Smt.R.M.Subhavalli

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: BADVEL

Present:- Smt.R.M. Subhavalli,

Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Tuesday this the 20 th day of March, 2018

O.S.83 of 2017(old 126/2011)

BETWEEN:

Cheruvupalli Vijayalakshmi Devi W/o Veerabdhraswamy aged 44 years, Hindu, House wife, residing in Virat Nagar, B.Mattam (V) Post and Mandal.

….… Plaintiff.

AND

1. Nossam Srinivasachari S/o Nagarathnachari Hindu aged 35 years, residing in Virat Nagar, B.Mattam village post and mandal.

2. Nossam Nagabramhachari S/o Nagarathnachari Hindu, aged 42 years, residing in virat Nagar B.Mattam (Village and post and Mandal)

...... Defendant.

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.A.Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri Mogali Nagaraju, Advocate for defendants upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court doth delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This suit filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree in favour of plaintiff by grating permanent injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property of plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

2. The Brief facts of the plaint contents:-

The Plaintiff purchased the site shown as F, A,B1,B2, C, C1,C2, D, E,F, from

Nossam Lakshmi Eswaramma of B.Mattam on 05.11.2008 and the sale deed was also registered as document No.2585/2008. Since then the plaintiff alone is in possession and enjoyment of the property covered under the sale deed.Further the plaintiff submitted 2 that on the northern side of the site belongs to the plaintiff the cement road was constructed and the same is shown as A,D,E,F,A in continuation of the street running from

East to west. The site was voluntarily given by the plaintiff to facilitate the people of the locality to pass through the road running from East to West which takes turn from the main road running from south to North. The plaintiff has purchased an extent of A.C.0.06 cents in the suit survey number out of which an extent of A.C.0.784 cents was voluntrily given for the purpose of cement road. The balance extent of A.C.0.784 cents was voluntarily given for the purpose of cement road. The balance extent of A,B1,B2,C,C1C2

D, A is nearly A.C.0.05 cents in extent which is part and pacefl the extent purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the site covered under A,B,B1,B2

B,C,C1,C2,D,A and shown in the plan. The said site may herein after be called as suit site for the sake of convenience, the plaintiff a ssuch is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit site. No one else including defendants have any right, title or possession over the suit site. The defendants 1 and 2 have got sites to the west of the suit site. Already there is a rastha running from east to west for the use of defendant and others. However not being satisfied by the said rastha the defendants are insisting to provide a further

Rastha cutting across the said site at points, B1,B2,C1,C2 B1. Further the plaintiff submitted that the defendants have no right what so ever did not have any impact on the defendants. The plaintiff has already carted stones near B1,B2 point to facilitate the construction of the wall along A1,B1,B2, B. The defendants are actively canvassed that, they would prevent the plaintiff from making such constructions. Hence the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit site and more particulars from constructing the wall along A, B1,B2, B.

3. Per contra the defendants filed written statement as the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of all the allegations of the plaint.

Excepting those which are specifically admitted herein by this defendant. Further they contended that the allegations in paragraphs 'a' to 'd'(Colomn No-III case of the plaint) of the plaint are distorted and false. The entire suit property does not belong to the plaintiff.

One Nossam Lakshmi Eswaramm is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and on 28.4.1983 she has purchased through Registered sale deed with document 3

No.638/1983, dated 28.4.1983 in Sub Registrar office, Badvel and on the same year she has constructed two portions pucca building, one is roofless in southern side of her site i.e., Southern side of B1, B2,C1 and C2 rastha in the plaint plan. The said Nossam

Lakshmi Eswaramma was sold her two portions houses in the plaint plan to their daughter Smt. Gummoji Bramaramba, wife of G.Vijaya Bhaskar with consideration of

Rs.75,000/- with sale agreement dated 12.9.2003 and the same was handedover on the same day. The said Smt. Gummoji Bramaramba is in possession and enjoyment in the said houses. Few months back the said G.Bramaramba filed a suit in O.S.No.111/2011 on the same file of the Senior Civil District Judge, Badvel against this plaintiff and her two sons and Nossam Lakshmi Eswaramma for permanent injunction. Still it is pending before the Honourable Senior Civil Judge court, Badvel. The plaintiff is not having any manner of right title or interest in the said property. The allegations in paragraph 'C' of the plaint are in correct. The defendants have no sites in the western side of the suit schedule site. The mother of these defendants is living in the western side of the said two portions house in the schedule property in a hut, which was constructed by the defendants mother 40 years back and it is collapsed stage. Since 40 years the defendants mother used B1, B2

C1 and C2 rastha it was shown in the plaint plan. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file suit against this defendants, and the cause of action and the dates and boundaries alleged therefore, in para 'a' to 'd' and cause of action of the plaint are not true and correct. The polaitniff however has to prove the alleged cause of action for filing this suit against this defendant. The defendants submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not only speculative, but also devoid of any merits. These defendants submits that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief or reliefs sought by them against this defendants. These defendants, therefore prayed that the Honourable court may be pleased to dismiss the suit against it with exemplary costs.

4.Before going to discussion once we verified the following issues which are framed by my predecessor officer basing on the both parties pleadings.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit property as on date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

4

6. During course of trial the plaintiff to establish her case she herself examined as

PW1 by filing her chief affidavit and on her behalf the plaintiff adduced PW2 evidence and Ex.A.1 and A.2 are marked on her behalf.

7.On the other side the the defendant No.1 himself examined as D.W.1 and also adduced DW2 evidence and no documents marked on their behalf.

Plaintiff side documents:-

Exbit A1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 05.11.2008.

Exbit A2 is the plaint plan.

8.Heard both side arguments: Heard.

9.Now the point for determination is.

11.ISSUE NO.1 and 2:-

The Plaintiff to establish her case she herself examined as PW1 by filing her chief affidavit and in her chief affidavit she reiterated all the plaint contents, she contended that she purchased the site shown as FA, B1, B2, BCC1 C2DEF from Nossam

Lakshmi Eswaramma of B.Mattam on 05.11.2008 through register sale deed document

No.2585/08 since then she alone in possession and enjoying the property. Further contended that on the northern side of site belongs to the plaintiff the cement road was constructed as ADEFA in continuation of the steet running from east-West, the site was voluntrily given up by the plaintiff, she purchased an extent of AC 0.06 cents in the suit sy.No out of which AC 0.784 cents and she given up cement road and the balance extent of A,B1,B2,B,C,C1,C2,D,A is nearly AC 0.05 cents whcih is part and pacel of the extent purchased by her, since then she is absolute owner of the site covered under A,B,B1,B2 C ,C1,C2,D A, while so, the defendants No.1 and 2 have got sites to the West of the suit site. Already there is a Rasta running from East to West for the use of defendants and others. However not being satisfied by the said Rastha the defendants are insisting to provide a further Rasta cutting across the said site at points B1,B2, C1,C2, B1, even not having any right and the plaintff carted stones near B1,B2 point for construction of the wall along A B1,B2,B when the defendants 1 and 2 obstructed, then plaintiff filed this present suit with the suit schedule boundaries are East: Site of Kakumanu

Venkatasubbamma, South: Konda Singaraya Swamy, West: Kummari Pothuluraiahs site 5 and at present under occupation of the defendants. North: Cement road for proving the same the PW1 produce certified copy of Registered sale deed dated 05.11.2008 as in

Exbit A.1.

12.Further to prove PW1 contention PW1 adduced PW2 evidence, who is brother of on east side of suit schedule property having house. PW2 in his chief disclosed that he know plaintiff and the defendants in the suit and he also know the suit site situated in

B.Mattam mandal, somireddy palli Panchayat limits in extent A.C.0.06 cents, and further

PW2 said that her sister Kakumani Venkata Subbamma had got a house to the east of the suit site. She constructed the house to the said site more than 20 years ago and to the north of the suit site there is a cement road running from east to west. Similarly on the eastern side of the house of Venkata Subbamma there is also a road running from south to north. On the northern side a site of A.C.0.01 ¾ cents was sold to Nageswara Rao by

Kamumani Venkata Subbamma. There is a vacant site in between the house of

Nageswara Rao and Kakumani Venkata Subbamma. The said vacant site is the exclusive site of Kakumani Venkata Subbamma through which she has to enter into the road running south to north. It has nothing to do with the site ' A B C D” nobody can enter into the site from the said vacant site situated from east to west along the line A B' and said that the defendants have got a site to the west of the suit site. They have to enter into their site through the cement road running from east to west. The defendants have absolutely no right in the vacant site situated to the north of the house of Kakumani

Venkata Subbamma and PW2 in his cross examination disclosed the boundaries of her sister land is as eastern side one panchayat road is running and towards western side one

Konda Singaraiah Manyam house is situated and northern side the panchayath road is running and towards southern side same panchayat road is running. But PW2 clearly admitted there is lane in between his sisters house and Pabbathi Nageswara Rao and

PW2 further said that the lane which shown to him belongs to his sister (Vacant place) by name K.Venkata Subbamma and PW2 said he cannot say the measurements of the aforesaid lane and PW2 admitted that there are somany houses adjacent to his sister houses in the same lane and also admitted the afore said houses faces towards northern side and also admitted that there is a vacant site infront of the house of his sister which is up to 5 to 6 feets and PW2 said that he cannot sure about the length of the vacant site in front of his sisters house his sister has to first step on the road situated towards 6 northern side then she has to turn towards eastern side for coming out.

13.When we see PW1 cross examination she said that she purchased A.C.0.06 cents of site from Nossam Lakshmi Eswaramma during the year 2008 by way of registered document and admitted that either the husband of Lakshmi Eswaramma or her sons and daughters attested in the sale deed dated 05.11.2008 and PW1 admitted that there are two old haviles in the plaint schedule property and PW1 admitted that the said two havelies are constructed during the year 1989 or 1990 and admitted that the western side haveli is in dilapidated condition and PW1 admitted that they sold the suit schedule property to one Utukuru Siddamma, wife of Chinna Sidda Reddy on 05.01.2009 by document No.38/2009 and also admitted that after selling the suit schedule property in the name of Utukuru Siddamma the said property was not again registered in PW1 name and the said property is in the name of Siddamma and further PW1 admitted that on the western side of the suit schedule property, the house of D1 is situated and admitted that the K.Venkanta Subbamma's house is situated on the eastern side of suit schedule property and further admitted that Kakumanu Venkata Subbamma sold out certian extent on the northern side of her house. But PW1 in her further cross examination clearly admitted that on the eastern side of suit schedule property a house of Kakumanu Venkata subbamma is situated and there are two houses one portion of the house was sold out to one P.Nageswara Rao which is situated on the northern side of Kakumanu Venkata

Subbamm's house. There is a sandhu in between the house of Kakumanu Venkata

Subbamma and P.Nageswara Rao. The width of the said Sandhu is 3 to 4 feet. Further

PW1 also admitted that there are 5 to 6 houses are in one alignment in the houses of

Kakumanu Venkata Subbamma, suit scheduel property and Nossam Venkata Lakshumma,

Govinda Swamy's house and later BSNL tower, and PW1 denied that the material for the

BSNL tower will be shifted through the said Sandhu situated in between the houses of

Kakumanu Venkata Subbamma and P.Nageswara Rao. But surprisingly PW1 admitted that the suit schedule property not stands in her name and admitted that one Lakshmi

Eswaramma while she was alive gifted the suit schedule property to her 2nd daughter and

PW1 voulterrs that the the suit pertaining to the suit schedule property was dismissed by this court.

14.With regard to original owner of suit schedule property is Nossam Lakshmi 7

Eswaramma for that no dispute, but the DW1 contention is that Plaintiff/ PW1 has no right and title over the suit schedule property as the said Nossam Lakshmi Eswaramma never sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, in turn plaintiff/PW1 never sold the suit schedule property, to one Utukuru Siddamma wife of U.Chinna Subbareddy Vide document No.38/09 dated 05.01.2009 and the plaintiff created fake and fabricated document, further DW1/Defendant No.1 disclosed that the said Nossam Lakshmi

Eswaramm executed a under registereed sale deed in favour of her daughter,

Smt.Gummoji Bramaramba wife of G.Vijaya Bhaskarachari on 12.09.2003.

15.DW1 admitted that there is cement road running from east to west on northern side of his site. As per boundaries shown by plaintiff on east side one Kakumani

Venkata subbamma house is there and western side Kummari Pothuluraiah site. The

DW1 contention is that the house on eastern side house belongs to one Bramaramba, and

DW1 clearly said that there is no site belongs to plaintiff to the east of their site. Further said that there is a house and one Nageswara Rao is situated to the east of the suit site and also disclosed that there is vacant site in between the house of Nageswara Rao and

K.Venkatasubbamma. The said fact was admitted by PW2 as well as PW1. PW1 clearly said that she sold the suit land to one Utukuru Siddamma vide D.No.38/09 on 05.1.2009,

But as per Exbit A1 PW1 purchased the land from Nossam Lakshmi Eswaramma on 05.11.2008 within one month on 05.01.2009 PW1 sold the land to Utukuru Siddamma and also admitted that the suit schedule property in the name of Siddamma. But PW1 produced certified copy of Register document as in Exbit A1, Mere marking of the document it self is not sufficient and there should be judicial determination as to the nature of the document and its admissibility under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act and also their enactments such as Indian stamp Act, Registration Act etc., and it is also settled that merely because a document is admissible in evidence mere admission by itself does not automatically prove its contents as its probative value is altogether different.

16.In a latest devision Honourable High Court held in Trinadha Patro

Vs. Lingaraj Rana 2016(1) ALT 174= 2015(6) ALD 617, our own High court

Explained the distlinction between the concepts of “ Admissibility” and relevancy and held that 'admissibility' and “relevancy” are two tests for Judicial approval of the evidence 8 tendered by a party.

17.But when we see the evidence of PW2 nothing was disclosed about the execution of Exbit A1, except PW1 evidence there is no other relevant evidence to prove

Exbit A1. Further the PW1 produced the Exbit A1 is certified copy of orginal document, but not produced original document, nor gave account for the original.

18.As the Honourable Supreme Court in H.Siddiqui(Dead) by L.Rs Vs. A.

Ramalingam, 2011(3) ALT 19(SC)= 2011(4) SCC 240 held the principles for admitting the secondary evidence. In a case where the original documents are not produced at any time nor has any factual foundation been laid for giving secondary evidence it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is in admissible until the non production of the original is accounted for, so, as to bring it with one or othe of the cases provided for in the section. The secondary evidence must be anthenticated by foundatioal evidence, that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original mere admission of document in evidence does not amounts its proof therefore the documentary evidence is required to be proved in accordance with law.

19.Further PW1 admitted on western side of suit schedule property the house of

D1 is there and also said that K.Venkata subbamma house is situated on easter side of suit schedule property if it so as per Exbit A2 shown and in between B to B2 which is vacant place east to west and same was admitted by all the witnesses. But here as per

Exbit A1, B2 to B land shown Kamumanu Venkatasubbamma and A to B land shown

Nageswara Rao in between AB to B2 B there is vacant place adjasing in between house and Kakumanu Venkata subbammma and Narasimha Rao house. As per PW1 contention she is having land on nother side of her house and beside also vacant place and after that east to west running from same road. If PW1 not ower of B2 to B as well as C to C1 for proving that in Exbit A1 neither the boundaries not mentioned nor the plaintiff not produced any evidence that as on the date of filing of the suit PW1 was enjoying the suit schedule property, except producing Exbit A1 and A2 her title itself is not proved, she her self admitted presently the land stands in Utukuru Subbamma's name.

20.Further when we see DW2 evidence discloses that the disputed property is under possession of one Bramaramba and said that the reason best not known for him 9 while the plaintiff filed the suit against defendant. As it is a case of permanent injunction without having any right over the suit schedule property and PW1 not proved that she is in possession of suit schedule property, appended within boundaries mentioned as in

Exbit A.1 PW1 fails to prove her title for obtaining permanent injunction.

21.In the above facts and circumstances the issue No.1 and 2 decided against plaintiff.

22.Issue No.3:- In the result the suit is dismissed without costs.

(Typed on my dictation by in charge stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 20th day of March, 2018)

Sd/- R.M.Subhavalli,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT:-

PW1 is C.Vijayalakshmi. DW1 Nossam Srinivasa Chari. PW2 is G.Subbarayudu DW2 Sana Ramaiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:-

Exbit A1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 05.11.2008.

Exbit A2 is the plaint plan.

DEFENDANT: - NIL

Sd/- R.M.S.V.,

JCJ Badvel

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

PRESENT : SMT. R.M.SUBHAVALLI, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BADVEL.

Wednesday this the 18th day of April, 2018.

O.S.No. 206 of 2017

In between:-

Kalluri Ramachandra Reddy S/o Gurivireddy aged about 67 years, Pensioner, Opp.State Bank of India,Mydukur Road, Badvel Kadapa District.… PLAINTIFF

VS

Reddivari Rama Lakshumma W/oVenkata Ramaiah age 40 years, House wife and shop, Opp. SBI, Mydukur Road, Badel town Y.S.R.District.… DEFENDANT

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Rajeswara Rao, advocate for plaintiff and sri Pradeep Kumar Pawar, advocate for defendant, having stood over for consideration,after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:- ::J U D G M E N T::

(Suit filed for recovery of amount of Rs.1,71,800/-)

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,71,800/- basing on suit pronote and for costs of the suit.

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

The plaintiff and defendant are acquainted to each other and on 23.07.2014 the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same, with interest at 24% p.a., The execution of pronote and borrowing of the amount thereunder by the defendant had taken place at the residence of the plaintiff at the address mentioned above. The pronote, in original is filed here with, and it may be referred to as “ Suit pronote”. Further the plaintiff submitted that for the last several days, the plaintiff has been demanding the defendant to pay amounts due under the above mentioned pronote, but the defendnat has not paid but postponing the same, saying one reason or other, 2

Ultimately, yesterday, he gave an evasive reply and did not pay the due under the pronote to plaintiff. The plaintiff gathered that the defendant has been trying to leave the village along with his family members, by selling away his properties. For the last one week he has been contacting the mediators and offered to sell his properties.

Hence, the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit for the amount.Hence plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of pronote amount.

3. In rebuttal the defendant filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and plaintiff is put strict proof of all the allegations of the plaint, except those which are specifically admitted herein and further contended that the allegations of the plaint, that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 23.7.2014 is false and also denied the execution of pronote in favour of plaintiff of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further the defendant contended that on several days the plaintiff has been demanding the defendant to pay the amounts due under the above mentioned pronote, but the defendant has not paid but postponing the same, saying one reason for other is false. The rest of the allegations are all false and incorrect. Further defendant contended that the plaintiff has suppressed the real facts and filed the suit for wrongful gain and defendant contended that the defendant has submitted that the real fats as follows the defendant is the resident of Bovillavaripalli village of Badvel Mandal. The defendant and her husband came to Badvel town and taken the plaintiff house situated opposite to the state Bank of India, Badvel main

Branch, for lease to run a petty shop for his livelihood and also for residence by keeping his wife by name Ranaga Lakshumma and his children therein and the defendant went to out of town to do coolee works.The plaintiff demanded advance amount of Rs.20,000/- for the house rent of Rs.7,500/- for that the defendant expressed his inability to pay advance amount.For that the plaintiff demanded to execute a pronote for advance amount. Accordingly the defendant has signed as attester in the pronote. Further the defendant contended that the defendant was paying the rent regularly, but unfortunately in the month of December 2014 she was unable to pay the rent amount.For that the plaintiff demanded to execute a pronote for the amount. Accordingly the defendant signed in a unfilled up pronote and in that pronote the husband of defendant has attested and in the month of April 2017 the defendant and her husband wants to close the petty shop and also to vacate the 3 house. Then the plaintiff has caliculated all the dues and what ever small damages to the house and including white wash amount and fixed the entire amount as Rs.44,400-

00. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay entire amount but the defendant is unable to pay such amount. But the plaintiff forced them to execute a pronote for the amount. Accordingly the defendant has executed the pronote and the defendant husband has attested the pronote. The defendant and her husband wants to continue the business and they want to reside in the house as usual. But the plaintiff demanded house rent for Rs.9,000/- when the defendant not agreed for that, then the plaintiff demanded to pay amount under three pronotes. For that the defendant surprised by seeing the amounts mentioned in the pronotes. The defendant has refused to pay the amounts under those pronotes. There was an altercation taken place in between them.

For that the plaintiff has manipulated the pronotes signed by the defendant and filed the suit without giving notice to the defendant. The plaintiff also filed two suits against the defendant in O.S.No.206/2017 and O.S.No.210/2017 on the file of this Honourable court. According to the above circumstances the suit pronotes is not supported by any consideration. No notice has been issued by the plaintiff against the defendants.

Therefore prayed that may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.

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

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 23.07.2014 it is true,valid or binding on defendant or not?

2.Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is within limitation period or not?

3. Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is within the jurisdiction of this court or not? 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief as prayed or not?

5. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and marked Exbit A1 on his behalf.

6.On the other side none examined and no documents marked.

6.Both side reported arguments taken heard. Heard.

7.Now the point for consideration is

8.ISSUE 1 TO 3:- 4

It is a promissory note case filed by plaintiff to recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,71,800/- from defendant basing as defendant executed promissory note on 23.7.2014 for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of PW1 with interest of 24% per annum. To establish the same the plaintiff himself examined as PW1,by filing her chief affidavit,

PW1 reiterated the plaint contents in her chief affidavit. As per PW1 version that himself and defendant are acquinted with each other the defendant borrowed

Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 23.7.2014 and executed promissory note as in Exbit A.1 inspite of repeated demands, defendant fails to choose to pay the amount, so PW1 filed this present suit. After due calcculation.

9. But PW1 to prove the contents of promissory note adduced the evidence of himself and also produced promissory note which was executed by defendant on 23.7.72014 agreeing to repay interest at 24% per annum as in Exbit A1. But defendant not tried to even cross examinate the PW1, but defendnat side reported party may be called , Hence defendant called absent no representation, PW1 cross examination treated nill and then plaintiff side reported no further evidence, hence plaintiff side evidence closed and when case posted for defendant side evidence as written statement is on record, then the defendnat side reported no evidence, hence defendant side evidence closed and both side reported arguments taken as heard. But defendant contended in his written statement that he never borrowed amount. Further defendant contended that the plaintiff has suppressed the real facts and filed the suit for wrongful gain. Further the defendant contended that the defendant has submitted that the real fats as follows that the defendnat is the resident of Bovillavaripalli village of Badvel Mandal. The defendant came to Badvel town along with her husband and taken the plaintiff house situated opposite to the state Bank of India, Badvel main

Branch, for lease to run a petty shop for his livelihood and also for residence therein and the husband of defendant went to out of two to do coolly works.The plaintiff demanded advance amount of Rs.20,000/- for the house rent of Rs.7,500/- for that the defendant expressed his inability to pay advance amount.For that the plaintiff demanded to execute a pronote for advance amount. Accordingly the defendant has signed in a unfilled up pronote and that pronote the defendant has signed in a unfilled up pronote and that pronote the husband of defendant has signed as attester in the pronote. Further the defendant contended that the defendant was paying the rent 5 regularly, but unfortunately in the month of December 2014 she was unable to pay the rent amount.For that the plaintiff demanded to execute a pronote for the amount.

Accordingly the defendant signed in a unfilled up pronote and in that pronote the husband of defendant has attested. In the month of April 2017 the defendant and her husband wants to close the petty shop and also to vacate the house.Then the plaintiff has calciulated all the dues and what ever small damages and including white wash amount and fixed the entire amount as Rs.44,400-00. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay entire amount as Rs.44,400-00. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the amount, but the plaintiff is unable to pay such amount. But the plaintiff forced the defendant to execute a pronote for the amount. Accordingly the defendant has executed the pronote and her husband has attested the pronote. The defendant and her husband wants to continue the business and they want to reside in the house as usual. But the plaintiff demanded house rent for Rs.9,000/- when the defendant not agreed for that, thent he plaintiff demanded to pay amount under three pronotes. But all these contents not disproved by defendant and defendant in her written statement clearly admitted that she executed 03 promissory notes in favour of plaintiff .

10. To prove her contention defendant neither she apeared before court not filed any documentary proof to prove her version and not dare to face trial and fails to adduced any evidence to prove her contention by disproving the plaintiff version and only filed wirtten statement without addusing her evidence by appearing before court, and she fails to prove her version, simple filing written statement does not disprove the contention of plaintiff. But defendant clearly admitted that he executed suit pronote infavour of plaintiff, but the reason as due to non payment of rents the defendant executed three promissory notes and same was attested by her husbabd.

13.As per section of 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 untile after consideration 6 matter. It is necessary to defendant to disprove the existance of consideration by way of direct evidence or cogent and coveneyant evidence by way of appearing before court. But in the present case in hand the defendant fails to disprove the contention of

PW1/Plaintiff, hence plaintiff/PW1 proved his contention by way of producing Exbit A.1.

12.As per section 118(a) Once Execution of pronote admitted burden lies upon defendant to establish that it is not supported by consideration, Defendant admits execution of Exbit A1 but pleads that no consideration was passed, but contended that it was only executed as a security for the dues or rent amount of plaintiff. Then the burden lies on defendant. But the defendant simply filed written statement saying that the plaintiff has manipulated the pronotes signed by the defendant and filed the suit without giving notice to the defendant. The plaintiff also filed two suits against the defendant in O.S.No.206/2017 and O.S.No.210/2017 on the file of this Honourable court and defendant not produced any proof that no consideration passed towards Exbit A1 the allegation is not sufficient it has to be established through direct, cogent or convencing evidence either by documentary or occular evidence.

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 her burden that the Exbit A1 was obtianed 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 her 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 or 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. But defendnat not appearing before court not rebutted the contention of PW1/ Paintiff by adducing his 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 is manipulated by PW1 is not sufficient so, the defendant not discharged her burden, unless untile it is disproved, the said fact is proved. But in the present case in hand there is no such evidence to disprove the 7 contention of plaintiff. So, invaribly due to non adducing any evidence by defendant, and not proved her plea and not discharged her burden, then adverse inference can be drawn and the plaintiff himself examined PW1 and filed promissory note as in Exbit

A.1, so plaintiff proved his contention.

16.But as per section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act untile 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. As in the present case in hand the defendant agreed that she executed the Exbit A.1 in favour of plaintiff, apart from two other pronotes but taken plea that with out passing any consideration, with regard to that defendant not adduced any evidence and the defendant to disprove the said fact neither she appeared before court nor adduced any occular or documentary evidence to prove her contention.

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 the defendant not specifically contented that there is no consideration passed towards promissory note and defendant not dare to face trial before appearing

Honourable court by adducing her evidence and to face cross examination of other

side, not tried to cross examine PW1.

18. Hence issue 1 is decided infavour of PW1/Plaintiff and agianst defendant.

19.ISSUE NO.2 :-

The plaintiff/PW1 filed the suit on 21.07.2017 and defendant executed pronote on 23.7.2014 of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff/PW1 by agreeing with an intrerest of Rs.24% p.a., and the plaintiff PW1 filed suit within limitation, and defendant also not taken any specific plea with regard to basing on Exbit A1 filed suit either within limitation period or not. But as discuss above it is clear suit filed with in limitation hence 2nd issue is also decided in favour of plaintiff/PW1 and against the defendant.

20.ISSUE NO.3:- As per pleadings note the plaintiff/PW1 is resident of

Opposite SBI Bank, Badvel Kadapa District and the defendant is also resident of

Opposite SBI Bank, Badvel Kadapa District. As Opposite SBI Bank, Badvel is comes with in this court jurisdiction preview. Hence this court got Jurisdiction for determining 8 the suit, so, the plaintiff/PW1 filed suit before within jurisdiction, hence issue No.2 is also decided in favour of plaintiff/PW1 against defendant.

21. ISSUE NO:4:-

Basing on issues 1 to 3 the plaintiff proved his case by filing promissory note. So plaintiff/PW1 is entitle the suit claimed amount of Rs.1,71,800/- so, the Issue

No.4 also decided in favour of plaintiff against defendant.

22. ISSUE NO:5:-

In the result, the suit is decreed of Rs.1,71,800/- with interest at 12% PA from the date of institution of suit to till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6%

PA from the date of decree to till the date of realization against the defendant on the

principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000-00 against the defendant with cost.

(Typed to my dictation by in charge steno grapher, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 18th day of April, 2018)

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT :Set exparte.

P.W.1:Kalluri Ramachandra Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF-

PLAINTIFF:- Ex.A.1 is Original Promissory note dated 23.7.2014 for Rs.1,00,000/- DEFENDANT : NIL

J.C.J, Badvel 9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

PRESENT : SMT. R.M.SUBHAVALLI, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BADVEL.

Tuesday this the 17th day of April, 2018.

O.S.No. 210 of 2017

In between:-

Kalluri Ramachandra Reddy S/o Gurivireddy aged about 67 years, Pensioner, Opp.State Bank of India,Mydukur Road, Badvel Kadapa District.… PLAINTIFF

VS

Reddivari Venkata Ramaiah S/o Venkata Ramaiah age 46 years, occupation Business, Opp. SBI, Mydukur Road, Badel town Y.S.R.District.… DEFENDANT

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Rajeswara Rao, advocate for plaintiff and sri Pradeep Kumar Pawar, advocate for defendant, having stood over for consideration,after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:- ::J U D G M E N T::

(Suit filed for recovery of amount of Rs.46,738/-)

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.46,738/- basing on suit pronote and for costs of the suit.

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

The plaintiff and defendant are acquainted to each other and on 01.05.2017 the defendant borrowed Rs.44,400/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same, with interest at 24% p.a., The execution of pronote and borrowing of the amount thereunder by the defendant had taken place at the residence of the plaintiff at the address mentioned above. The pronote, in original is filed here with, and it may be referred to as “ Suit pronote”. Further the plaintiff submitted that for the last several days, the plaintiff has been demanding the defendant to pay amounts due under the above mentioned pronote, but the defendnat has not paid but postponing the same, saying one reason or other, 2

Ultimately, yesterday, he gave an evasive reply and did not pay the due under the pronote to plaintiff. The plaintiff gathered that the defendant has been trying to leave the village along with his family members, by selling away his properties. For the last one week he has been contacting the mediators and offered to sell his properties.

Hence, the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit for the amount.Hence plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of pronote amount.

3. In rebuttal the defendant filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and plaintiff is put strict proof of all the allegations of the plaint, except those which are specifically admitted herein and further contended that the allegations of the plaint, that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.44,400 on 01.05.2017 is false and also denied the execution of pronote in faour of plaintiff of Rs.44,400/-. The next allegation that for the last several days the plaintiff has been demanding the defendant to pay the amount due of said pronote but the defendant has not paid but postponing the same saying one reason or other is false, the rest of the allegations are all false and in correct and contended that the plaintiff has suppressed the real facts and filed the suit for wrongful gain the and the defendant contended that the defendant has submitted that the real fats as follows the defendant is the resident of Bovillavaripalli village of Badvel Mandal. The defendant came to Badvel town and taken the plaintiff house situated opposite to the state Bank of India, Badvel main Branch, for lease to run a petty shop for his livelihood and also for residence by keeping his wife by name Ranaga Lakshumma and his children therein and the defendant went to out of town to do coolle works.The plaintiff demanded advance amount of Rs.20,000/- for the house rent of Rs.7,500/- for that the defendant expressed his inability to pay advance amount. For that the plaintiff demanded to execute a pronote for advance amount. For that the defendant executed a pronote for advance amount account the wife of the defendant has signed in a unfilled up pronote and that pronote the defendant has signed as attester in the pronote. Further the defendant contended that the defendant was paying the rent regularly, but unfortunately in the month of December 2014 he was unable to pay the rent amount.

For that the plaintiff demanded to execute a pronote for the amount. Accordingly the wife of defendant signed in a unfilled up pronote and in that pronote the defendant has attested and in the month of April 2017 the defendant and his wife wants to close 3 the petty shop and also to vacate the house.Then the plaintiff has caliculated all the dues and what ever small damages and including white wash amount and fixed the entire amount as Rs.44,400-00. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay entire amount but the plaintiff is unable to pay such amount. But the plaintiff forced the defendant to execute a pronote for the amount. Accordingly the defendant has executed the pronote and his wife has attested the pronote. The defendant and his wife wants to continue the business and they want to reside in the house as usual. But the plaintiff demanded house rent for Rs.9,000/- when the defendant not agreed for that, then the plaintiff demanded to pay amount under three pronotes. For that the defendant surprised by seeing the amounts mentioned in the pronotes. The defendant has refused to pay the amounts under those pronotes. There was an altercation taken place in between them. For that the plaintiff has manipulated the pronotes signed by the wife of the defendant and filed the suit without giving notice to the defendants.

The plaintiff also filed two suits against the wife of the defendant in O.S.No.206/2017 and O.S.No.207/2017 on the file of this Honourable court. According to the above circumstances the suit pronotes is not supported by any consideration. No notice has been issued by the plaintiff against the defendant. Therefore prayed that may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.

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

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 01.05.2017 it is true,valid or binding on defendant or not?

2.Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is within limitation period or not?

3. Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is within the jurisdiction of this court or not?

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief as prayed or not?

5. To what relief?

5.On the Both side no one examined and no documents marked on their behalf.

6.Both side arguments heard. Heard.

7.Now the point for consideration is

8.ISSUE 1 TO 3:- 4

It is a promissory note case filed by plaintiff to recovery of an amount of

Rs.46,738/- from defendant basing as defendant executed promissory note on 01.05.2017 for Rs.44,400/- in favour of PW1 with interest of 24% per annum. To establish the same the plaintiff himself examined as PW1,by filing his chief affidavit

PW1 reiterated the plaint contents in his chief affidavit. As per PW1 version that himself and defendant acquinted with each othe rthe defendant borrowed Rs.44,400/- from him on 01.05.2017 and executed promissory note as in Exbit A.1 inspite of repeated demands, defendant fails to choose to pay the amount, so PW1 filed this present suit. After due caliculation.

9. But PW1 to prove the contents of promissory note adduced the evidence of himself and also produced promissory note which was executed by defendant on 01.05.2017 agreeing to repay interest at 24% per annum as in Exbit A1 defendnat not tried to even cross examine the PW1 but defendnat side reported party may be called hence defendant called absent no representation PW1 cross examination treated nill and then plaintiff side reported no further evidence, hence plaintiff side evidence closed and when case posted for defendant side reported no evidence, hence defendnat side evidence closed and both side reported arguments taken as heard.

Further the defendant contended that the plaintiff has suppressed the real facts and filed the suit for wrongful gain and the defendant has submitted that the real facts as follows the defendant is the resident of Bovillavaripalli village of Badvel Mandal. The defendant came to Badvel town along with his wife and taken the plaintiff house situated opposite to the state Bank of India, Badvel main Branch, for lease to run a petty shop for his livelihood and also for residence therein in and the defendant to went to out of two to do coolly works. The plaintiff demanded advance amount of

Rs.20,000/- for the house rent of Rs.7,500/- for that the defendant expressed his inabilityto pay advance amount.For that the plaintiff demanded to execute a pronote for advance amount. Accordingly the defendant has signed in a unfilled up pronote and that pronote the defendant has signed in a unfilled up pronote and that pronote the husband of defendnat has signed as attester in the pronote. Further the defendant contended that the defendant was paying the rent regularly, but unfortunately in the month of December 2014 he was unable to pay the rent amount.For that the plaintiff demanded to execute a pronote for the amount. Accordingly the wife of the defendant 5 signed in a unfilled up pronote and in that pronote the defendant has attested. In the month of April 2017 the defendant and his wife wants to close the petty shop and also to vacate the house.Then the plaintiff has calculated all the dues and what ever small damages and including white wash amount and fixed the entire amount as Rs.44,400-

00. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay entire amount as Rs.44,400-00. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the amount, but the plaintiff is unable to pay such amount. But the plaintiff forced the defendant to execute a pronote for the amount. Accordingly the defendant has executed the pronote and his wife has attested the pronote. The defendant and his wife wants to continue the business and they want to reside in the house as usual. But the plaintiff demanded house rent for Rs.9,000/- when the defendant not agreed for that, thent he plaintiff demanded to pay amount under three pronotes. But all these contents not disproved by defendant and defendant in her written statement clearly admitted that she executed 03 promissory notes in favour of plaintiff.

10. To prove his contention defendant neither apeared before court not filed any documentary proof to prove his version and not dare to face trial and fails to adduced any evidence to prove his contention by disproving the plaintiff version and only filed wirtten statement without addusing his evidence by appearing before court, and he himself fails to prove his version, simple filing written statement does not disprove the contention of plaintiff. But defendant clearly admitted that he executed suit pronote infavour of plaintiff, but the reason as due to nonpayment of rents the defendant executed three promissorynotes and same was attested by his wife.

13.As per section of 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 untile after consideration matter. It is necessary to defendant to disprove the existance of consideration by way of direct evidence or cogent and coveneyant evidence by way of appearing before 6 court. But in the present case in hand the defendant fails to disprove the contention of

PW1/Plaintiff, hence plaintiff/PW1 proved his contention by way of producing Exbit A.1.

12.As per section 118(a) Once Execution of pronote admitted burden lies upon defendant to establish that it is not supported by consideration, Defendant admits execution of Exbit A1 but pleads that no consideration was passed, but contended that it was only executed as a security for the dues of rent amount of plaintiff. Then the burden lies on defendant. But the defendant simply filed written statement saying that the plaintiff has manipulated the pronotes signed by the defendant and filed the suit without giving notice to the defendant. The plaintiff also filed two suits against defendant in O.S.No.206/2017 and O.S.No.207/2017 on the file of this Honourable court and defendant not produced any proof that no consideration passed towards Exbit A1 the allegation is not sufficient it has to be established through direct, cogent or convencing evidence either by documentary or occular evidence.

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 A1 was obtianed 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 or 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. But defendnat not appearing before court not rebutted the contention of PW1/ Paintiff by adducing his 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 is manipulated by PW1 is not sufficient so, the defendant not discharged his burden, unless untile 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 non adducing any evidence by defendant, and not proved his plea and not discharged his burden, then adverse inference can be taken and the plaintiff himself examined PW1 and filed promissory note as in Exbit 7

A1so plaintiff proved his contention.

16.But as per section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act untile 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. As in the present case in hand the defendant agreed that he executed the promissory note in favour of plaintiff, apart from two other pronotes but taken plea that with out passing any consideration, 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 documentary evidence to prove his contention.

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 the defendant not specifically contented that there is no consideration passed towards promissory note and defendant not dare to face trial before appearing

Honourable court by adducing her evidence and to face cross examination of other

side, nor tried to cross examine PW1.

18. Hence issue 1 is decided infavour of PW1/Plaintiff and agianst defendant.

19.ISSUE NO.2 :-

The plaintiff/PW1 filed the suit on 24.07.2017 and defendant executed pronote on 01.05.2017 of Rs.44,400/- in favour of plaintiff/PW1 by agreeing with an intrerest of Rs.24% p.a., and the plaintiff PW1 filed suit within limitation, and defendant also not taken any specific plea with regard to basing on Exbit A1 filed suit either within limitation period or not. But as discuss above it is clear suit filed with in limitation hence 2nd issue is also decided in favour of plaintiff/PW1 and against the defendant.

20.ISSUE NO.3:- As per pleadings note the plaintiff/PW1 is resident of

Opposite SBI Bank, Badvel Kadapa District and the defendant is also resident of

Opposite SBI Bank, Badvel Kadapa District. As Opposite SBI Bank, Badvel is 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, hence issue No.2 is also decided in favour of plaintiff/PW1 against defendant.

21. ISSUE NO:4:- 8

Basing on issues 1 to 3 the plaintiff proved his case by filing promissory note. So plaintiff/PW1 is entitle the suit claimed amount of Rs.1,71,800/- so, the Issue

No.4 also decided in favour of plaintiff against defendant.

22. ISSUE NO:5:-

In the result, the suit is decreed of Rs.46,738/- with interest at 12% PA from the date of institution of suit to till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6%

PA from the date of decree to till the date of realization against the defendant on the

principal amount of Rs.44,400-00 against the defendant with cost.

(Typed to my dictation by in charge steno grapher, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 18th day of April, 2018)

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT :Set exparte. P.W.1:Kalluri Ramachandra Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF-

PLAINTIFF:-Nil. DEFENDANT : NIL

J.C.J, Badvel 9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

PRESENT : SMT. R.M.SUBHAVALLI, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BADVEL.

Tuesday this the 10th day of April, 2018

O.S.No.194 of 2017

In between:-

Vankaraju Sulochana W/o Tirupathaiah aged about 38 years, Hindu, resident of D.No.37/1194-11-5, Vidhyut Nagar Badvel town,Kadapa District. … PLAINTIFF

VS

Pasupula Manjula W/o O.Prasad aged about 48 years, Hindu, Employee, resident of D.No.10/1/857,858, Surendra Nagar, Badvel town and mandal Kadapa District. … DEFENDANT

This suit coming on 09-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Suresh Babu, Advocate for plaintiff, and Sri D.Bramha Reddy, Advocate for defendant having stood over for consideration,after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

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

(Suit filed for recovery of amount of Rs.85,567/-)

This suit filed by plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- from defendant basing on suit pronote dated 25.06.2014 and for cost of the suit.

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

The plaintiff contended that the defendant has borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.6.2014 for his necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum on demand either to the plaintiff or his order.

Evidencing the same she has executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day at Badvel. Further the plaintiff contended that in spite of repeated requests and demands, the defendnat did not chosen to pay any amount either towards principal amount or interest. Suspecting the bonafides of the defendant, the 2 plaintiff has got issued a legal notice dated 19.5.2017 through her counsel calling upon her to repay the debt under the pronote together with interest accrued thereon. The defendant has received the said notice, but she did not choose either to repay the debt or give reply. Left with no other alternative, the plaintiff is obliged to file the present suit against the defendant for recovery of suit pronote amount together with accrued interest. Hence the suit. Further the plaintiff submitted that the defendant is an employee but not agriculturist , therefore he is not entitled for any relief under any of the Agriculture Debt relief acts which are in force for the time being and she is liable to pay the interest as agreed under the suit pronote. Hence the plaint contents.

3. In rebuttal the defendant filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the plaintiff is the strict proof of all the allegations of the plaint except those that are specifically admitted here in, and further the defendant contended that the allegation that, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.6.2014 for his necessities, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% p.a., on demand either to the plaintiff or his order evidencing the same, she has executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day at Badvel is utter false and far away from the truth, the defendant never executed any promissory note to the plaintiff and she never borrowed any amount as alleged in the 3rd paragraph of the plaint, the other allegation that, in spite of repeated request and demand the defendant did not choose to pay any amount is utter false and far from the truth, the plaintiff never demanded the defendant, since she never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 19.5.2017 through her counsel and the defendant has received the said notice is partly correct, but she did not choose either to repay the debt or give reply is misleading the Honourable court. Further the defendant contended that the plaintiff and the defendants are members in a private chit maintained by one M.Chennaiah @ kunti Chennaiah, the defendant kept empty signed promissory note in the hands of Chennaiah as a security when the defendant lifted the chit worth about Rs.50,000/- in the year 2015, the entire due installments of chit was repaid by the defendant to the said Chennaiah, but the promissory note was not handed over to the defendant by the said Chennaiah. The 3 said chennaiah was indebted to the several persons, thereafter the said chennaiah leave from Badvel town by went else where, thereafter the husband of the plaintiff by name Tirupataiah, being a police constable catched the said Chennaiah and took away the some house hold articles of said Chennaiah including the suit promissory note from the hands of Chennaiah. Taking advantage of the unfilled printed pronote, she got filled the promissory note as per her convenient and got issued a legal notice to the defendant. After receiving the said legal notice the defendant and her husband approached the plaintiff and asked about the issuing of legal notice, the plaintiff expressed that, to get pressure by one way or other against the said

Chennaiah through the defendant, for that her husband issued the legal notice, and orally they promised that, they will not file any suit against the defendant. Hence the defendant did not gave any reply to the plaintiff for her legal notice and further contended that there is no relationship between the plaintiff and defendant in connection with the suit promissory note and no consideration was passed from the plaintiff to the defendant, the suit promissory note was not executed by the defendant at any point of time, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini, since there is no cause of action arose in the suit. Hence prayed the Honourable court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues framed for the purpose of determination of trial they are as follows.

1. Whether the promissory note dated 25.06.2014 it is true, valid or binding on defendant or not?

2.Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff within limitation or bared by Limitation?

3.Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is within this court Jurisdiction or not?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief as he prayed or not?

5. To what relief?

5. During course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W1 and marked Ex.A1 to A.4 on behalf of PW1.

6.On the other side no one examined and no documents marked on their behalf.

Plaintiffs Exbits:-

Exbit A.1 Original Promissory note dated 25.6.2014 of Rs.50,000/- 4

Exbit A2 office copy of legal notice dated 19.5.2017.

Exbit A3 is postal receipt (TWO)

Exbit A4 is served acknowledgements (TWO)

7.Both side arguments heard. Heard.

8.Now the point for consideration is

9.ISSUE 1 and 2 :-

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.85,567/- from defendant towards that defendant executed Exbit A1 on 25.06.2014 for Rs.50,000/- in favour of PW1 with interest of 24% per annum.To establish the same the plaintiff himself examined as PW1,by filing his chief affidavit in it PW1 reiterated the plaint contents in his chief affidavit. As per PW1 inspite of repeated demands defendant fails to choose to pay the pronote amount, so PW1 filed this present suit.

10.But PW1 to prove the contents of Exbit A1 adduced the evidence of himself and also produced Exbit A1 which was executed by defendant on 25.06.2014 agreeing to repay with interest at 24% per annum. But defendant contended in his written statement that the plaintiff and the defendants are members in a private chit maintained by one M.Chennaiah @ kunti Chennaiah, the defendant kept empty signed promissory note in the hands of Chennaiah as a security when the defendant lifted the chit worth about Rs.50,000/- in the year 2015, the entire due installments of chit was repaid by the defendant to the said

Chennaiah but the promissory note was not handed over to the defendnat by the said Chennaiah. The said chennaiah was indebted to the several persons, thereafter the said chennaiah leave from Badvel town by went else where, thereafter the husband of the plaintiff by name Tirupataiah, being a police constable cathed the said Chennaiah and took away the some house hold articles of said Chennaiah including the suit promissory note from the hands of Chennaiah. Taking advantage of the unfilled printed pronote, she got filled the promissory note as per her convenient and got issued a legal notice to the defendant. But to prove the same neither defendnat appeared before court nor produced any evidence before court and defendant said that she approached after receiving the said legal notice the defendant and her husband approached the plaintiff and asked about the issuing of legal notice, the plaintiff and her husband expressed that, to get pressure by one 5 way or other against the said Chennaiah through the defendant, for that her husband issued the legal notice, and orally they promised that, they will not file any suit against the defendant. Hence the defendant did not give any reply to the plaintiff for her legal notice and further contended that there is no relationship between the plaintiff and defendant in connection with the suit promissory note and no consideration was passed from the plaintiff to the defendant, the suit promissory note was not executed by the defendant at any point of time, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini, since there is no cause of action arose in the suit.

11. But the same was denied by PW1 and defendant except contended but he did not filed any proof before court and not produced any either cricumstantial or direct evidence to prove his contention. Further when case is coming for her evidence, she fails to appear before court and not dare to adduce her evidence or to face cross examination and reported that no cross and on 07.3.2018 defendant called absent no representation, and on her absence closed her evidence, simple filing written statement does not disprove the contention of PW1.

12.To prove his contention defendant not appeared before court to face trial and fails to adduced any evidence to prove his contentions by disproving the plaintiff version and only filed written statement without addusing her evidence by appearing before court. But defendant himself admitted that she is the member in private Chit along with plaintiff for that she gave empty signed promissory note to one Chennaiah. The plaintiff become the holder of promissory note when the defendant admitted that she signed in Exbit A1. The instrument indorsed in blank shall be payable to the bear.

13.As per section of 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 to be for consideration unless and untile it is disproved. It is necessary to defendant to prove that there is no connection in between plaintiff and defendant and for that no direct evidence or cogent and covenyant evidence not produced by way of appearing before court. But in the present case in hand the 6 defendant fails to disprove the contention of PW1/Plaintiff, hence plaintiff/PW1 proved his contention by producing Exbit A.1 to A.4.

14. But the defendant not tried to adduce her evidence and fails to prove the contention mentioned in written statement. But 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. so, the defendant not discharge her burden, unless untile it is disproved, the said fact is proved. But in the present case in hand there is no such evidence to disprove the contention of plaintiff.

So, invaribly due to non adducing any evidence by defendant adverse inference can be taken as defendant not proved her plea and not discharged her burden and the plaintiff herself examined PW1 and filed Exbit A.1 to A4 so plaintiff proved his contention.

15.But as per section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act untile 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. As in the present case in hand the defendant agreed that she signed the empty promissory notes in favour of Chennaiah with regard to that defendant not adduced any evidence and the defendant to disprove the said fact neither she appeared before court nor adduced any occular or ducumentary evidence to prove her contention.

But as per section 43 of N.I Act

Negotiable instrument made, etc., without consideration.

A negotiable instrument made, drawn, accepted, endorsed, or transferred without consideration, or for a consideration which fails, creates no obligation of payment between the parties to the transaction. But if any such party has transferred the instrument with or without endorsement to a holder for a consideration, such holder, and every subsequent holder deriving title from him, may recover the amount due on such instrument from the transferor for consideration or any prior party thereto.

16. So, in the above facts and circumstance the PW1/Plaitniff proved that on 25.06.2014 defendant execute promissory note in his favour with an intrest of 7

Rs.24% P.A. Hence issue 1 decided infavour of PW1/Plaintiff agianst defendant.

17.ISSUE NO. 2:-

The plaintiff/PW1 filed the suit on 16.06.2017 and defendant executed pronote Exbit A.1 on 25.6.2014 of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of plaitniff/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 specific plea with regard to limitation basing on Exbit A1 filed suit either within limitation perior or not. But as discuss above it is clear suit filed with in limitation and the Issue No.2 also decided in favour of the plaintiff/PW1.

18. Issue No.3:-

As per Exbit A1 the plaintiff/PW1 is resident of Surendranagar, Badvel town,

Kadapa District and the defendant is also resident of Surendra Nagar, Badvel town

Kadapa district. As Surendra Nagr are 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, hence issue No.3 is also decided infavour of plaintiff/PW1 against defendant.

19.ISSUE NO.4:-

Basing on issues 1 to 4 the plaintiff proved his case by filing exbit A1 to

A4 . So, Plaintiff/PW1 is entitle the suit claimed amount of Rs.85,567/- So, the issue

No.4 also decided in favour of plaintiff agianst defendant.

20.ISSUE NO:5:-

In the result, the suit is decreed of Rs.85,567-00 with interest at 12% PA from the date of institution of suit to till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% PA from the date of decree to till the date of realization against the defendant on the principal amount of Rs.50,000-00 against the defendant with costs.

(Typed to my dictation by in charge stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 10th day of April, 2018)

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT : NIL

P.W.1: V.Sulochana 8

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF-

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT : NIL

Exbit A.1 Original Promissory note dated 25.6.2014 of Rs.50,000/- Exbit A2 office copy of legal notice dated 19.5.2017. Exbit A3 is postal receipt (TWO) Exbit A4 is served acknowledgements (TWO)

J.C.J, Badvel

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL

PRESENT : SMT. R.M.SUBHAVALLI, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BADVEL.

Wednesday this the 21st day of March, 2018

O.S.No.253 of 2017

In between:-

Pabbati Surendra Babu son of P.Chinna Subbarayudu, Hindu, aged about 47 years Business, resident of Anjaneya Nagar, Badvel Town and Muncipality, Y.S.R.Kadapa District Andhra Pradesh. … PLAINTIFF

VS

Bapanapalli Subbarayudu son of Subbanna, Hindu, aged about 45 years working as Attender, T.G.P.Colony, Badvel town and Muncipality, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.… DEFENDANT

This suit coming on 19-03-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V.N.Prasad, Advocate for plaintiff, and Sri B.Chandra Sekhar advocate for defendant,having stood over for consideration,after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

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

(Suit filed for recovery of amount of Rs.2,25,405/-)

This suit filed by plaintiff to recovery of an amount of Rs.2,25,405/- from defendant basing on suit pronotes dated 10.06.2012 and 25.4.2015 and for cost of the suit.

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

The plaintiff submitted that on 10.06.2012 the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 10.6.2012 at Badvel town, Kadapa District agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The promissory note executed by the defendant is filed here with. The defendant paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- on 25.4.2015 and made a endorsement on back side of promissory note

dated 10.6.2012. The plaintiff further submits that in spite of repeated demands made by

him the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due under the aforesaid promissory note to the plaintiff and postponing the same saying some reason or other from time to time. The plaintiff got issued the legal notice to the defendant on 25.9.2017.

Hence this suit. The defendant is employee ssuch the interest is claim according their 2 contract rate of interest. Hence the plaint contents.

3. In rebuttal the defendant filed his written statement contending that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for recover of suit amount is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts of case and the plaintiff must prove all the allegations mentioned in the plaint which are denied by the defendant and the defendant further contended that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for suit amount is not maintainable due to the entire promissory note amount was paid to the plaintiff. The defendant further submits that, the plaintiff stated in the plaint the defendant was borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees Lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 10.06.2012 and that the defendant was executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had knowledge about the same and the defendant paid a sum of

Rs.2,000/- on 25.4.2015 and it is endorsed the same on the back of the promissory note.

Thereafter the defendant paid entire promissory note amount and its interest amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not returned the promissory note tot he defendant and he also stated that the said promissory note was misplaced in his house and gave assurance to the defendant not to take any further steps against the defendant. In this connection the defendant kept silent. Further the defendant admitted that he received the legal notice from the plaintiff and after receiving of the legal notice the defendant went to the plaintiff and conversational about the said notice. The plaintiff was promised the same to the defendant, the promissory note was misplaced in his house, he should not take any legal steps against the defendant. But the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant and also stated that the said legal notice was sent only for formalities and the defendant further contended that abstemiously the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for wrongful gain and defame in the society due to the defendant is an Government employee and he is having sufficient means. The defendant feels that, the plaintiff was conceived the defendant for wrongful gain. Under these circumstances the Honurable court may be liable to be dismiss the suit with costs and further the defendant submitted that he filed additional written statement, the plaintiff choose any circumstances of the evidence. Hence prayed the Honourable court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs against the defendant in the interest of justice.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues framed for the purpose of determination of trial they are as follows.

1. Whether the promissory note dated 10.06.2012 it is true, valid or binding on defendant or not?

3

2. Whether the defendant paid the suit amount to the plaintiff prior to filing this suit or not?

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

4. Whether the plaintiff filed the suit within Jurisdiction of this court or not?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief as he prayed or not?

6. To what relief?

5. During course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W1 and marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A.5 are marked on his behalf.

6.On the other side no one examined and no documents marked on their behalf.

Plaintiff side Exbits:-

Exbit A.1 Original Promissory note dated 10.6.2012 of Rs.1,00,000/- Exbit A.2 Endorsement on the back of Ex.A.1 Exbit A.3 office copy of legal notice dated 25.09.2017. Exbit A.4 Postal receipt. Exbit A.5 Served acknowledgement.

7.Both side arguments heard. Heard.

8.Now the point for consideration is

9.ISSUE 1 and 2 :-

It is a suit filed by plaintiff for recovery of promissorynote amount of

Rs.2,25,405/- basing on promissory note dated 10.06.2012 for establishing the same plaintiff himself examined as PW1 by filing his chief affidavit stating that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,25,405/- and towards that defendant executed Exbit A1 on 10.06.2012 for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of PW1 with interest of 24% per annum and PW1 reiterated the plaint contents in his chief affidavit. As per PW1 version inspite of repeated demands defendant fails to choose topay the amount even after receipt of legal notice.

So PW1 filed this present suit.

10.But PW1 to prove his contents produced Exbit A1 which was executed by defendant on 10.06.2012 agreeing to repay with interest at 24% per annum. But defendant fails to appear before court to prove his contention which mentioned in written statement as the defendant was executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff as in Exbit A1 and defendnt contended that he paid entire amount and its interest amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not returned the promissory note to the defendant and he also stated that the said promissory note was misplaced in his house and gave assurance to the defendant not to take any further steps against the defendant. In this connection 4 the defendant kept silent. Here we have to bear in mind that the defendnt is not an illiterate being working as attender and when he paid and how much amount paid was not disclosed and defendant admitted that legal notice issued by plaintiff and the defendant further contended that abstemiously the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for wrongful gain and defame in the society due to the defendant is an

Government employee and he is sufficient means. The defendant feels that, the plaintiff was conceived the defendant for wrongful gain. But the same was not believable. Here onething has to observe, the defendant not appeared before court, not represented and defendant except his written statement contentions, but he did not filed any proof before court and not produced any either cricumstantial or direct evidence to prove his contention. Further when case is coming for his evidence, he fails to appear before court and not dare to either adduce his evidence or to face cross examination and defendant evidence counsel on 19.3.2018 and reported that defendant may be called, and on his absence closed his evidence as written statement is on record.

11.To prove his contention defendant not appeared before court to face trial and fails to adduced any evidence to prove his contentions by disproving the plaintiff version and only filed written statement without addusing his evidence by appearing

before court, and he was not dare to face trial, simple filing written statement does not

disprove the contention of plaintiff. But defendant himself admitted that he borrowed amount as in Exbit A1 and contended that he paid heavy interest.

12.As per section of 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 to be for consideration unless and untile it is disproved. The defendant contended in his writtent statement the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for wrongful gain and defame of the society due to the defendant is an Government employee for that no direct evidence or cogent and covenyant evidence not produced by way of appearing before court. But in the present case in hand the defendant fails to disprove the contention of PW1/Plaintiff, hence plaintiff/PW1 proved his contention by producing Exbit A.1.

13.As per section 118(a) Once Execution of pronote admitted burden lies upon defendant to establish that he paid entire promissory note amount with interest, but 5 defendant admits the execution of Exbit A1. Then the burden lies on defendant.

14.But the defendant also not tried to adduce any evidence and fails to prove the contention mentioned in written statement. But 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. so, the defendant not discharge his burden, unless untile it is disproved, the said fact is proved. But in the present case in hand there is no such evidence to disprove the contention of plaintiff. So, invaribly due to non adducing any evidence by defendant,adverse inference can be taken and the defendant fails to prove his plea and not discharged his burden and the plaintiff himself examined PW1 and filed Exbit A.1 so plaintiff proved his contention through defendant as defendant admitted the execution of Exbit A.1.

15.But as per section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act untile 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.

As in the present case in hand the defendant agreed that he executed the promissory notes in favour of plaintiff with regard to that admitted facts need not be proved the defendant to disprove the said fact that he paid entire amount of Exbit A1, for that neither he appeared before court nor adduced any occular or ducumentary evidence to prove his contention.

16.So, in the above facts and circumstance the PW1/Plaitniff proved that on 10.06.2012 defendant execute promissory note in his favour with an intrest of at 24%

P.A. Hence issue 1 and 2 decided infavour of PW1/Plaintiff agianst defendant.

17. ISSUE NO:3:-

The plaintiff/PW1 filed the suit on 23.10.2017 and defendant executed pronote Exbit A.1 on 10.06.2012 of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff/PW1 by agreeing with an intrerest of Rs.24% p.a., and the defendant to contest the case on the point of limitation neither he appeared before court nor produce any cogent or relevant evidence.

But on the back of Exbit A1 on 25.4.2015 made endorsement, hence fresh period of limitation starts from that date on wards, hence plaintiff/PW1 filed suit within limitation, and defendant also not taken any specific plea with regard to limitation 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 No.3 also decided in favour of plaintiff/PW1 and against 6 the defendant.

18.ISSUE NO. 4:-

As per Exbit A1 the plaintiff/PW1 is resident of Anjaneya Nagar, Badvel town

Kadapa District and the defendant is also resident of T.G.P.Colony, , Badvel town Kadapa district. As the Anjaneyanagar and T.G.P colony are 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, hence issue No.4 is also decided infavour of plaintiff/PW1 against defendant.

19.ISSUE NO.5:-

Basing on issues 1 to 4 the plaintiff proved his case by filing exbit A1 to A5 .

So, Plaintiff/PW1 is entitle the suit claimed amount of Rs.2,25,405/- So, the issue No.5 also decided in favour of plaintiff agianst defendant.

20.ISSUE NO:6:-

In the result, the suit is decreed of Rs.2,25,405/- with interest at 12% PA from the date of institution of suit to till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6%

PA from the date of decree to till the date of realization against the defendant on the

principal amount of Rs.1,00,000-00 against the defendant with costs.

(Typed to my dictation by in charge stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 21st day of March, 2018)

Sd/-R.M.Subhavalli,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT : NIL

P.W.1: P.Surendra Babu.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF-

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT : NIL

Exbit A.1 Original Promissory note dated 10.6.2012 of Rs.1,00,000/- Exbit A.2 Endorsement on the back of Ex.A.1 Exbit A.3 office copy of legal notice dated 25.09.2017. Exbit A.4 Postal receipt. Exbit A.5 Served acknowledgement.

Sd/- R.M.S.V.,

J.C.J, Badvel 7