about 60 years.

2. R.Venkatramana, Son of Siddappa, aged about 55 years.

3. G.Nagulappa, Son of Venkatappa, aged about 65 years.

4. G.Narasimhulu, Son of Nagulappa, aged about 39 years,

5. G.Ramadevi, wife of Narasimhulu, aged about 34 years

6. G.Sreenivasulu, Son of Nagulappa, aged about 46 years. All are Hindus, residing at Devalam Street, Tarigonda village and Post, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Defendants

This is a suit for grant of Permanent Injunction restraining the 1st defendant from entering into any sort of transactions/alienating the Plaint

Schedule property and also defendants 2 to 6 and their men, agents and followers, from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaint schedule property and for suit costs.

Plaint presented on : 08.08.2018 Plaint filed on : 08.08.2018

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is

Rs. 5000/- and a court fee of Rs. 822/- is paid thereon U/Sec.26 (c) of

A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

The cause of action for the suit arose on 23.06.2000 when the date of the execution of suit pronote; and continued de-die-in-diem at

Tarigonda village and post, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District within the jurisdiction of this court.

This suit coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri. A.Dwarakanatha Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained ex-parte and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows :-

1. that the suit is decreed granting Permanent injunction restraining the 1 st defendant from entering into any sort of transactions/alienating the Plaint schedule property during her life time and also restraining the defendants 2 to 6, their men, agents, followers, relatives and servants from in any way interfering witht he plaintifs peaceful possession

and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

2. that the defendants do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.2,024/- towards costs of this suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 21 st day of December, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VAYALPAD

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For Plaintiff Sl.No.Particulars(Rs.)Defendant

1.Vakalath2-00

2.Plaint Fee822-00

3.Advocate Fee1,000-00

4.Process100-00 --

5.Typing charges100-00

Total : 2,024-00

PJCJ., Piler

FAC JCJ, VPD

1

O.S.No.236/2016 R.M.S.V

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :CUM JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE VAYALPAD

PRESENT : SMT. R.M.SUBHAVALLI,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PILER.

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

Friday this the 21st day of December, 2018.

in

O.S.No. 236 of 2016.

V.Hemalatha, W/o Varala hitendra, age 36 years, Hindu, R/o Tarigonda village and Post, Gurramkonda (M), Chittoor District.… PLAINTIFF

VS

1. M.Murak Khan,S/o Sayyad Khan, aged 62 years,

2. M.Ameer Khan, S/o. Sayyad Khan, aged 48 years.

3. M.Mahaboob Basha, S/o. Sayyad Khan, aged 44 years. Defendants 1 to 3 are muslims, living by cultivation, residing at Devalam street, Tarigonda Village and post, Gurramkonda Mandal, Chittoor District. … DEFENDANT

This suit coming on 21-12-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Dwarakanatha Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, and Sri K.S.M.Shariff, Sri C.Ashok Kumar Reddy, advocates for defendant, having stood over for consideration,after perusing the material on record, this court doth delivered the following:-

::J U D G M E N T::

(Suit filed for recovery of amount of Rs.1,63,000/-)

This suit filed by plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,63,000/- from defendant basing on suit registered simple mortgage deed dated 27.01.2014 and for cost of the suit.

2

O.S.No.236/2016 R.M.S.V

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the defendants borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.01.2014 for their family and legal necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum and for consideration received the defendants 1 to 3 have jointly executed a simple mortgage deed, bearing document No.120/2014 of

S.R.O. Vayalpad in favour of the plaintiff by mortgaging the plaint schedule property as security to the plaintiff. The registered simple mortgage deed dt. 27.01.2014. The plaintiff further submitted that he demanded the defendants on number of occasions to discharge the mortgage debt. But the defendants are postponing the payment on some pretext or other. The plaintiff reliably learnt that the defendants are trying to create some nominal and sham documents in respect of the Plaint schedule property to nullify the rights of the plaintiffs under the present suit mortgage deed, if the defendants succeed in their attempts the plaintiff will be put to much loss and hardship and it will leads to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of the suit debt with interest at 24 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. Hence the plaint contents.

3. In rebuttal the defendant filed written statement contending that the suit is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts and the allegation mentioned in para no.3 rest of the plaint are hereby denied as falls and coined for the purpose of filing this suit and the defendants admitted that in the para 3 of the plaint is true and correct and also fact that on 27.01.2014 the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the legal necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum and have executed a registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and the further allegation that the plaintiff is entitled to recover

Rs.1,63,000/- is not correct. The plaintiff has not given credit to part payment made by 3

O.S.No.236/2016 R.M.S.V

the defendants towards the above date to tune of Rs.50,000/- in the presence of elders.

If the plaintiff gives credit to the payment made by the defendants on different occasions this defendants have no objection to pay balance amount. It is utterly false that the plaintiff demanded this defendants number of times to discharge the mortgage debt and defendants admitted that a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff and immediately the defendants approached the village elders and paid the part payment and the plaintiff undertook not to rush to a court of law and defendants further contended that there is no cause of action to plaintiff to file the suit and the cause of actions dates and particulars of valuation are not correct. and prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed by my predecessor officer for the purpose of determination they are as follows.

1. Whether the defendants made part payment of Rs.50,000/- on different occasions in respect of the debt dt. 27.01.2014 as alleged in the written statement?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the Preliminary decree as prayed for?

3. To what relief ?

5. During course of trial, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W1 and also marked Ex.A1 on her behalf .

6. On behalf of defendant side the 1st defendant examined as D.W.1 and no documents marked on their behalf.

Plaintiff’s side documents :

1.Exbit A.1 is Original suit mortgage deed dated 27.01.2014.

7.Both side arguments heard. Heard.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Issue No.1 and 2:

4

O.S.No.236/2016 R.M.S.V

It is a suit of simple mortgage allegedly executed by defendant on 27.01.2014 by borrowing amount of Rs..1,00,000/- from plaintiff and for recovery of the said amount the plaintiff filed this suit. To establish the same the plaintiff herself examined as PW 1 by filing her chief affidavit in if she reiterated the plaint contents and in token of that the PW 1 produced Exhibit A.1 which was executed by defendants.

9. Per contra the defendant not disputed the extention of Exhibit A1 and with regard to amount borrowed there is no dispute but borrowing amount is Rs.50,000/- but not Rs.1,00,000/- and as per PW 1 the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.01.2014, but defendant alleging that he borrowed amount only Rs.50,000/- but not Rs.1,00,000/- the same was denied by PW 1.

10. To establish his version the defendant himself examined as DW 1 by filing his chief affidavi, in it he reiterated the same as mentioned in his written statement and also, alleging that he paid interest for 25 months at the rate of 24% per annum i.e.,

Rs.2,000/- per month in the presence of elders by name M.Reddi Saheb, Son of

Mahaboob Saheb and M.Shabbir Son of Murad Sha of Kalakada to the plaintiff’s husband. But the DW 1 to prove his contention neither he examined both the mediators, simple alleging is not sufficient it has tobe establish cogent, reliable and probable evidence to prove his contention, but DW 1 not done the same. The PW 1 by producing

Ex.A1 proved her contention and with regard to execution of Exhibit A1 not denied by defendants. So, the burden is on the defendant.

11. As per section 3 and 4 of Evidence Act.

When ever it is provided by the Act that the court shall presume a fact it shall regard such fact as proved unless until it is disproved, the word 'proved' and disproved have been defined in section 3 of evidence Act apply the said principle behind section 118 (a) of Negotiable Instrument Act the court shall presume a Negotiable

Instrument Act to be for consideration unless and until it is disproved and presumed that consideration passed. It is necessary the defendant to disprove the existence of 5

O.S.No.236/2016 R.M.S.V

consideration of Rs.50,000/- only received but not Rs.1,00,000/- to adduce direct evidence or cogent and conveyance evidence by way of producing evidence before court.

12. As per section 118 (a) Once Execution of mortgage deed admitted burden lies upon defendant to establish that it is not supported by consideration of

Rs.1,00,000/- but only Rs.50,000/- Defendants fails to disprove the same, but there is no proof about the discharge of amount and also about the consideration was passed only Rs. 50,000/- or not . Then the burden lies on defendant.

13. The defendants took two pleas one is the Exhibit A1 borrowed amount is difference and the second one is that he paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- in the presence of elders and also paid interest of Rs.2,000/- per month. But present case the defendant did not discharge his burden. So, as per Section 118 (g) contains a mandate that until the contrary is proved the holder of a negotiable instrument shall be presumed to be a holder in due course in view of the statutory presumption in the instant case the PW1/plaitiff is the holder of the instrument in due course on its own right and defendant not rebutted the contention of PW1/ Paintiff by adducing any relevant evidence, the defendant not rebutted the same, then the court either believe the defence or Exist or considers its existence to be reasonably probable. But in this case the mandatory presumption not rebutted by proof of evidence simple plea taken in written statement that the Exbit A1 amount is paid and the defendants liable to pay

Rs.50,000/- only, so, the defendant not discharge his burden, unless until it is disproved the said fact is proved. But in the present case in hand there is no such evidence to disprove the contentions of plaintiff. So, invariably due to not proved his plea and not discharged his burden as the plaintiff herself examined PW1 and produced Exbit A.1, so plaintiff proved his contention.

14.As per section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act until the contrary is proved, the consideration Rs.1,00,000/- presume shall be made that when every such 6

O.S.No.236/2016 R.M.S.V

instrument when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted for consideration. Where formal execution has to be proved, by producing document where a main signature appear in a document at a place where the execution of such a document would normally signature, then the signature may prima-facie taken as having been put in token of execution, it is prima-facie proof that the document was executed by the signatory as to be presumed under sec. 114 of Evidence Act. As in the present case in hand the defendant agreed that he executed the promissory notes in favour of PW1 and defendant fails to prove that he paid the borrowed amount on which date and in whose presence, with regard to that defendant not adduced any evidence more particularly the elders Reddi Saheb and Shabbir and the defendant to disprove the said fact neither he produced them before court nor adduced any occular or documentary evidence to prove his contention that he paid Rs.50,000/- in their pressure. Except filing chief affidavit and he was not dare to face his cross examination, subsequently reported no further evidence on his behalf.

15. The burden to disprove the passing of a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- on

Exhibit A1 shifts to the party who denies the passing of consideration, despite admitting the execution of the pronote, that too the defendant not disprove his contention and the defendant one way he is accepting that he borrowed amount from PW1. But with regard to passing consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- defendant not discharged his burden. Hence,

Issue No.1 is decided in favour of Plaintiff and against the defendant.

16). As per Exbit A1, the plaintiff/PW1 is resident of Tarigonda Village and Post,

Gurramkonda (M), Chittoor. As the residence of plaintiff and defendant is Gurramkonda,

Chittoor District and it comes with in this court jurisdiction preview. Hence this court got jurisdiction for determining the suit, so, the plaintiff/PW1 filed suit before within jurisdiction. Further the plaintiff/PW1 filed the suit on 23.09.2016 and defendant executed Registered simple mortgage deed, Exhibit A.1 on 27.01.2014 of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff/PW1 by agreeing with an interest of Rs.24% p.a., and the plaintiff/PW1 filed suit within limitation, and defendant also not taken any plea with 7

O.S.No.236/2016 R.M.S.V

regard to basing on Exbit A.1 filed suit either within limitation period or not. But as discuss above it is clear suit filed with in limitation and plaintiff is entitle preliminary decree as he prayed. So, Issue No.2 is also decided in favour of Plaintiff and against defendants.

17).ISSUES NO.: 3

Basing on issues 1 and 2 the plaintiff proved his case by filing Exhibit A1.

So, Plaintiff/PW1 is entitle the suit claimed amount of Rs.1,63,000/-

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs directing the defendants to pay the suit amount within three months in case of default the plaintiff is at liberty to take appropriate steps.

(Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 21st day of December, 2018)

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VAYALPAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT : P.W.1: V.Hemalatha DW1: M.Murad Khan

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT : NIL Ex.A.1 is the Original Suit Mortgage Deed Dt.27.1.2014.

P.J.C.J, PILER.

FAC JCJ., VAYALPAD

8

O.S.No.236/2016 R.M.S.V