Smt S.Kavitha

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE

PRESENT:- Smt. S.Kavitha,

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of March, 2021.

Original Suit No.468 of 2017

Daggupati Sudhakar, S/o Sanjeeva Naidu, Aged about 42 years, R/o D.No.26/7/807, 4th Street, Mahatmagandhi Nagar,

Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District ... Plaintiff.

Vs.

1) Billu Vanajamma, W/o late Subba Rao, Aged about 35 years, House wife

2) Billu Venkatesh, S/o late Subbarao, Aged about 22 years,

3) Billu Seenu, S/o late Subbarao, Aged about 20 years, (Defendants 1 to 3 are residents of D.No.26/2/1792, near LLF School Back side, Vedayapalem, Nellore City. … Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 05.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Upendra Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri S.V.V.S.S. Durga Prasad Rao, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,96,513/- basing on suit promissory note

dated 19.12.2014 executed by deceased Billu Subba Rao infavour of

Pathan Madhar Saheb with subsequent interest and for costs.

2. The averments in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:- 2

On 19.12.2014 the deceased Billu Subba Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from Pathan Madhar Saheb and executed a promissory note in his favour and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the said Pathan Madhar Saheb or to his order on demand. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the said Pathan Madhar Saheb, to the deceased Billu Subba Rao during his life time, the said deceased Billu Subba Rao evading to pay the amount under the suit promissory note dated 19.12.2014 to the said

Pathan Madhar Saheb as such the said Pathan Madhar Saheb due to personal inconvenience and also ill health transferred the said suit promissory note infavour of plaintiff on 09.01.2017 for collection of said suit promissory note debt amount and the same was endorsed on the back side of promissory note.

After transfer of the said promissory note the plaintiff also approached the deceased Billu Subba Rao and demanded to pay the entire due amount under the said promissory note, but the deceased

Billu Subba Rao intentionally postponing to pay the amount due under the said promissory note during his life time. Unfortunately the said

Billu Subba Rao died in the month of February, 2017 intestate leaving behind him the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs. The plaintiff also approached the defendants and informed about the execution of said promissory note by the said Billu Subba Rao and demanded them to pay the amount due under the promissory note. The defendants 1 to 3 are also evading to pay the said promissory note amount on some pretext or other. The plaint schedule property is estate of the deceased Billu

Subba Rao and the same is in the hands of defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff also got issued a legal notice on 06.11.2017 to the defendants 1 to 3 demanding them to pay the entire due amount under the said 3 promissory note. The defendants received the same but neither replied to the said legal notice nor paid the amount due under the promissory note. Hence this suit.

3. The 1 st defendant filed written statement and

defendants 2 and 3 adopted the same. The 1 st defendant in her

written statement denied all the allegations of plaint and brief

averments of said written statement are as follows:

The husband of the 1st defendant never borrowed any amount from the said Pathan Madhar Saheb. The plaintiff and the said

Pathan Madhar Saheb were colluded with each other and created the alleged promissory note for Rs.4,00,000/- dated 19.12.2014 and the said Pathan Madhar Saheb transferred the alleged suit promissory note to the plaintiff for gaining illegally. The plaintiff failed to brought the transfer of said promissory note information by way of legal notice to

Billu Subba Rao and to these defendants after the death of Billu Subba

Rao. The plaintiff well known the plaint schedule property was fabricated by the deceased Billu Subba Rao, when he is alive. The alleged promissory note is genuine one definitely the plaintiff took immediate action to attach the said plaint schedule property which is only the property of the deceased Billu Subba Rao, the suit promissory note is fabricated one and pressed into service for the suit purpose only by the plaintiff and the said Pathan Madhar Saheb. The suit promissory note is fabricated one and no property belongs to the deceased Billu

Subba Rao devolved on the name of defendants. Hence prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the pleadings the following issues are framed for trial:- 4

1) Whether suit promissory note dated 19.12.2014 is true, valid?

2) Whether the transfer endorsement dated 09.01.2017 is true and valid?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

4) To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff PWs.1 to 5 are examined and Exs.A1 to

Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of defendants DW1 was examined and no documents were marked.

6.Heard arguments of both parties.

7. Issue No.1:-

1) Whether suit promissory note dated 19.12.2014 is true, valid?

The plaintiff who examined as PW.1, reiterated the contents of plaint in his chief affidavit. During the course of cross examination

PW.1 deposed that deceased Billu Subba Rao has not executed suit promissory note in his favour. PW.1 further deposed that he is the first attestor of Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Further PW.1 deposed that on 09.01.2017 he paid Rs.5,75,000/- to Pathan Madhar Saheb, but it was not mentioned in transfer endorsement. Further PW.1 denied a suggestion that the transfer endorsement is created one and Billu

Subba Rao has not executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Further PW.1 deposed that on 09.01.2017 itself he intimated about transfer endorsement to Billu Subba Rao. Further PW.1 denied a suggestion that defendants 1 to 3 have not received any property from deceased Billu

Subba Rao and hence defendants 1 to 3 are not liable to pay suit amount.

5

8.One Pathan Madhar Saheb was examined as PW.2. PW.2 in his chief affidavit stated that deceased Billu Subba Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from him and executed suit promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the suit amount with interest at 24% p.a.

and thereafter he made several oral demands to deceased Billu Subba

Rao during his life time, but said Bill Subba Rao evaded to pay the due amount under suit promissory note, as such due to his personal inconvenience and also due to his ill-health he transferred suit promissory note infavour of plaintiff on 09.01.2017 for collection of suit promissory note debt amount and the same was endorsed on the back side of suit promissory note and he executed transfer endorsement

dated 09.01.2017. During the course of cross examination PW.2

deposed that on 19.12.2014 he gave an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to Billu

Subba Rao. Further PW.2 deposed that Daggupati Sudhakar and

Parandama Reddy are the attestors of suit promissory note. Further

PW.2 deposed that on 09.01.2017 he received amount of Rs.5,75,000/- from Daggupati Sudhakar (plaintiff) and made transfer endorsement.

Further PW.2 deposed that one Sreeramulu scribed Ex.A5 transfer endorsement. Further PW.2 deposed that Sudhakar and Sreeramulu were present at the time of Ex.A5 transfer endorsement. Further the learned counsel for defendants cross examined PW.2 on such lines reflecting the case of defendants, but all the suggestions are duly denied by PW.2.

9.Chief affidavit of one Parandhamareddy was filed and the same was eschewed on 03.09.2019 on the memo filed by the plaintiff.

10.One Palukuru Parandhamareddy was examined as PW.4. PW.4 in his chief affidavit stated that deceased Billu Subba Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from Pathan Madhar Saheb and executed suit 6 promissory note infavour of Pathan Madhar Saheb agreeing to repay the suit amount with interest at 24% p.a. either to Pathan Madhar

Saheb or to his order on demand and suit promissory note was scribed by one P. Mahabooba Shah and he signed as one of the attestor on suit promissory note. During the course of cross examination PW.4 deposed that on 19.12.2014 deceased Billu Subba Rao borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from Pathan Madhar Saheb and suit transaction took place in the house of Pathan Madhar Saheb at about 10.30 a.m. and consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- was in denomination of rupees one thousand notes and rupees five hundred notes. Further PW.4 deposed that he signed with the pen which was used to scribe the promissory note. Further PW.4 deposed that he was not present at the time of transfer endorsement. Further the learned counsel for defendants cross examined PW.4 on such lines reflecting the case of defendants, but all the suggestions are duly denied by PW.4.

11.One K. Nagendra was examined as PW.5. PW.5 in his chief affidavit stated that on 09.01.2017 one Pathan Madhar Saheb received an amount of Rs.5,75,000/- from the plaintiff and transferred the promissory note dated 19.12.2014 in favour of plaintiff and said transaction endorsed on the back side of promissory note, one

Chandaluru Sreeramulu is the scribe of said endorsement dated 09.01.2017 and one Mahaboob Basha was signed as first witness and he signed as second witness of said endorsement. During the course of cross examination PW.5 deposed that he cannot say the denomination of consideration. Further PW.5 denied a suggestion that on 09.01.2017 no money transaction took place and Pathan Madhar Saheb did not receive any amount from the plaintiff. Further PW.5 denied a suggestion that only for the purpose of collection the promissory note was scribed 7 and no consideration was passed. Further PW.1 denied a suggestion that the defendants are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff.

12.Exs.A1 to A5 are marked on behalf of plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dated 19.12.2014 for Rs.4,00,000/-, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 06.11.2017, Ex.A3 is the postal receipts 3 in number, Ex.A4 is the postal acknowledgment of 1st defendant and

Ex.A5 is the transfer endorsement dated 09.01.2017.

13.The 1st defendant who examined as DW.1, reiterated the contents of written statement in her chief affidavit. During the course of cross examination DW.1 deposed that her husband Billu Subba Rao died on 08.02.2017 and she do not know who filed this suit and she did not verify the documents filed by the plaintiff, since she cannot read

English. Further DW.1 admitted that after the death of her husband Billu

Subba Rao, herself and defendants 2 and 3 are the LRs of deceased

Billu Subba Rao. Further DW.1 denied her signature in the vakalat filed on her behalf and she admitted her signatures in written statement and she denied her signature in Ex.A4 postal acknowledgment. Further DW.1 admitted that the door number mentioned in Ex.A4 postal acknowledgment is correct. Further DW.1 admitted that her husband purchased house property and they are residing in the said house.

Further DW.1 deposed that she has no disputes with PW.1 to PW.3.

Further DW.1 denied a suggestion that during his life time her husband

Billu Subba Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from Pathan

Madhar Saheb and executed suit promissory note. Further DW.1 denied a suggestion that her husband postponed the payment of due amount under suit promissory note and subsequently he died. Further DW.1 denied a suggestion that said Pathan Madhar Saheb transferred suit 8 promissory note in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff issued notice to her and inspite of receiving of said notice she did not respond.

14.The main contention of plaintiff is that on 19.12.2014 deceased Billu Subba Rao who is the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3, borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from

Patan Madar Saheb and after receiving consideration, said Billu Subba

Rao executed suit promissory note infavour of said Pathan Madhar

Saheb on the same day agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a. and thereafter inspite of repeated oral demands made by said Pathan Madhar Saheb, said Billu Subba Rao did not pay any amount due under suit promissory note and thereafter said Pathan

Madhar Saheb due to his personal inconvenience and due to his ill health transferred suit promissory note infavour of plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff intimated about transfer endorsement to said

Billu Subba Rao and thereafter the said Billu Subba Rao died and then the plaintiff issued legal notice to defendants 1 to 3, who are the legal heirs of deceased Billu Subba Rao and inspite of said legal notice the defendants 1 to 3 did not pay any amount due under suit promissory note.

15.To prove his contention the plaintiff got himself examined as

PW.1 and supporting witnesses examined as PWs.2 to 5 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A5. PW.2 is the said Pathan Madhar Saheb who transferred suit promissory note infavour of plaintiff. His evidence clearly shows that deceased Billu Subba Rao received consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- from him and after receiving consideration said Billu Subba Rao executed suit promissory note in his favour and thereafter inspite of repeated demands made by him, said Billu Subba Rao did not pay any amount due under suit promissory note and thereafter he transferred 9 suit promissory note infavour of plaintiff after receiving Rs.5,75,000/- from the plaintiff.

16.PW.4 is one of the attestors of suit promissory note dated 19.12.2014, whose evidence clearly shows that the said deceased Billu

Subba Rao received consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- from said Pathan

Madhar Saheb and executed suit promissory note infavour of said

Pathan Madhar Saheb agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a. and entire transaction under suit promissory note took in his presence and further his evidence clearly shows that suit transaction took place in the house of Pathan Madhar Saheb and the denomination of consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- was in rupees one thousand notes and rupees five hundred notes.

17.Hence from the evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 it is clear that said deceased Billu Subba Rao received consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- from PW.2 i.e. Pathan Madhar Saheb and after receiving consideration said Billu Subba Rao executed suit promissory note infavour of PW.2 i.e.

Pathan Madhar Saheb. Further on perusal of Ex.A1 suit promissory note

dated 19.12.2014, it is observed that Billu Subba Rao received

consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- on 19.12.2014 from Pathan Madhar

Saheb (PW.2) and executed suit promissory note in favour of Pathan

Madhar Saheb and PW.4 is the second attestor of suit promissory note.

Further Ex.A2 legal notice shows that the plaintiff issued legal notice to defendants 1 to 3 calling upon them to pay the due amount under suit promissory note within one week from the date of receipt of said notice.

Ex.A3 is the postal receipts 3 in number and Ex.A4 shows that the 1st defendant received said legal notice, issued by the plaintiff.

18.From the evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 and from Ex.A1 it is clear that said deceased Billu Subba Rao on 19.12.2014 received 10 consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- from PW.2 (Pathan Madhar Saheb) and executed suit promissory note infavour of PW.2.

19.From the above discussion this Court holds that suit promissory note dated 19.12.2014 is true, valid and accordingly issue

No.1 is answered infavour of plaintiff and as against the defendants.

20.Issue No.2:-

2) Whether the transfer endorsement dated 09.01.2017 is true and valid?

The contention of plaintiff is that Pathan Madhar Saheb transferred the suit promissory note infavour of plaintiff on 09.01.2017.

To prove the same the plaintiff got examined PW.2 and PW.5. The evidence of PW.2 shows that deceased Billu Subba Rao executed suit promissory note in his favour and thereafter on 09.01.2017 he executed transfer endorsement infavour of plaintiff by transferring the suit promissory note infavour of plaintiff. PW.5 is the one of the attestors of said transfer endorsement, whose evidence clearly shows that on 09.01.2017 PW.2(Pathan Madhar Saheb) executed transfer endorsement in favour of plaintiff by transferring the suit promissory note and Pathan

Madhar Saheb received Rs.5,75,000/- from the plaintiff and he attested the said transfer endorsement as 2nd witness. Further Ex.A5 transfer endorsement dated 09.01.2017 also clearly shows that PW.2 got transferred suit promissory note infavour of plaintiff by executing the said transfer endorsement. Hence from the evidence of PW.2 and PW.5 and from Ex.A5 it is clear that on 09.01.2017 PW.2 received

Rs.5,75,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A5 transfer endorsement infavour of plaintiff on 09.01.2017. Hence this Court holds that transfer endorsement dated 09.01.2017 is true and valid.

11

Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered infavour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

21.Issue No.3:-

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

From the findings given under issues 1 and 2, this issue No.3 is answered accordingly infavour of plaintiff by holding that plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount.

22.Issue No.4:-

To what relief?

In the result, suit is decreed with costs against the defendants 1 to 3 for Rs.6,96,513/- with subsequent interest at 6% p.a.

from the date of suit till date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from out of the estate of deceased Billu Subba Rao.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 10 th day of March, 2021.

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NELLORE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Plaintiff: Defendan t s :

PW.1 : Daggupati Sudhakar DW.1: Billu Vanaja

PW.2 : Sk. Madar Saheb

PW.3: Palukuru Paramdhama Reddy (Eschewed)

PW.4: Palukuru Paramdhama Reddy

PW.5: Kudimi Nagendra 12

Exhibits marked on behalf of

Plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dated 19.12.2014 for Rs.4,00,000/-,

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 06.11.2017

Ex.A3: Postal receipts three in number

Ex.A4: Postal acknowledgment of 1st defendant.

Ex.A5: Transfer endorsement dated 09.01.2017

Defendants:

- NIL -

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NELLORE.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NELLORE

Present:- Smt S.Kavitha, 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore

Monday, this the 8th day of March, 2021.

Original Suit No.387 of 2015

K.A. Sabu, S/o Abraham, Christian, Aged about 44 years, R/o 22/675, Tirisipeta,

Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District ... Plaintiff.

Vs.

1) Arava Franches, S/o Varadarajulu, Hindu, Aged about 56 years, R/o A-Block, 1st Street, Near Arabjanamma Shop, Vengalrao Nagar, Nellore

2) Arava Ramanamma, W/o Arava Franches, Hindu, Aged about 49 years, R/o A-Block, 1st Street, Near Arabjanamma Shop, Vengalrao Nagar, Nellore … Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 04.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Sreenivasan and Sri B. Bala Pradeep, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri V. Ranga Rao and Sri Sk. Saleem, Advocates for defendants and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant to pass preliminary decree in his favour and to direct the defendants to pay the suit amount of Rs.4,59,000/- together with subsequent interest on

Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

2. The averments in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:- 2

On 25.01.2012 the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for their necessities and on the same day jointly executed a registered simple mortgage deed mortgaging the plaint schedule property with an intention to create charge over the plaint schedule property and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 36% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and also the defendants agreed to pay compound interest if the defendants fails to pay interest regularly. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendants failed to discharge the mortgage amount. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 15.04.2015 calling upon the defendants to pay the mortgage amount due. But the defendants did not comply the same. Hence this suit.

3. The defendants No. 1 and 2 filed written statement

denying the allegations of plaint and brief averments of said

written statement are as follows:

On 25.01.2012 the defendants never borrowed the alleged amount of Rs.2,00,000/- either from the plaintiff or from anybody and they never mortgaged the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff and never executed registered simple mortgage deed. The defendants are uneducated persons and taking advantage of their illiteracy the plaintiff created pronote and mortgage deeds in his favour. Originally the suit schedule property belongs to one Arava Ramanamma, the 2nd defendant and the same is D Form Patta issued by the Revenue

Department in her name. Hence, the schedule mentioned property should not liable to be sold or to mortgage, to alienate to anybody, except for her own use and enjoyment during her life time after that her children alone are entitled and got right over the same.

3

The defendants further stated that the plaintiff approached them and requested them to sell the plaint schedule property to him, but they refused to sell the same to him, the plaintiff might have prepared the forged documents and got filed the suit with an intention to swallow the schedule mentioned property. The defendants did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and not mortgaged the schedule mentioned property with him, as such they are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff as alleged by him. Hence prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. Basing on the pleadings the following issues are framed for trial by my learned predecessor:-

1) Whether the defendants have not jointly borrowed the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 25.01.2011 from the plaintiff?

2) Whether the suit promissory note and mortgage deeds are true, valid and binding on defendant ?

3) Whether the schedule property belongs to Arava Ramanamma the 2nd defendant herein?

4) Whether the mortgaged schedule property is a patta assigned and issued by the Revenue Department in the name of 2nd defendant Arava Ramanamma?

5) Whether the said alleged mortgage deed is enforceable under Law?

6) Whether the suit documents are forged documents?

7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

8) To what relief?

5. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and supporting witness was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked on behalf of plaintiff. Defendants reported no evidence.

6.Plaintiff filed written arguments and perused the same.

Heard arguments of defendants.

4

7. Issue No s .1 and 2 :-

1) Whether the defendants have not jointly borrowed

the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 25.01.2011 from the

plaintiff?

2) Whether the suit promissory note and mortgage

deeds are true, valid and binding on defendant ?

The plaintiff who examined as PW.1, reiterated the contents of plaint in his chief affidavit. During the course of cross examination

PW.1 deposed that he knows the defendants since 2010 as his elder brother is residing in the locality of the defendants and thereby he used to go to the house of his elder brother. Further PW.1 deposed that 1st defendant requested him to provide loan in the year 2012 and he do not remember the date and after 1 ½ month on 25.01.2012 he provide loan to the defendants. Further PW.1 deposed that his father sold the property and gave his share of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and he lent to the defendants at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Nellore in the presence of four persons by name Ralla Ravanamma, Arava Ramanamma(2nd defendant), Arava Franches (1st defendant), K.A. Raju in between 3.00 and 3.30 p.m. and the defendants executed a registered simple mortgage deed by handing over their house property documents.

Further PW.1 deposed that the document was scribed by U.

Sreenivasulu and Ralla Ravanamma, K.A. Raju are the attestors of the document. Further PW.1 deposed that the mortgaged property belongs to Arava Ramanamma (2nd defendant) and she executed registered settlement deed in favour of 1st defendant relating to the said house property. Further PW.1 denied a suggestion that the defendants borrowed amount from him and executed the promissory note and also mortgage for the debt under promissory note and he is deposing false.

Further, PW.1 denied a suggestion that since the defendants are 5 illiterate and taking advantage that he possessed the documents of defendants and created the promissory note and mortgage and filed this false suit. Further, PW.1 denied a suggestion that the alleged mortgaged property was assigned by the Government to 2nd defendant and that except using the same for herself and that she has no right to mortgage the same to PW.1 and thereby the mortgage is void and that basing on the said void mortgage the present suit is not maintainable.

Further, the learned counsel for defendants cross examined PW.1 on such lines reflecting the case of defendants, but all the suggestions are duly denied by PW.1.

8. One Ralla Ravanamma who is one of the attestors of suit mortgage deed, was examined as PW.2. PW.2 in her chief affidavit stated that the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.01.2012 and in consideration thereof executed a registered mortgage deed infavour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with a stipulation of interest at 36% p.a. and the defendants mortgaged the plaint schedule property towards first charge and she attested the said mortgage deed as first witness and that the defendants received consideration in her presence. During the course of cross examination PW.2 deposed that she cannot read English and

Telugu and that she do not know the contents of her chief affidavit which are in English. Further, PW.2 deposed that in the year 2012 the defendants borrowed amount in Registrar Office, Nellore from the plaintiff and she do not know the denomination.

9. Exs.A1 to A3 are marked on behalf of plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the registered mortgage deed dated 25.01.2012 executed by defendants,

Ex.A2 is the registered settlement deed dated 03.05.2008 executed by

Arava Ramanamma (2nd defendant) infavour of 1st defendant and Ex.A3 6 is the office copy of legal notice dated 15.04.2015 along with postal receipt.

10. The main contention of plaintiff is that both defendants 1 and 2 have borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.01.2012 and executed Ex.A1 suit mortgage deed infavour of plaintiff by mortgaging the plaint schedule property with an intention to create charge over the plaint schedule property agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 36% p.a. and further agreed to pay compound interest if the defendants failed to pay interest regularly and thereafter the defendants failed to pay any amount due under the suit mortgage deed to the plaintiff in spite of issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff.

11. To prove his contention the plaintiff got himself examined as

PW.1 and got examined one of the attestors of suit mortgage deed as

PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. The evidence of PW1 and PW.2 clearly reveals that on 25.01.2012 the defendants received consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit mortgage deed infavour of plaintiff by mortgaging the plaint schedule property and agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 36% p.a. Further, Ex.A1 suit mortgage deed dated 25.01.2012 clearly shows that both the defendants 1 and 2 have borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and they both mortgaged the plaint schedule property by creating first charge over the plaint schedule property and further agreed to pay interest at 36% p.a. and if they fails to pay interest regularly they agreed to pay compound interest. Further, Ex.A2 i.e.

Registered Settlement deed dated 03.05.2008 shows that the 2nd defendant executed the said settlement deed infavour of 1st defendant in respect of plaint schedule property. Ex.A3 i.e. office copy of legal 7 notice shows that the plaintiff through his advocate counsel got issued said legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to pay the due amount under the suit mortgage deed within 10 days from the date of receipt of said notice.

12.Hence the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A3 clearly shows that the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.1.2012 from the plaintiff and jointly executed Ex.A1 suit mortgage deed infavour of plaintiff by mortgaging the plaint schedule property.

13. The main contention of defendants is that they never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and they never executed mortgage deed infavour of plaintiff and they never mortgaged the plaint schedule property infavour of plaintiff. But the defendants have not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of their contention. On the other hand the plaintiff by examining himself as

PW.1 and by examining one of the attestors of mortgage deed as PW.2 and with Exs.A1 to A3 is able to prove that the defendants have jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.01.2012 and got executed Ex.A1 suit mortgage deed infavour of plaintiff by mortgaging the plaint schedule property. Accordingly issues 1 and 2 are answered infavour of plaintiff and as against the defendants.

14.Issue Nos.3 to 5:

3) Whether the schedule property belongs to Arava Ramanamma the 2 nd defendant herein?

4) Whether the mortgaged schedule property is a

patta assigned and issued by the Revenue

Department in the name of 2 nd defendant Arava

Ramanamma?

5) Whether the said alleged mortgage deed is enforceable under Law?

8

The defendants in their written statement contended that the suit schedule property belongs to Arava Ramanamma, who is the 2nd defendant and the suit schedule property is the ‘D’ Form patta issued by the Revenue Department infavour of 2nd defendant and hence the suit schedule property should not liable to be sold, mortgage or to alienate to anybody. Hence the main contention of defendants is that the suit schedule property is belongs to 2nd defendant which was issued by Revenue Department in the name of 2nd defendant and the same is not alienable, as suit schedule property was assigned by the

Government to the 2nd defendant and hence the mortgage deed is not enforceable under Law. Though, the defendants contended that the suit schedule property is the land assigned by the Government to 2nd defendant under D Form patta, the defendants have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of their contention and hence their contention cannot be taken into consideration without any document. Moreover on perusal of Ex.A1 i.e. mortgage deed dated 25.01.2012, it is observed that no where it is mentioned as the plaint schedule property is assigned land to 2nd defendant and moreover on perusal of Ex.A2 i.e. Registered Settlement deed executed by 2nd defendant infavour of 1st defendant, it is observed that nowhere in the said document it is mentioned as suit schedule property is assigned land by the Government to 2nd defendant. Moreover the defendants have not filed any document to show that the suit schedule property was assigned by the Government to 2nd defendant under patta and hence the contention of defendants i.e. the suit schedule property was assigned land to 2nd defendant by the Government is not believable and the same cannot be taken into consideration.

9

15.From the above discussion this Court holds that the defendants failed to prove that the suit schedule property belongs to 2nd defendant which was assigned by Revenue Department in the name of 2nd defendant and the mortgage deed is not enforceable and accordingly issue Nos.3 to 5 are answered as against the defendants.

16.Issue No. 6 :

6) Whether the suit documents are forged documents?

The contention of the defendants is that they never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed the suit mortgage deed infavour of plaintiff and the plaintiff created the suit mortgage deed and hence suit documents are forged documents. But the defendants have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of their contention and they reported no evidence on their behalf. Hence without any oral or documentary evidence, the contention of defendants cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover as per findings given in Issue Nos.1 and 2 this Court observed that the defendants 1 and 2 have jointly borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and jointly executed Ex.A1 suit mortgage deed infavour of plaintiff.

17.From the above discussion this Court holds that the suit documents are not forged documents and accordingly issue No.6 is answered.

18.Issue No. 7 :

7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

From the findings given under Issue Nos.1 to 6, this issue

No.7 is answered accordingly infavour of plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

10

19.Issue No. 8 :-

To what relief?

In the result, suit is preliminary decreed with costs infavour of plaintiff for Rs.4,59,000/- with subsequent interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-. Time for redemption is 3 months.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 8 th day of March, 2021.

Sd/- S. Kavitha

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC) II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NELLORE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Plaintiff: Defendan t s :

PW.1 : K.A. Sabu - None -

PW.2 : Ralla Ramanamma.

Exhibits marked on behalf of

Plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Original Registered mortgage deed dated 25.01.2012 executed by the defendants.

Ex.A2: Original Registered settlement deed dated 03.05.2008 executed by Arava Ramanamma in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice dated 15.04.2015 along with postal receipt.

Defendant s :

- NIL -

Sd/- S. Kavitha

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC) II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NELLORE.

// True Copy //

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE

PRESENT:- Smt. S.Kavitha,

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELLORE.

Friday, this the 05th day of February, 2021.

Original Suit No.360 of 2018

Tikkavarapu Janardhan Reddy, S/o Bujji Reddy, Hindu, aged 53 years, Property Owner,

R/o Haranadhapuram, Nellore City. ... Plaintiff.

Vs.

Devarapalli Ramana Reddy, S/o. Venku Reddy, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Property Owner, R/o. Near Narayana Concept School, Behind TDP Office, Mini Bypass Road, Nellore City. … Defendant.

This suit is coming for final hearing before me on 27.01.2021 in the presence of Sri V. Ramesh, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri K. Ramesh

Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,12,491/- basing on suit promissory note dated 09.07.2012 with subsequent interest and for costs.

02. The averments in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

On 09.07.2012 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his necessities and on the same day executed a promissory note with his own hand writing in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum compoundable by 2 the end of every year. Subsequently defendant paid a sum of Rs.1000/- on 09.07.2015 towards part payment under the said promissory note and duly signed and endorsed the same on the back side of the said promissory note.

Thereafter defendant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.09.2015 towards part of the amount due under the said promissory note duly signed and endorsed the same on the back of the said promissory note. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay balance amount under the said promissory note. Then the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 25.04.2018 requesting the defendant to pay the balance amount due under the said promissory note. The notice was duly served on defendant on 02.04.2018, but the defendant did not comply with the same. Hence this suit. The defendant is not an agriculturist and he is a businessman and also an Income Tax Assessee.

03. The defendant filed written statement denying the

allegations of plaint and brief averments of said written statement

are as follows:

The plaintiff never demanded the defendant to pay the compound interest. The defendant simply filled the blanks on the printed promissory note in relation to the amount, date and rate of interest. The plaintiff with malicious intention without informing the defendant about the contents of the printed matter on the promissory note in relation to the compound interest obtained the promissory note to cause wrongful loss to the defendant. The defendant never informed that the printed matter on the promissory note contained the compound interest. The plaintiff fraudulently obtained the promissory note, as the defendant never informed and never agreed to pay the compoundable interest, and that the defendant is not liable to pay the compound interest and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the same. The calculation of interest and arriving the suit amount is highly excessive and incorrect and hence the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

3

04. Basing on the pleadings the following issues are framed for trial:-

1) Whether suit promissory note dated 09.07.2012 is true, valid and binding on defendant ?

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

3) To what relief?

05.The plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and supporting witness was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked on behalf of plaintiff.

The defendant got himself examined as DW1 and no documents are marked on behalf of defendant.

06.Heard arguments of both parties.

07. Issue No.1:-

Whether suit promissory note dated 09.07.2012 is true, valid and binding on defendant ?

The plaintiff who examined as PW1, reiterated the contents of plaint in his chief affidavit. During the course of cross examination PW1 deposed that the defendant is having agricultural land but he do not know the extent of land of defendant. Further, PW.1 admitted that he mentioned as

Rs.1000/- payment was towards promissory note amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereafter the defendant paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.09.2015 towards part of amount due under suit promissory note. Further PW.1 admitted that he mentioned in his chief affidavit that the part payments of Rs.1000/- and

Rs.1,00,000/- were made towards part of the amount due under the suit promissory note. Further PW.1 denied a suggestion that he is not entitled to claim interest at 24% per annum since the defendant is an agriculturist and further PW.1 denied a suggestion that he is not entitled for recovery of amount with interest at 24% per annum. Further, learned counsel for defendant cross examined PW.1 on such lines reflecting the case of defendant, but all the suggestions are duly denied by PW.1.

4

08.One Pilli Ramanamma, who is the attestor of suit promissory note was examined as PW.2. PW.2 in her chief affidavit stated that on 09.07.2012 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum compoundable by the end of every year and the said promissory note was scribed by the defendant with his own hand writing, she is the attesting witness of the said promissory note in the presence of plaintiff and defendant and said transaction took place in the house of plaintiff at Haranadhapuram of Nellore. During the course of cross examination PW.2 deposed that she know the defendant and there are no money transactions in between herself and defendant. Further PW.2 denied a suggestion that the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and not execute the suit promissory note and she was not present and she signed in the suit promissory note prior to filing of suit.

09.Exs.A1 to A5 are marked on behalf of plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dated 09.07.2012 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.A2 is the part payment endorsement dated 09.07.2015 for Rs.1000/-, Ex.A3 is the part payment endorsement dated 12.09.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice dated 25.04.2018 and Ex.A5 is the postal tracking downloaded copy.

10.The defendant who examined as DW.1, reiterated the contents of written statement in his chief affidavit. During the course of cross examination DW.1 admitted that on 09.07.2012 he borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and further DW.1 admitted that he himself scribed the suit promissory note. Further DW.1 admitted that in the suit promissory note it is mentioned the interest at 24% per annum.

Further DW.1 admitted that he paid Rs.1000/- on 09.07.2015 to the plaintiff and the signature at Ex.A2 part payment endorsement belongs to him and in

Ex.A2 part payment endorsement it is not mentioned whether said payment is 5 towards interest or not. Further DW.1 admitted that Ex.A3 part payment endorsement does not contain whether such payment is towards interest or

principal. Further DW.1 admitted that the signatures in Exs.A1 to A3 are

belongs to him. Further DW.1 admitted that he paid Rs.1000/- on 09.07.2015 to the plaintiff and he paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.09.2015 to the plaintiff.

Further DW.1 admitted that the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 25.04.2018 to him. Further DW.1 admitted that he has not filed any documents to show that he is doing cultivation.

11. The contention of the plaintiff is that on 09.07.2012 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and on the same day executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum compoundable by the end of every year and thereafter the defendant paid an amount of Rs.1000/- on 09.07.2015 towards part of the amount due under suit promissory note and thereafter again the defendant paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.09.2015 towards part of the amount due under suit promissory note and thereafter in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the balance amount under suit promissory note and then the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 25.04.2018 to the defendant and the defendant received the legal notice, but did not pay any amount under suit promissory note.

12.To prove his contention the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and the attestor of suit promissory note was examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. The evidence of PW.2 who is the attestor of suit promissory note clearly reveals that on 09.07.2012 the defendant received consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum compoundable at the end of every year. Though, the learned counsel for defendant cross examined PW.2, nothing was elicited from the cross examination of PW.2 in favour of 6 defendant. Further on perusal of Ex.A1, it is observed that on 09.07.2012 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum which is compound interest and the defendant himself scribed the suit promissory note. Hence from the evidence of PW.2 and from Ex.A1 it is clear that the defendant received consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.07.2012 agreeing to repay the said amount with compound interest at 24% per annum

13.Ex.A4 legal notice dated 25.04.2018 shows that the plaintiff through his counsel issued said legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to pay the balance amount due under suit promissory note within 10 days from the date of receipt of said notice. Ex.A5 postal tracking copy shows that said legal notice was served on the defendant. Moreover the defendant in his cross examination clearly admitted that the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 25.04.2018 and he received said notice.

14.The contention of defendant is that the defendant never agreed to pay the compound interest at 24% per annum and the plaintiff obtained the promissory note without informing the defendant about the contents of printed matter on the promissory note in relation to the compound interest and moreover the defendant is an agriculturist and hence the defendant is entitled for scaling down of interest. From the contention of defendant it is clear that the defendant is admitting the suit promissory note executed by him and his main contention is that he never agreed to pay compound interest at 24% per annum and he is entitled for scaling down of interest as he is an agriculturist.

15.To prove his contention the defendant got himself examined as

DW.1. The defendant who examined as DW.1 in his cross examination clearly admitted the execution of Exs.A1 toA3 and he also admitted that in the suit promissory note it is mentioned as the interest is at 24% per annum and further he admitted that he paid part payment of Rs.1000/- on 09.07.2015 and thereafter he also paid part payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.09.2015 7 under suit promissory note and executed Exs.A2 and A3 part payment endorsements. Further the defendant in his cross examination clearly admitted that he himself scribed the suit promissory note. Hence from the admissions made by defendant it is clear that Ex.A1 suit promissory note and

Exs.A2 and A3 part payment endorsements are admitted by him. Moreover from the admissions made by the defendant i.e. he himself scribed the suit promissory note, it can be said that he read the printed format of suit promissory note while scribing the same. Hence, it can be said the defendant very well knows about the contents of suit promissory note at the time of its execution. Though the defendant contended that the plaintiff without informing about the compound interest which is in printed format obtained the suit promissory note the same cannot be taken into consideration since the defendant himself scribed the suit promissory note. Moreover the evidence of PW.2 who is attestor of suit promissory note also clearly reveals that the defendant himself scribed the suit promissory note with compound interest at 24% per annum. Hence it can be said that the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant with compound interest at 24% per annum.

16. The other contention of the defendant is that he is an agriculturist and hence he is entitled for scaling down of interest. But no document is placed before this Court to show that the defendant is an agriculturist and he is doing agriculture. Hence the defendant failed to prove that he is an agriculturist and hence he is not entitled for scaling down of interest.

17. From the above discussion this Court holds that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly issue

No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and as against the defendant.

18.Issue No. 2 :-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

From the findings given under Issue No.1, this Issue No.2 is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount.

8

19.Issue No.3:-

To what relief?

In the result, suit is decreed with costs for Rs.3,12,491/- with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 05 th day of February, 2021.

Sd/- S. Kavitha

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NELLORE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Plaintiff: Defendan t:

PW.1 : Tikkavarapu Janardhan Reddy, DW.1: Devarapalli Ramana Reddy,

PW.2 : Pilli Ramanamma,

Exhibits marked on behalf of

Plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dated 09.07.2012 for Rs.1,00,000/-,

Ex.A2: Part payment endorsement dated 09.07.2015 for Rs.1000/-,

Ex.A3: Part payment endorsement dated 12.09.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/-,

Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dated 25.04.2018

Ex.A5: Postal tracking downloaded copy.

Defendant:

- NIL -

Sd/- S. Kavitha

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NELLORE.

// True Copy //

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, NELLORE

Present:- Smt S.KAVITHA,

I Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore. Friday, this the 26th day of March, 2021

S.C.No.251 of 2019

(P.R.C.No.69/2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore connected with Cr.No.144/2017 of III Town Police Station, Nellore)

1. Name of the State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Complainant III Town Police Station, Nellore.

Nakka Anil @ Bachi, S/o Babu, aged about 24 years, R/o Upparapalem down Opp. Ramesh

2. Name of the Accused Hospital, R.N.Pet, Nellore City.

3. Nature of offenceCharge U/Sec. 326, 307 of IPC

4. Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.326, 307 of I.P.C and therefore, accused is acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/Sec.326, 307 of I.P.C. The bail bonds with that of surety bonds shall stands canceled after expiry of six months from today under section 437(A)Cr.P.C.

6. Sentence or Order M.O.1 i.e., Wooden stick and M.O.2 i.e.,Biscuit Color full hands shirt, vide CPR.No.3/2021 of this court which was received from Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore vide its CPR.No.56/2019 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me on 23.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for Complainant and of Sri N.Ravi

Krishna, advocate for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Case is committed to this court by the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore vide PRC.No.69/2019 with the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Nellore in Crime

No.144/2017 for the offences U/Sec.326, 307 of I.P.C against the accused.

2

02.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

LW.1/Narapu Mallikarjuna and accused were having acquaintance each other. The accused took an amount of Rs.1,000/- as hand loan from

LW.1/Narapu Mallikarjuna to meet his urgent needs. After that LW.1/Narapu

Mallikarjuna has asked the accused to repay the debt amount, but the accused behaved negligently towards LW.1/Narapu Mallikarjuna. On that on 16.09.2017 at about 8:30 P.M while LW.1/Narapu Mallikarjuna was proceeding in Railway

Feeders Road met with the accused near C.P.I Party Office, LW.1/Narapu

Mallikarjuna has asked the accused to repay the hand loan amount as he was in need of money, on that the accused being grew against LW.1/Narapu

Mallikarjuna, took a stout stick found nearby, having intention of killing of LW.1/

Narapu Mallikarjuna saying as “Chavara Na Kodaka” beat LW.1/Narapu

Mallikarjuna with the stick on his forehead and on nose causing severe bleeding injuries.

On 16.09.2017 on receipt of Hospital admission intimation of

LW.1/Narapu Mallikarjuna, LW.9/A.S.I. of III Town Police Station, Nellore recorded the statement of LW.1/Narapu Mallikarjuna and registered the same as a case in

Crime No.144/2017 and took up investigation. Hence, the charge sheet.

03.Case taken cognizance for the offence U/Sec.307, 326 of I.P.C against the accused. After appearance of the accused copies of records furnished to him.

04.Case is committed to the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Nellore vide PRC.No.69/2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore, and the same was numbered as

S.C.No.251/2019 and made over the same to this court for disposal.

05.After appearance of the accused, after hearing, charges U/Sec.326, 307 of I.P.C was framed against the accused. Particulars of offence, charges framed was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

3

06.The prosecution in support of their case, got examined PW.1 to PW.7.

Evidence of LW.5/Mariya Srikanth, LW.8/Dr. Nooruilla and LW.9/V.Polu Raju was given up by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Ex.P1 to Ex.P.13 are marked.

M.O.1 and M.O.2 are marked. Prosecution evidence was closed.

07.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available on record and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned

Counsel for accused.

09. Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the accused committed the offences punishable

U/Sec. 326, 307 of IPC, and thereby liable for punishment”.

10.POINT:-

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution cited

L.W.1 to L.W.10 witnesses, out of them prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 witnesses, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

LW.5/Mariya Srikanth, LW.8/Dr. Nooruilla and LW.9/V.Polu Raju. PW1 is the injured in this case. PW.2 is the wife of PW.1. PW.3 and PW.4 are the alleged witnesses to the incident. PW.5 and PW.6 are the alleged mediators for seizure of material objects. PW.7 is the investigating officer. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 are Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of PW.1 to PW.4 respectively. Ex.P.5 is the signature of PW.5 in scene observation report dated 17.09.2017. Ex.P.6 is the signature of PW.6 in scene observation report dated 17.09.2017. Ex.P.7 is the Hospital intimation. Ex.P.8 is the statement of PW.1. Ex.P.9 is the FIR in Crime No.144/2017. Ex.P.10 is the rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.11 is the scene observation report dated 17.09.2015. Ex.P.12 is the wound certificate of PW.1. Ex.P13 is the F.S.L report.

M.O.1 is the wooden stick. M.O.2 is the Biscuit color full hands shirt.

4

11. This court carefully perused the material on record, PW.1 being the injured deposed that he do not know LW.3/Kamakshi, LW.4/Subrahmanyam and

LW.5/Srikanth and he do not know the accused, he further deposed that about 3 or 4 years back while he was going on motor cycle, he fell down and received injuries and then he was shifted to the hospital, there his thumb impression was obtained by the police without disclosing any reasons to him and further he deposed that he was not examined by the police and thereby he deposed against the case of prosecution. PW.2 who is the wife of PW.1, deposed that she do not know the accused, about 3 or 4 years back on one day she was informed that her husband fell on road and received some injuries and admitted in the

Government Hospital for treatment and she do not know anything about the facts of this crime and she was not examined by the police and thereby she deposed against the case of prosecution. PW.3 and PW.4 who are alleged witnesses to the incident, deposed that they do not know PW.1 and they do not know the accused and they do not know anything about the facts of this case and they were not examined by the police and thereby they deposed against the case of prosecution. PW.5 who is alleged mediator at the time of seizure of material objects, deposed that about 3 years back on one day police called him to the police station and obtained his signature on some written papers without disclosing anything to him and he identified his signature in scene observation report. PW.6 who is alleged mediator at the time of seizure of material objects, deposed that about 3 years back on one day his auto was seized and then he went to the police station to release his auto, there the police obtained his signature on some written papers without disclosing anything to him and he identified his signature in scene observation report.

12. PW.7 is the investigation officer, his evidence shows investigation process but not accusation of accused. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor left to the discretion of this court since both parties compromised out side. This court after considering material on record and hearing the both sides there is no 5 evidence available to convict the accused as PW.1 who is the injured person and the alleged witnesses i.e. PW.3 and PW.4 and alleged mediators they are PW.5 and PW.6 are deposed against the case of the prosecution, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec 326, 307 of I.P.C and therefore, accused is acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/Sec.326, 307 of I.P.C. The bail bonds with that of surety bonds shall stands canceled after expiry of six months from today under section 437(A)Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 i.e., Wooden stick and M.O.2 i.e.,Biscuit Color full hands shirt, vide CPR.No.3/2021 of this court which was received from Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore vide its CPR.No.56/2019 is ordered to

be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26th day of March, 2021.

Sd/- S.KAVITHA,

I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

NELLORE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1 : Narapu Mallikarjuna. ---- NONE ----

PW.2 : Narapu Suneetha.

PW.3 : Nakka Subrahmanyam.

PW.4 : A.Kamakshi.

PW.5 : P.Siva Kumar.

PW.6 : D.Venkata Ramanaiah.

PW.7 : SK.Subhani.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.

Ex.P.2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Ex.P.3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P.4 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 6

Ex.P.5 : Signature of PW.5 in scene observation report dated 17.09.2017.

Ex.P.6 : Signature of PW.6 in scene observation report dated 17.09.2017.

Ex.P.7 : Hospital intimation.

Ex.P.8 : statement of PW.1.

Ex.P.9 : F.I.R in Crime No.144/2017.

Ex.P.10 : Rough Sketch of scene of offence.

Ex.P11 : Scene observation report dated 17.09.2017.

Ex.P.12 : Wound certificate of PW.1.

Ex.P.13 : F.S.L report.

For Defence:

--NIL--

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 : Wooden Stick.

M.O.2 : Biscuit color full hands shirt.

Sd/- S.KAVITHA,

I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

NELLORE.

//True Copy//

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE : NELLORE

Present: S. Kavitha I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore. Friday, this the 19th day of March, 2021.

S.C.No. 112 of 2018

(P.R.C.No.2/2018 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nellore connected with Cr.No.209/2017 of

II Town Police Station, Nellore)

1. Name of the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Complainant Nellore.

Marlapati Pradeep @ Prathap S/o Bhaskar,

2. Name of the Accusedage 29 years, Opp. Mathamma Temple, Kusumaharijanawada, Nawabpet, Nellore.

3. Nature of offenceCharge under Section 307 I.P.C.

4. Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty.

Found not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal

6. Sentence or Order Code. The bail bonds of accused with that of surety bonds shall stands canceled after expiry of six months from today under Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me on 15.03.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for Complainant and of Sri Ramanaiah Babu, Advocate for Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Case is committed to this Court by the II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore vide P.R.C.No.2/2018

2 with the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town

Police Station, Nellore in Crime No.209/2017 for the offence under

Section 307 of Indian Penal Code against the Accused.

02.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

On 15.10.2017 at about 8:30 P.M LW.1/Marlapati Shyam went to Kokila Bar, Nawabpet, Nellore for drinking Alcohol, there one person who was known to LW.1/Marlapati Shyam, asked him to provide some amount as he was running short of money to buy some food, then LW.1/Marlapati Shyam gave him money. The accused who saw the same questioned LW.1/Marlapati Shyam for giving money to the said person as he had disputes with him. In this regard a quarrel took place between LW.1/Marlapati Shyam and accused and they reached Kusumaharijanawada, there the neighbors pacified the situation and the accused went away.

LW.1/Marlapati Shyam went to his house and relaxed in front of his house.

After 15 minutes, the accused with pre-plan to kill LW.1/

Marlapati Shyam, attacked him with an Iron rod and caused injuries on his head, swelling injury on his left ankle and contusion on his back. When the neighbours gathered, the accused escaped. LW.1/Marlapati Shyam was shifted to Government

Hospital, Nellore for treatment.

LW.6/Head Constable recorded the statement of

LW.1/Marlapati Shyam. LW.7/S.I. of Police, II Town Police Station

Nellore registered said statement as a case in Crime No.209/2017 3 under section 307 of I.P.C and conducted investigation. After completion of investigation LW.7/S.I of Police, II Town Police

Station, Nellore filed charge sheet.

03. Case taken cognizance for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code against the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to him.

04. Case is committed to the Hon’ble Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Nellore vide PRC.No.2/2018 on the file of

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, the same was numbered as S.C.No.112/2018 and made over the same to this court for disposal.

05. After appearance of the accused, after hearing, charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code against accused was framed. Particulars of offence, charge framed was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. The prosecution in support of their case, got examined

P.W.1 to P.W.5. Evidence of L.W.5/Dr.Ravi Kumar and L.W.6/Head

Constable was given up by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 are marked on behalf of prosecution and prosecution evidence was closed.

4

07. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available on record and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for accused.

09. Now, the point for determination is:- “Whether the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and thereby liable for punishment ?”

10. POINT:-

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution cited L.W.1 to L.W.7 witnesses, out of them prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.5 witnesses, learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.5/Dr.Ravi

Kumar and L.W.6/Head Constable. PW1 is the defacto complainant in this case. PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 are the alleged witnesses to the incident. PW.5 is the investigating officer. Ex.P1 is signature of PW.1 in the statement dated 16.10.2017. Ex.P2 to

Ex.P5 are Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of PW.1 to PW.4 respectively.

Ex.P6 is the statement of PW.1. Ex.P7 is the FIR in Crime

No.209/2017. Ex.P8 is the rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P9 is the Wound certificate of PW.1.

5

11. This court carefully perused the material on record, PW1 being defacto complainant as well as injured deposed that accused is his younger brother, about three years back on one day he received a scratch injury on his head while opening the door of his lorry and then he went to Government Hospital,

Nellore for treatment there the police obtained his signature on white paper without disclosing anything to him and he identified his signature on the statement and further he deposed that he was not examined by the police and thereby he deposed against the case of prosecution. PW.2 who is the brother of PW.1, deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of this case and he was not examined by the police and thereby he deposed against the case of prosecution. PW.3 and PW.4 who are alleged witnesses, deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of this case and they were not examined by the police and thereby they deposed against the case of prosecution.

12. PW.5 is the investigation officer, his evidence shows investigation process but not accusation of accused. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor left to the discretion of this court

since both parties compromised out side. This court after considering material on record and hearing the both sides there is no evidence available to convict the accused as PW.1 who is the defacto complainant and the alleged witnesses i.e. PW.2 to PW.4 are deposed against the case of the prosecution, prosecution 6 failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

The bail bonds of accused with that of surety bonds shall stands canceled after expiry of six months from today under

Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of March, 2021.

Sd/- S.KAVITHA,

I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

NELLORE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1 : Marlapati Shyam

PW.2 : M.Ashok

PW.3 : Mannepalli Sai ---- NONE ----

PW.4 : Marlapati Ramanamma

PW.5 : V.Sri Hari Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW.1 in the statement dated 16.10.2017.

Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.

7

Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Ex.P4 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3.

Ex.P5 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4.

Ex.P6 : Statement of PW.1.

Ex.P7 : FIR in Crime No.209/2017.

Ex.P8 : Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Ex.P9 : Wound certificate of PW.1.

For Defence:

– NIL –

Material Objects Marked - NIL -

Sd/- S.KAVITHA,

I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

NELLORE.

//True Copy//