Sri S.Krishnan Kutty

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present:- Sri S.KRISHNAN KUTTY

Principal junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Tuesday, the Twenty-Eighth (28th) day of February, 2017.

O.S.No. 328 of 2013

Between:

1. M.Babu @ Venugopal Naidu

2. Smt R.Geethamma

3. Smt C.Renuka

4. M.Murali …Plaintiffs And:

1. M.Narasimhulu Naidu

2. N.Kuppaiah Naidu … Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 10.2.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Ramanarayana Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri K.M.Palani Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

(JOINT TRIAL CONDUCTED WITH THE CLAIM PETITION IN E.A.73 OF 2015 IN

E.P.49 OF 2014)

1.Suit is filed for division of plaint schedule property into five equal shares and allot four such shares to the plaintiffs and put them in separate possession of the same and also to cancel the decree in O.S.393 of 1983 passed by Principal District Munisiff,

Chittoor dt.15.4.1993 in respect of the 4/5th share of plaintiffs is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- The plaintiffs submit that defendant NO.1 is the father of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs and defendant NO.1 are members of Hindu Joint Family. Under the registered partition deed dt.9.8.1955 “A' schedule properties mentioned therein were allotted to M.Bodaiah Naidu and Varadaiah

Naidu, and 'B' schedule properties therein were allotted to M.Doraswamy Naidu who is the grand father of the plaintiffs and M.Rama Naidu, and 'C' schedule property mentioned therein were allotted to M.Govindappa Naidu. The said 'B' schedule property covered under the above said registered partition deed dt.9.8.1955 mentioned as vacant site, is the plaint schedule property herein. The grand father of the plaintiffs by name the said M.Doraswamy Naidu and the said Rama Naidu divided the said 'B' schedule properties orally about 35 years back. A portion of the plaint schedule property also purchased by the grand father of the plaintiffs by name M.Doraswamy

Naidu under a registered sale deed dt.8.3.1965 from the said Rama Naidu. The grand father of the plaintiff by name the said M.Doraswamy Naidu expired in the year 1972 leaving behind him, his son M.Narashimhulu Naidu who is the defendant NO.1 herein.

2

The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are members of Hindu Joint family and enjoying all the joint family properties jointly. Defendant No.1 is not looking after the family affairs since longtime, hence the mother of the plaintiffs and 1st plaintiff and 4th plaintiffs are looking after the Joint Family Properties. There is no dispute between the plaintiffs and 1st defendant in sharing their other joint family properties. The plaintiffs submit that defendant NO.1 has got only 1/5th share in the joint family properties including the plaint schedule property and the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 have got 1/5th share each in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any division. The plaintiffs submit that the plaintiffs demanded the defendant NO.1 for amicable division of the plaint schedule house site but defendant NO.1 not co-operated for the same.

Finally on 30.4.2013 the plaintiffs with the help of village elders and others mediated with defendant NO.1 and in that mediation t he defendant NO.1 has revealed that he executed an unregistered sale agreement in favour of defendant NO.2 on 25.5.1983 nominally and defendant NO.2 filed a suit in O.S.393/1983 on the file of Principal District

Munisiff, Chittoor for specific performance against defendant NO.1 and another and obtained the collusive decree in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property on 15.4.1993; Therefore, the 1st defendant has not co-operated for amicable division of plaint schedule property. 1St defendant is sailing with the 2nd defendant for the reasons best known to him. The plaintiffs submit that they have no knowledge about the said suit proceedings till the said mediation. So the alleged sale agreement and the said suit proceedings in O.S.393/1983 are not binding on the plaintiffs, because they are not parties in the above proceedings. The 2nd defendant misrepresented the court and obtained the decree in fraudulent manner without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, therefore the above said decree and judgment passed in

O.S.393/1993 dt.15.4.1993 are invalid and liable tobe cancelled. The plaintiffs submit

that 1st defendant has not executed any alleged sale agreement for the benefit of joint family and as such the alleged sale agreement is not binding on the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant has got no manner of right and title to claim 4/5th share of plaint schedule property under the guise of the said decree and judgment. In the said circumstances, the plaintiffs have no other go except to file the present suit for partition and cancellation of the decree passed in O.S.393/1983. Accordingly, praying to decree the suit.

3

3.Defendant No.1 remained exparte.

4.The brief averments of the written statement filed by defendant NO.2 are as follows: Defendant NO.2 submits that the suit property herein is nothing to do with the property mentioned in the decree dt.15.4.1993 in O.S.393/1983 passed by the learned

District Munisiff Court, Chittoor i.e., the property covered under t he said decree is not the property shown in the present suit. The plaintiffs should have sought for partition of their entire joint family properties but the plaint schedule property alone was sought for partition in this case, hence the suit is not maintainable. The defendant NO.2 submits that the plaintiffs have wantonly filed the present suit suppressing the fact of appellate court decree dt.28.10.2009 passed in A.S.48/1993 on the file of I Additional

District Judge, Chittoor. Without prayer of set-asiding the appellate court decree in

A.S.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983 the suit is not maintainable. More over the suit is barred

by limitation. The defendant NO.2 submits that the averments of the plaint that the grand father of the plaintiff by name M.,Doraswamy Naidu got the plaint schedule property herein by way of the registered partition deed dt.9.8.1955 and also by way of sale deed dt.8.3.1965 are false. The defendant NO.1 submits that the averments of the plaint that plaintiffs haven no knowledge about the suit proceedings in O.S.393/1983 is a false one and that the present suit is barred by limitation. The defendant no.2 submits that the decree of the trial court and appellate court in O.S.No.393/1983 and

A.S.No.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983 became final, hence the suit filed by t he plaintiffs for

cancellation of the said decree passed in O.S.393/1983 is not maintainable. Accordingly, the defendant NO.2 praying to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5.The following issues have been framed for trial:

1.Whether the suit is barred by limitation as contended by defendant NO.2?

2.Whether the suit is not maintainable as the appellate court decree dt.28.10.2009 in A.S.48/1993 is not sought for cancellation by the plaintiff?

3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of division of plaint schedule property and for separate possession of their shares as prayed for?

4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of cancellation of the decree in O.S.393/1983 dt.15.4.1993 as prayed for?

5.To what relief?

4

6.From the plaintiffs side, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of defendant No.2, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

7.Heard. Perused.

8.ISSUE NO.1: Whether the suit is barred by limitation as contended by defendant NO.2?

One of the relief sought for in the suit is to cancel the decree in O.S.393/1983 passed by Principal District Munisiff, Chittoor dt.15.4.1993 in respect of the 4/5th share of plaintiffs is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the said decree in O.S.393/1983 was passed by the Principal District Munisiff, Chittoor on 15.4.1993. In the said circumstances, the defendant No.2 contends that the present suit filed in the year 2013 by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. This court find force in the said contention of the defendant NO.2. In the plaint as well as in the chief examination affidavit of plaintiff NO.1 (PW1), who alone was examined on behalf of plaintiffs, stated that on 30.4.2013 during a mediation in the presence of village elders with their father defendant NO.1, the plaintiffs came to know about the decree passed in O.S.393/1983 dt.15.4.1993 on the file of Principal District Munisiff, Chittoor for specific performance against defendant NO.1 and another. However, in the cross examination the plaintiff NO.1 (PW1) has deposed that “through my mother I came

to know the case between defendant NO.1 and defendant NO.2”. “After my

mother informed me about the said case between defendant NO.1 and

defendant NO.2 I filed the (present) partition suit”. The said evidence given by the plaintiff NO.1 (PW1) is contradictory with the averments of the plaint as well as the averments of his chief examination affidavit. It is pertinent to note that no village elders who is said to have conducted mediation between the plaintiffs and their father defendant NO.1 was examined by the plaintiffs side so as to show that only during the said alleged mediation held in the year 2013 the plaintiffs came to know the decree passed in O.S.393/1983 dt.15.4.1993 against their father defendant NO.1 in favour of the defendant NO.2 herein. Considering the said circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the submission of the plaintiffs that only in the year 2013 they came to know about the decree passed in O.S.393/1983 dt.15.4.1993 is found unreliable. It is pertinent to note that the suit for cancellation of the decree shall be filed within three years as per article ------------------------- of Limitation Act. Hence, the present suit filed

5

after a long gap of about 20 years to cancel the decree dt.15.4.1993 passed in the suit in O/S.393/1983 is barred by limitation. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Accordingly, issue NO.1 is decided against the plaintiffs.

9.ISSUE NO.2:

Whether the suit is not maintainable as the appellate court decree

dt.28.10.2009 in A.S.48/1993 is not sought for cancellation by the plaintiffs?

Admittedly, one of the defendants in O.S.393/1983 preferred appeal against the decree and judgment dt.15.4.1993 passed by the Principal District Munisiff, Chittoor and the said appeal in A.S.48/1993 was dismissed by the Hon'ble I Additional District

Judge, Chittoor vide decree and judgment dt.28.10.2009. The certified copy of the

decree in O.S.393/1983 was marked as Ex.A3=Ex.B1 and decree passed in A.S.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983 dt.28.10.2009 was marked as Ex.B2 by the defendant NO.2 in this case. So it is clear that the appellate court confirmed the decree and Judgment passed by the Principal District Munisiff, Chittoor in O.S.393/1983 dt.15.4.1993 by way of

Judgment and decree passed in A.S.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983 dt.28.10.2009.

Admittedly, the present suit was filed in the year 2013 i.e., after passing the decree and

Judgment by the appellate court in A.S.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983 dt.28.10.2009. In the said circumstances, the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs to set aside only the decree passed by the trial court in O.S.393/1983 without seeking the relief of cancelling the decree passed by the appellate court in A.S.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983 dt.28.10.2009. It is the submission of the plaintiffs that the appellate court decree in A.S.48/1993 in

O.S.393/1983 dt.28.10.2009 was not in their knowledge, hence they have not sought

for cancellation of the said appellate decree. This court find no force in the said submission of the plaintiffs while considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion held in issue NO.1. It is significant to note here that in the written statement filed by defendant NO.2 it is clearly mentioned about the Judgment and decree passed by the appellate court in A.S.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983 dt.28.10.2009.

Thereafter also plaintiffs did not take any steps to seek the relief of cancellation of decree passed by the appellate court in A.S.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983. In view of the said circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs without seeking the relief of cancellation of the decree passed in A.S.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983 dt.28.10.2009, is not maintainable. Accordingly, issue NO.2 is also

6

decided against the plaintiffs.

10.ISSUE No.3:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of division of plaint

schedule property and separate possession of their shares as prayed for?

The submission of the plaintiffs is that plaint schedule property is one of their ancestral properties fell to the share of their grand father M.Dorswamy Naidu and his brother Rama Naidu under the registered partition deed Ex.A1 dt.9.8.1955 which is shown as vacant site in 'B' schedule property therein and subsequently the grand father of the plaintiffs M.Doraswamy Naidu purchased a portion of the plaint schedule property from the said M.Rama Naidu under the registered sale deed Ex.A2 dt.8.3.1965. It is pertinent to note that in the cross examination the defendant NO.2 (DW1) has also deposed that 'the defendant NO.1 herein got the property by way of partition

of their joint family property'. 'It is true that the family of the defendant

NO.1 purchased some properties from M.Rama Naidu'. To my knowledge

defendant NO.1 did not purchase the suit property'. The said evidence given by the defendant NO.2 (DW1) has also shown that plaint schedule property herein is not the self acquired property of defendant NO.1 herein who is th e father of the plaintiffs but the plaint schedule property herein is the ancestral property of the defendant NO.1.

Considering the said oral evidence of defendant No.2 (DW1) and the said documents namely certified copy of registered partition deed Ex.A1 dt.9.8.1955 and certified copy of sale deed Ex.A2 dt.8.3.1965, this court find substance in the submission of the plaintiffs that plaint schedule property herein is one of their ancestral properties. The contention of the defendant No.2 is that plaint schedule property herein is not the property covered in the suit in O.S.393/1983. This court find no force in the said contention of the defendant NO.2, because in the cross examination defendant NO.2 (DW1) has categorically admitted that “I know the suit property. The boundaries

shown in the plaint schedule are correct. I obtained sale agreement from

defendant NO.1 for the plaint schedule property herein. I obtained decree in

O.S.393/1983 for the suit property”. The said evidence given by the defendant

No.2 (DW1) in his cross examination clearly shows that the plaint schedule property herein and the property covered in O.S.393/1983 is one and the same. It is relevant to note here that the contention of the defendant NO.2 is that one Sampoornamma who is the sister of defendant No.1 herein is the necessary party in the suit as the plaintiffs

7

have claimed that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to their grand father.

This court find no force in the said contention of the defendant No.2. The averments of the plaint as well as the evidence given by the plaintiff NO.1/PW1 shows that their grand father who is the father of defendant No.1 herein and the said Sampoornamma, died in the year 1972. In Prakash and others Vs Poolavathi and others (rendered on 16th

October, 2015) the Hon'ble Apex Court Court held that father of the daughter

should be alive as on the date of 2005 Hindu Succession (amendment) Act

came into effect so as to get equal share by the daughter in the ancestral

property on par with son. In view of the said observation of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that since the father of defendant No.1 and the said Sampoornamma was not alive as on the date of 2005 Hindu Succession (amendment) Act came into effect, the said Sampoornamma is not entitled for share in the ancestral property of her father.

Since the said Sampoornamma is not entitled for any share in her ancestral property i.e., the plaint schedule property herein, the said Sampoornamma is not a necessary party in the suit. Though the above discussed circumstances shows that plaint schedule property is one of the joint family properties of the plaintiffs, this court is of the opinion that plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of partition of plaint schedule property so as to get their 4/5th share in the plaint schedule property, because Decree

Ex.A3 and the Judgment Ex.A4 in O.S.393/1983 dt.15.4.1993 shows that basing on the agreement of sale executed by the defendant NO.1 herein who is the father of the plaintiffs herein, Principal District Munisiff of Chittoor has directed the defendant NO.1 herein to execute the regular registered sale deed in favour of defendant NO.2 herein in respect of the plaint schedule property herein and the said decree and judgment was also confirmed by the appellate court in A.S.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983 dt.28.10.2009. It is pertinent to note that certified copy of decree passed in A.S.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983 dt.28.10.2009 was marked by the defendant NO.2 in the present suit as Ex.B2.

Admittedly the said decree and Judgment passed in A.S.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983was not challenged either by the defendant No.1 herein or his children the plaintiffs herein by way of filing 2nd appeal. In view of the said circumstances, this court is of the opinion that plaintiffs have lost their right over t he plaint schedule property herein. It is pertinent to note that the defendant NO.2 herein contends that plaintiffs have not filed the present suit for partition of all their joint family properties but filed the suit for partition of present plaint schedule property only, hence the suit filed by the plaintiffs

8

for partial partition is not maintainable. It is relevant to note here that in the cross examination plaintiff NO.1 (PW1) has categorically admitted that their joint family has got Ac.4.00 cents of land and a tiled house, which were not shown in the present suit for partition. Considering the said evidence given by the plaintiff NO.1 (PW1), this court find force in the said contention of the defendant NO.2 that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition of plaint schedule property alone is not maintainable as it amounts to partial partition.

11.In view of the fore going discussion, this court is of the opinion that plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of division of plaint schedule property and separate possession of their shares as prayed for. Accordingly, issue NO.3 is also decided against the plaintiffs.

12.ISSUE No.4:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of cancellation of

decree in O.S.393/1983 dt.15.4.1993 as prayed for?

It is pertinent to note that the suit for specific performance of contract filed by the defendant NO.2 herein so as to get execute regular registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property herein in O.S.No.393/1983 was decreed by the Principal

District Munisiff, Chittoor on 15.4.1993 directing the defendant NO.1 herein to execute the regular registered sale deed in favour of defendant NO.2 herein; subsequently, one of the defendants in the said suit in O.S.No.393/1983 who is said tobe the subsequent purchaser of plaint schedule property herein, preferred appeal in A.S.No.48/1993 against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.393/1983; the appellate court dismissed the said appeal in A.S.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983 by confirming the decree and judgment of trial court passed in O.S.393/1983. In the said circumstances, without seeking the relief of cancellation of the decree passed by the appellate court in

A.S.No.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983, the plaintiffs have sought the relief of cancellation of

decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.393/1983. The submission of the plaintiffs is that the decree passed by the appellate court in A.S.No.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983 was not in their knowledge, hence they could not seek the relief of cancellation of the decree passed by the appellate court in A.S.No.48/1993 in O.S.393/1983. The said submission of the plaintiff is found untenable due to the reasons elaborately discussed in issue NO.2 supra. In view of the above discussed circumstances, this court is of the opinion that plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of cancellation of decree passed in

9

O.S.393/1983 dt.15.4.1993. Accordingly, issue NO.4 is also decided against the

plaintiffs.

13.ISSUE No.5:

To what relief?

In the result, the suit is dismissed. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs are ordered to pay costs to the

defendant NO.2.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and

pronounced in the Open Court on the 28th day of February, 2017.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintiffs Defendants

PW1:M.Bau @ Venugopal NaiduDW1:N.Kuppaiah Naidu

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintiffs

Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered partition deed dt.9.8.1955 effected in between Bodaiah Naidu and his brothers

Ex.A2: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.8.3.1965 executed by Rama Naidu in favour of M.Goraswamy grand father of PW1

Ex.A3: Certified copy of decree in O.S.393/1983 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Chittoor dt.15.4.1993

Ex.A4: Certified copy of common judgment in O.S.393/1983 and O.S.542/1983 dt.15.4.1993

Defendants

Ex.B1: Certified copy of decree in O.S.393/1983 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Chittoor

Ex.B2: Decree passed by the Hon'ble I Additional District Court in A.S.NO.48/1993 in

O.S.393/1983 dt.28.10.2009

Ex.B3: Office copy of legal notice dt.1.5.2013 along with postal acknowledgment card

PJCJ., CTR.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present:- Sri S.KRISHNAN KUTTY

Principal junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Monday, the twenty-seventh (27th) day of February, 2017.

O.S.No. 263 of 2015

Between: K.Rammoorthy Naidu …Plaintif And: M.Prasad … Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 16.2.2017 for final hearing in the presence ofSri. G.Venkatapathi Naidu,Advocate for plaintif and ofSri P.V.Asrithavatsalu,Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit is filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.46,170/- with further interest and costs basing on promissory note.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- The plaintif submits that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 20.6.2012 from the plaintif promising to repay the same with 18% interest per annum on demand and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant has not paid the amount due under the suit pronote. In the said circumstances, plaintif is obliged to file the suit for recovery of pronote amount with interest and costs.

3.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows: The defendant submits that plaintif is none other than co-brother of one

Jayarama Naidu who is the 2nd attestor in the alleged suit promissory note. The said Jayarama Naidu originally filed STC.No.176/2009 on the file of learned Special

JFCM, Chittoor on the basis of a cheque for the sum of Rs.75,000/- issued by the defendant. Subsequent to the payment of the said cheque amount of Rs.75,000/-, when the defendant insisted the said N.Jayarama Naidu to withdraw the above cheque bounce case in STC.No.176/2009, the said Jayarama Naidu started black mailing the defendant and got the alleged suit pronote forcibly executed in favour of the plaintif to have wrongful gain. As such there subsisted no money borrowing transaction between the plaintif and the defendant. In view of the clearance of money dispute between this defendant and the said Jayarama Naidu, further alleged money borrowing transaction by this defendant from the co-brother of the said N.Jayarama Naidu does not arise at all. Under the said circumstances, the defendant praying to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.The following issues were framed for trial:

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

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.From the plaintif side, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked.

On behalf of defendant side, DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to B4 were marked.

6.Heard. Perused.

7.ISSUE NO.1: To discharge the initial burden of proving the suit promissory note Ex.A1 dt.20.6.2012, the plaintif got himself examined as PW1 and one of the attestors was examined as PW2. The chief examination affidavit of plaintif/PW1 shows that on 20.6.2012 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/-, promising to repay the same together with interest at 18% per annum and executed the suit promissory note Ex.A1 dt.20.6.2012 in favour of the plaintif. The chief examination affidavit of plaintif/PW1 further shows that the defendant himself has scribed the suit promissory note Ex.A1. The chief examination affidavit of the attestor/PW2 also support the said oral evidence of plaintif/PW1. The chief examination affidavit of the attestor/PW2 also shows that on 20.6.2012 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintif and executed the suit promissory note Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintif and the suit promissory note Ex.A1 was scribed by the defendant himself. The contention of the defendant is that the plaintif is the co-brother of one N.Jayarama Naidu who had filed a cheque bounce case in STC.No.176/2009 against the defendant herein on the file of learned

Spl.JFCM, Chittoor; subsequently the defendant herein paid the said cheque amount of Rs.75,000/- and insisted the said N.Jayarama Naidu to withdraw the above said cheque bounce case in STC.No.176/2009, but the said Jayarama Naidu started black-mailing the defendant and got executed the alleged suit promissory note forcibly from the defendant in favour of the plaintif to have wrongful gain; as such there subsisted no money borrowing transaction between the plaintif and the defendant. This court find no force in the said contention of the defendant.

Admittedly, the defendant is an advocate and working as II Class Magistrate for

Excise and Prohibition cases since 2.1.2015. Though the defendant has taken the plea that the said N.Jayarama Naidu who is said tobe the co-brother of the plaintif black mailed the defendant and got executed the suit promissory note Ex.A1 forcibly from the defendant without monitory consideration, till the present suit was filed in the year 2015, admittedly the defendant has not initiated any legal action either against the said N.Jayarama Naidu or against the plaintif by stating that the suit promissory note Ex.A1 dt.20.6.2012 was got executed from the defendant by the said N.Jayarama Naidu in favour of the plaintif without consideration by black mailing and forcing the defendant. More over, even no legal notice was issued by the defendant either to the said N,Jayarama Naidu or to the plaintif stating that they obtained the suit promissory note Ex.A1 dt.20.6.2012 from the defendant by way of black mail and force. In the cross examination also the defendant/DW1 has admitted that he neither gave police complaint nor issued any legal notice with respect to the suit promissory note Ex.A1 dt.20.6.2012. In the cross examination the defendant/DW1 has stated that since the STC case i.e., the cheque bounce case in STC.No.176/2009 filed by the said N.Jayarama Naidu against the defendant herein was pending, the defendant could not take any legal action against the said N.Jayarama Naidu or the plaintif for forcibly got executed the suit promissory note Ex.A1 by the said N.Jayarama Naidu in favour of the plaintif from the defendant. It is pertinent to note here that in the cross examination itself the defendant/DW1 has admitted that in the year 2013 the cheque bounce case filed by the said Jayarama Naidu was compromised and settled. The petition U/Sec.257

Cr.P.C. signed by t he N.Jayarama Naidu i.e., Ex.B3 dt.12.6.2013 also shows that in the year 2013 itself the said STC.No.176/2009 was withdrawn. Admittedly, the suit pronote Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant by scribing himself on 20.6.2012. In the cross examination the defendant/DW1 has admitted that “the contents of

suit pronote Ex.A1 is true and correct and the same was executed by me

after going through the contents of Ex.A1.” So it is clear that the suit promissory note Ex.A1 was scribed and executed by the defendant on 20.6.2012 and the cheque bounce case in STC.No.176/2009 filed by the said Jayarama Naidu against the defendant herein was compromised and settled in the year 2013.

However, admittedly defendant neither took any legal action against the said

Jayarama Naidu or the plaintif herein nor issued any legal notice to the said

Jayarama Naidu or the plaintif, after withdrawal of the said STC.No.176/2009 in the year 2013 till the date of filing the present suit in the year 2015, stating that the said Jayarama Naidu got executed the suit promissory note Ex.A1 dt.20.6.2012 by black mailing and forcing him in favour of the plaintif herein. Considering the said circumstances, the contention of the defendant that since the said cheque bounce case in STC.No.176/2009 was pending, he was not able to take any legal action against the said N.Jayarama Naidu and the plaintif for forcibly obtaining the suit promissory note Ex.A1 from the defendant, is found untenable. More over, the said inaction of the defendant who is an advocate and II Class Magistrate, clearly shows that his contention that the suit pronote Ex.A1 was got executed from him by blackmailing and force, is unreliable.

8.To prove that the said N.Jayarama Naidu is the co-brother of the plaintif i.e., the said Jayarama Naidu married plaintif's wife's sister, the defendant has marked the certificate Ex.B4 issued by the VRO of Karlambakkam village in Pallipattu Taluk.

The said Ex.B4 shows that one Smt Jayanthi and one Smt Varalakshmi are the daughters of late one Sundara Naidu. It is pertinent to note that the said ladies by name Smt Jayamthi and Smt Varalakshmi are the wife of the said N.Jayarama Naidu and the plaintif, no evidence is available before the court. Nothing was brought out through the mouth of the plaintif/PW1 or through the mouth of the said

N.Jayarama Naidu (PW2) (who is the attestor of suit promissory note herein) to show that the said ladies by name Smt Jayanthi and Smt Varalakshmi are their wife.

Moreover, no where in the cross examination plaintif/PW1 or the said Jayarama

Naidu/PW2 has stated that they are co-brothers. In the said circumstances, except the self-serving testimony of defenant-DW1, neither any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence is available before the court to show that plaintif and the said N.Jayarama Naidu are co-brothers. The documents Exs.B1 & B2 are the payment memos pertaining to STC.No.176/2009. The said Exs.B1 and B2 are no way helpful to the defendant in the present case, because except the oral testimony of defendant/DW1, no other oral or documentary evidence is available to connect the said cheque bounce case in STC.No.176/2009 filed by th e said

N.jayarama Naidu against the defendant herein, with the present promissory note suit filed by the plaintif herein. Since the defendant has failed to prove that plaintif is the co-brother of the said N.Jayarama naidu, the contention of the defendant that during the pendency of the cheque bounce case in

STC.No.176/2009 filed by the said N.jayarama Naidu, lending money by the plaintif under the promissory note Ex.A1 dt.20.6.2012 to the defendant is un-believable, is also untenable. More over, this court is of the opinion that the said contention of the defendant is not a tenable defence even assuming that the plaintif is the co- brother of the said N.Jayarama Naidu.

9.As stated supra, the evidence given by the defendant/DW1 itself is sufficient to substantiate the case of the plaintif that defendant has executed the suit promissory note Ex.A1 dt.20.6.2012 for the consideration of Rs.30,000/- borrowed from the plaintif. In the cross examination defendant/DW1 has stated that

“previously I was practicing as advocate but now I am working as II Class

Magistrate for excise and prohibition cases since 2.1.2015”. “The

contents of suit pronote Ex.A1 is true and correct and the same was

executed by me after going through the contents of Ex.A1”. “The

contents of Ex.A1 shows that I borrowed cash of Rs.30,000/- from the

plaintiff”. It is also relevant to note here that nothing worthful to the defence contention that suit promissory note Ex.A1 was got executed from the defendant by the said N.Jayarama Naidu by way of blackmailing and force was brought out through the cross examination of plaintif/PW1 and the attestor/PW2.

10.Admittedly, the suit promissory note Ex.A1 dt.20.6.2012 was scribed and executed by defendant himself. More over, the contention of the defendant that the suit promissory note Ex.A1 was got executed in favour of the plaintif by way of black mailing and force was not substantiated by the defendant as discussed supra. In the said circumstances, the contention of the defendant shows that the suit promissory note Ex.A1 was not supported by consideration. Since the execution of the suit promissory note Ex.A1 is proved, the burden shifts on the defendant to prove that the suit promissory note Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration. To prove that the suit promissory note Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration, except the self-serving testimony of defendant/DW1, no other oral or documentary evidence are available before the court. Since no evidence is available before the court to connect the cheque bounce case in STC.NO.176/2009 filed by the said Jayarama Naidu against the defendant herein, with the present suit, the payment memos Exs.B1 and B2 and the petition U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C. Ex.B3 pertaining to the said STC.No.176/2009 marked by the defendant side, is also not helpful to the defendant to show that suit promissory note is Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the plaintif side through the oral evidence Pws.1 & 2 and documentary evidence namely suit pronote Ex.A1 and though the cross examination of defendant (DW1) has discharged its initial burden of proving that suit pronote Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant for consideration, but defendant side has failed to discharge its burden of proving that suit prontoe Ex.A1 was not supported by consideration. The defendant contends that no legal notice was issued by the plaintif prior to the filing of the present pronote suit against the defendant and the same is fatal to the case of the plaintif.

Since there is no mandatory provision to issue prior notice before filing the suit basing on promissory note, the said contention of the defendant hold no water.

11.In view of the fore going discussion, this court is of the opinion that the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration. Accordingly, issue

NO.1 is decided in favour of the plaintif.

12.ISSUE NO.2: In view of the decision arrived in issue NO.1, it is concluded that the plaintif is entitled for suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, issue No.2 is also decided in favour of the plaintif.

13.ISSUE NO.3: In the result, suit is decreed with costs by directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.46,170/- (Rupees forty six thousand one hundred and seventy only) with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% interest per annum till the date of realization for the

principal sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) to the plaintiff.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and

pronounced in the Open Court on the 27th day of February, 2017.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintif Defendants

PW1:I.Rammoorthy Naidu DW1: M.Prasad PW2:N.Jayarama Naidu

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintif

Ex.A1: suit promissory note dt.20.6.2012

Defendants

Ex.B1: Receipt memo issued by N.Jayarama Naidu, complainant in STC.No.176/2009 to DW1

Ex.B2: Receipt memo issued by N.Jayarama Naidu, complainant in Stc.No.176/2009 to DW1

Ex.B3: copy of petition filed by N.Jayarama Naidu complainant in STC.No.176 of 2009 U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C. for withdrawing the complaint filed against DW1

Ex.B4: Certificate dt.2.1.2017 issued by VAO of Karlambakkam in Pallipattu Taluk stating that Smt Jayanthi and Smt Varalakshmi are the daughters of Late Sundara Naidu

PJCJ., CTR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present:- Sri S.KRISHNAN KUTTY

Principal junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Tuesday. the Twenty-First (21st) day of February, 2017.

O.S.No. 292 of 2016

Between: Y.Chandrasekar Naidu …Plaintif And: P.Markandeyulu … Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 17.12.2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. C.K.Raghu, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri G.P.Chetty, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit is filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.56,633/- with further interest and costs basing on promissory note.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- The plaintif submits that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintif on 01.08.2015 for the purpose of his joint family necessities and in consideration thereof defendant executed a demand promissory note on the even date for the said sum of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest p.a. on demand. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands of the plaintif, defendant has not choosen to pay the pronote amount. Then the plaintif got issued legal notice to the defendant on 02.02.2016 calling upon the defendant to pay the amount due under the pronote and inspite of receiving the said legal notice, the defendant neither gave reply nor complied the due pronote amount. In the said circumstances, plaintif is obliged to file the suit for recovery of pronote amount with interest and costs from the defendant.

3.The brief averments of the written statement filed by defendant are as follows:- The defendant submits that he neither borrowed any amount nor executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif. The defendant submits that the plaintif has been running registered chit since long time, the defendant also one of the subscribers in the chit in the year 2011 and he was the successful bidder of the 15th Chit to the Chit amount of Rs.2,00,000/-; before giving the money the plaintif obtained two unfilled signed pronotes from the defendant as insisted by the plaintif towards surety. Now the plaintif taking advantage of the said unfilled

2

pronotes filed false suit by fabricating the said unfilled pronotes. The defendant submits that there is no necessity to him to borrow any amount from anybody much less from the plaintif. The defendant further submits that the suit promissory note is a fabricated one and created by the plaintif with active collusion of attestors and scribe with a view to get wrongful gain. The defendant further submits that the plaintif has approached the court with tainted hands suppressing the real and existing facts. Accordingly praying to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.The following issues were framed for trial:

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

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount with further interest and costs.

3. To what relief?

5.From the plaintif side, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of defendant, nobody was examined but Ex.B1 was marked through the cross examination of plaintif/PW1.

6.Heard. Perused.

7.ISSUE NO.1: Defendant has taken the plea that plaintif has been running unregistered chits since long time and in the chit transaction the plaintif obtained two unfilled signed pronotes from the defendant as surety promising to return the same after completion of the chit, but subsequently the plaintif fabricated the said unfilled pronotes with the active collussion of attestors and scribe and filed the suit for wrongful gain from the defendant. The plea of the defendant further shows that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration also. In the said circumstances, to discharge the initial burden of proving the suit promissory note

Ex.A1, plaintif got himself examined as PW1 and one of the attestors of the suit promissory note was examined as PW2 and the documents; suit promissory note dt.1.8.2015 was marked as Ex.A1 and office copy of legal notice dt.2.2.2016 was marked as Ex.A2. In the chief examination affidavit the plaintif/PW1 has deposed that one G.K.Subramanyam Naidu is the scribe of the suit promissory note. But in the cross examination the plaintif/PW1 has deposed that “Ex.A1 (suit

3

promissory note) was scribed by the defendant”. In the later part of cross examination also the plaintif/PW1 has reiterated that the suit promissory note

Ex.A1 was scribed by the defendant. In the chief examination affidavit the attestor of the suit promissory note PW2 has also stated that G.K.Subramanyam Naidu is the scribe of the suit promissory note Ex.A1 and in the cross examination also PW2 has reiterated that the said Subramanyam scribed the suit promissory note Ex.A1.

So the said evidence of plaintif (PW1) and attestor (PW2) is contradictory with regard to the person who scribed the suit pronote Ex.A1. Admittedly suit promissory Ex.A1 is filled up with two pens i.e., amount portion in figure and place and date, on the top of the suit promissory note Ex.A1 are written with blue ink pen and the body of the suit promissory note Ex.A1 is filled up with black ink pen.

There is no explanation or evidence from the plaintif side to show that under which circumstances the suit promissory note Ex.A1 was scribed with blue and black ink pens. In the cross examination the plaintif/PW1 has deposed that he and his wife each filed one case against the defendant and except the present suit promissory note transaction he (PW1) has no other transaction with the defendant. However, in the cross examination the plaintif/PW1 has admitted that he sent the legal notice Ex.B1 dt.24.8.2015 to the defendant and “it is true that the said pronote mentioned in the Ex.B1 is the suit pronote Ex.A1 herein”. It is pertinent to note that in the legal notice Ex.B1 dt.24.8.2015 it is recited that defendant herein borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintif herein on 01.08.2014 and the said notice is dated.24.8.2015. It is significant to note here that the present suit promissory note Ex.A1 shows that the defendant herein has borrowed Rs.50,000/- on 01.08.2015. More over, the plaintif has got issued legal notice Ex.A2 dt.2.2.2016 pertaining to the present suit pronote Ex.A1 to the defendant herein stating that the defendant has borrowed Rs.50,000/- on 01.08.2015 and executed the promissory note (suit promissory note herein) on the even date i.e., on 1.8.2015. So the said circumstances and the said legal notice Ex.B1 shows that the plaintif got issued legal notice Ex.B1 dt.24.8.2015 through one advocate by name

T.Mohan to the defendant stating that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintif on 1.8.2014 and thereafter the plaintif engaged the present

4

counsel by name advocate C.K.Raghu appearing for the plaintif in the present suit and got issued the legal notice Ex.A2 dt.2.2.2016 by stating that on 1.8.2015 the defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- by executing the promissory note on the even date. Since in the cross examination the plaintif (PW1) has admitted that except the suit pronote transaction he has no other transaction with the defendant, it is clear that the plaintif has got issued the legal notice Ex.B1 dt.24.8.2015 and thereafter got issued legal notice Ex.A2 dt.2.2.2016, are pertaining to the promissory note filed in the present suit as Ex.A1. More over, in the cross examination the plaintif/PW1 has deposed that “it is true that the said pronote mentioned in the Ex.B1 is the suit pronote Ex.A1 herein”. The said circumstances clearly shows that by the date of sending the legal notice Ex.B1 dt.24.8.2015 the unfilled promissory note signed by the defendant was available with the plaintif and thereafter the same was filled up before the issuance of the 2nd legal notice Ex.A2 dt.2.2.2016. The said circumstances in-turn strengthen the contention of the defendant that plaintif obtained unfilled signed pronote from the defendant for security purpose in the chit transaction and subsequently the same was fabricated by the plaintif by colluding with the attestors and scribe as if defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- by executing the suit promissory note Ex.A1 on 1.8.2015.

8.It is pertinent to note that in the midst of the cross examination the plaintif/PW1 has deposed that the defendant has to pay Rs.50,000/- under the pronote mentioned in the legal notice Ex.B1 and Rs.50,000/- under the pronote mentioned in the legal notice Ex.A2, in total Rs.1,00,000/- to him. Admittedly no such averments in the plaint filed by the plaintif as well as in the chief examination affidavit of plaintif/PW1. More over, the admissions made by the plaintif/PW1 in his cross examination discussed supra, and consideration of the entire evidence given by the plaintif/PW1 in his cross examination, this court is of the considered view that only to get over the legal notice Ex.B1 dt.24.8.2015 the plaintif/PW1 has stated in the midst of his cross examination that defendant has to pay Rs.50,000/- to him under the pronote mentioned in the legal notice Ex.B1 and Rs.50,000/- mentioned in the pronote Ex.A2, in total Rs.1,00,000/- to him. Accordingly, this

5

court is of the opinioin that the said evidence given by the plaintif/PW1 is found unreliable.

9.In view of the fore going discussion, the oral evidence of plaintif/PW1 and the attestor/PW2 that defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the plaintif on 1.8.2015 and has executed the suit promissory note Ex.A1 on the even date in their presence, is found unreliable. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that the plaintif side has failed to discharge its initial burden of proving the suit promissory note Ex.A1. Since, the plaintif side has failed to prove its initial burden of proving the suit promissory note Ex.A1, this court is of the opinion that no adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant on the ground that defendant did not come to the witness box to give evidence in support of his contention that suit promissory note Ex.A1 is a fabricated one and not supported by consideration.

Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that the plaintif side has failed to prove that the suit promissory note Ex.A1 is true, valid and supported by considertion.

Accordingly, issue NO.1 is decided against the plaintif.

10.ISSUE NO.2: In view of th e decision arrived in issue No.1, the plaintif is not entitled for the suit amount with further interest and costs as prayed for.

Accordingly, issue NO.2 is also decided against the plaintif.

11.ISSUE NO.3: In the result, suit is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and

pronounced in the Open Court on the 21st day of February, 2017.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintif Defendant PW1:Y.Chandrasekhar NaiduNone PW2:C.Srinivasulu Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintif Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dated:1.8.2015 for Rs.50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt.2.2.2016

Defendant marked through plaintif (PW1) Ex.B1: Legal notice dt.24.8.2015 sent by plaintif through the counsel Sri.T.Mohan to the defendant

PJCJ., CTR.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present: - Sri S.KRISHNAN KUTTY

Principal junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Thursday, the Twenty-Second (22nd) day of September, 2016

O.S.No.472 of 2009

Between: State Bank of Hyderabad, Chittoor Branch, Rep., by its Manager, now M.Udaya Kumar ...Plaintif And:

1.Dr.M.Manoj Paul

2.Dr.S.T.Ranganatham

... Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 18.8.2016 for final hearing in M.Subramanyam Reddy and Defendant No.l was set exparte and suit against defendant No.2 is dismissed, as not pressed and upon perusing the documents on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit is for the recovery of the suit amount of Rs.77,320-00 with further interest and costs.

2.Brief averments of the plaint are as follows: On 13-01-2004 plaintif bank sanctioned loan of Rs.90,000/- to th a 1st defendant by obtaining personal loan agreement from 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at 13.25% per annum with monthly rests and also as per bank rules. Now rate of interest payable is at 14% p.a. with monthly rests. The 1st defendant agreed to repay the loan amount in monthly installments at Rs.2,070/- and interest commencing from 01.02.2004. 2nd defendant has stood as guarantor for due repayment of loan availed by 1st defendant to the plaintif bank. On 13.1.2004 the 2nd defendant has executed deed of guarantee in favour of the plaintif bank. The 1st defendant committed default in payment of loan- instalments and has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. On 20.7.2006 1st defendant has executed a letter confirming the debt and to pay the outstanding loan amount. Inspite of repeated demands and notice dt.7.1.2003 the defendants have failed to pay the outstanding loan amount and violated the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Hence the suit.

2

3.Defendant No.1 was set exparte and the case against defendant No.2 was dismissed as not pressed by the plaintif.

4.On behalf of plaintif bank side, Pws 1 and 2 were examined~and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked.

5.NOW THE POINT FOR CONSIDERATION TS: Whether the plaintif bank is entitled to recover the suit amount with further interest and costs?

6.Heard. Perused.

7.The averments of the plaint and the chief affidavit of Branch Manager of plaintif bank PW1 shows that On 13.01.2004 plaintif bank sanctioned loan of Rs.90,000/- to the 1st defendant by obtaining the 1st defendants personal loan agreement from the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at 13.25% per annum with monthly rests and also as per bank rules. Now rate of interest payable is at 14% p.a. with monthly rests. The 1st defendant agreed to repay the loan amount in monthly installments at Rs.2,070/- and interest commencing from 01.02.2004. 2nd defendant has stood as guarantor for due repayment of loan availed by 1st defendant to the plaintif bank. On 13.1.2004 the 2nd defendant has executed deed of guarantee in favour of the plaintif bank. The 1st defendant committed default in payment of loan instalments and has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. On 20.7.2006 1st defendant has executed a letter confirming the debt and to pay the outstanding loan amount. Inspite of repeated demands and notice dt.7.1.2008 the defendants have failed to pay the outstanding loan amount and violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. Hence the suit. The Chief affidavit of the then Assistant Manager and plaintif bank (PW2) also support the oral evidence of PW1. In support of the oral evidence of PWs.1 & 2, Ex.A1 to A7 were marked. The documents namely arrangement letter dt.13.1.2004-Ex.Al, personal loan agreement by the 1st defendant dt.13.1.2004-Ex.A2, deed of guarantee by 2nd defendant dt.13.1.2004-Ex.A3, letter by 1st defendant with confirmation of balance dt.20.7.2006

Ex.A4, office copy of notice with postal receipts dt.7.1.2008-Ex.A5, two served acknowledgements of the defendants-Ex.A6, extract of account-Ex.A7 were marked by

3

the plaintif side. It is pertinent to note that though plaintif side witness Pws 1 and 2 were cross examined on behalf of defendant NO.2 (subsequently suit against defendant

No.2 was not pressed by the plaintif bank), nothing worthful was brought out adverse to the claim of the plaintif bank against defendant NO.1 who remained exparte in this case.

8.In view of the fore going discussion, this court is of the opinion that the claim of the plaintif bank against defendant No.1 is proved. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintif bank and against the defendant No.1

9.In the result, suit is decreed with costs by directing the defendant No.1 to pay the suit amount of Rs.77,320/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand three hundred and twenty only) with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date realization on the outstanding loan amount of Rs.77,320/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand three hundred and twenty only). Suit against defendant No.2 is dismissed as not pressed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and

pronounced in the Open Court on the 22nd day of September, 2016.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor

FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFFDEFENDANTS

PW1: V.K.GopalanNil PW2: V.Ravi Mohan

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Arrangement lketter dt.13.1.2004 Ex.A2: Personal loan agreement by the 1st defendant dt.13.1.2004 Ex.A3: Deed of guarantee by 2nd defendant dt.13.1.2004 Ex.A4: Letter by 1st defendant with confirmation of balance dt.20.7.2006 Ex.A5: office coy of notice with postal receipts dt.7.1.2008 Ex.A6: Two served acknowledgements of the defendants Ex.A7: Extract of Account

Defendants: Nil

PJCJ., CTR.

FAC I AJCJ., CTR.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present:- Sri S.KRISHNAN KUTTY

Principal junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Monday, the Seventeenth (17th) day of October, 2016.

O.S.No. 655 of 2015

Between: A.C.Jeenath Kumar …Plaintif And:

5

C.Jayachandra Naidu … Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 28.9.2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Balachandra, Advocate for plaintif and defendant was set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit is filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.43,000-00 with further interest and costs basing on the promissory note.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- Defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousands only) from the plaintif on 25.10.2012 for his family necessities and business purpose and in consideration thereof defendant executed a demand promissory note on the even date for the said sum of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest p.a. on demand.

Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands the plaintif, defendant has not choosen to pay the pronote amount. Then the plaintif got issued legal notice to the defendant on 07.06.2013 calling upon the defendant to pay the amount due under the pronote.

Though the defendant received the said notice, defendant neither complied nor paid the due pronote amount. In the said circumstances, plaintif is obliged to file the suit for recovery of suit amount with further interest and costs from the defendant.

3.The defendant was set exparte.

4.From the plaintif side, plaintif was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A3 were marked.

5.Heard. Perused.

6.Now the point for consideration is: Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount with further interest and costs from the defendant as prayed for?

7.The chief affidavit of plaintif/PW1 shows that Defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousands only) from the plaintif on 25.10.2012 for his family necessities and business purpose and in consideration thereof defendant executed a demand promissory note on the even date for the said sum of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest p.a. on demand.

Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands the plaintif, defendant has not choosen to pay the pronote amount. Then the plaintif got issued legal notice to the defendant on

6

07.06.2013 calling upon the defendant to pay the amount due under the pronote.

Though the defendant received the said notice, defendant neither complied nor paid the due pronote amount. In the said circumstances, plaintif is obliged to file the suit for recovery of suit amount with further interest and costs from the defendant. In support of the oral evidence of plaintif/PW1, suit pronote was marked as Ex.A1, office copy of legal notice dt.7.6.2013 with postal receipt was marked as Ex.A2 and postal acknowledgment was marked as Ex.A3. The said unrebutted oral evidence of plaintif/PW1 and the said document Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 has proved the suit claim against the defendant. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the plaintif is entitled to the suit amount with further interest and costs.

8.In the result, suit is decreed with costs by directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.43,000/- (Rupees forty three thousand only) with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and there after 6% interest per annum till the date of realization for the principal sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and

pronounced in the Open Court on the 17th day of October, 2016.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintif Defendant

PW1:A.C.Jeenath KumarExparte

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintif

Ex.A1: promissory note dt.25.10.2012 executed by the defendant for Rs.25,000/- Ex.A2: Office copy of the legal notice dt.7.6.2013 with postal receipt ExA3: Postal acknowledgment.

Defendant

Nil

PJCJ., CTR.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present: - Sri S.KRISHNAN KUTTY

Principal junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

FAC I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. Friday, the Twenty-Third (23rd) day of September, 2016.

O.S.No. 320 of 2016

Between: P.Suresh ...Plaintif And: G.Sarath Babu

... Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 31.08.2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Sreeramulu Naidu, Advocate for plaintif and defendant was set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit is filed for directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule premises and hand over the same to the plaintif; and also directing the defendant to pay the rent arrears of Rs.70,000/- and also for future rent.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- The plaintif submits that he is the owner of the suit schedule basement floor bearing door No.20/142/1, Naidu

Buildings, Chittoor. The defendant is the tenant to the plaintif since 15.3.2007 onwards and he is agreed to pay rent for Rs.5,000/- per month. The lease period is from 15.3.2007 to 15.3.2010 and the defendant has paid an advance of Rs.15,000/- to the plaintif and there was no interest on the advance amount, for which both plaintif and defendant have entered into a rental agreement on 15.3.2007.

The plaintif submits that after expiry of the rental agreement in between plaintif and defendant, at the defendant's request orally the rental agreement was extended further period of three years from 15.3.2010 to 15.3.2013 and the defendant also agreed to pay rent for Rs.7,500/- per month, in which the defendant has paid the rent regularly. Thereafter after expiry of three years again the defendant is requested to the plaintif for further period of extension of rental agreement orally for three years from 15.3.2013 to 15.3.2016 and the defendant has also agreed to pay rent at Rs.10,000/- per month. In that process the defendant has paid the rent upto September, 2015, thereafter he has not paid any rent inspite of demands made by the plaintif.

The plaintif further submits that his wife is running Nursing Home by name and style Dr.V.K.R.Nursing Home, Chittooron the above said buildingground floorand first floor and they wanted to expand their hospital by way of providing additional beds for convenience of the patients, forwhich the plaintif is necessarily required the suit schedule basement floor for thesaid bonafide own purpose. As perthe terms and conditions of the said oral agreement three months notice has to be issued forvacating the suit schedule premises.

The plaintif further submits that he issued legal notice through his counsel on 07.01.2016 to the defendant calling upon him to vacate the notice schedule premises and also pay the arrears of rent and also informing that he is terminating the defendant as a tenant but the registered post returned with an endorsement 'door locked' it was unserved. The plaintif again he has issued legal notice dated 27.01.2016 calling upon him to vacate the suit schedule premises and also to pay the arrears of rent and also terminating the defendant as his tenant through his counsel to the defendant's permanent address and also suit premises address but the notice has been served to his original residence address and other registered post returned on 4.2.2016 with an endorsement 'intimation served and he has not claimed the registered post', the registered post, the registered un-served cover, postal acknowledgement are herewith enclosed for kind perusal of the same. More over the defendant is a defaulter in paying rents since September, 2015. Inspite of receiving legal notice the defendant has not given either reply or paid the arrears of rent but he approached the plaintif to extend further time but the plaintif bluntly refused to extend lease and his tenant because they are required the suit schedule premises for their own purpose to expand their hospital for their livelihood purpose. In the said circumstances, plaintif is obliged to file the suit.

3.Defendant remained exparte.

4.From the plaintif side, plaintif was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked.

5.Heard. Perused.

6.Now the point for consideration is: Whether the plaintif is entitled for the decree as prayed for?

7.The chief affidavit of plaintif/PW1 shows that he is the owner of the suit schedule basement floor bearing door No.20/142/1, Naidu Buildings, Chittoor. The defendant is the tenant to the plaintif since 15.3.2007 onwards and he is agreed to pay rent for

Rs.5,000/- per month. The lease period is from 15.3.2007 to 15.3.2010 and the defendant has paid an advance of Rs.15,000/- to the plaintif and there was no interest on the advance amount, for which both plaintif and defendant have entered into a rental agreement on 15.3.2007; after expiry of the rental agreement in between plaintif and defendant, at the defendant's request orally the rental agreement was extended further period of three years from 15.3.2010 to 15.3.2013 and the defendant also agreed to pay rent for Rs.7,500/- per month, in which the defendant has paid the rent regularly. Thereafter after expiry of three years again the defendant is requested to the plaintif for further period of extension of rental agreement of orally for three years from 15.3.2013 to 15.3.2016 and the defendant has also agreed to pay rent at

Rs.10,000/- per month. In that process the defendant has paid the rent upto

September, 2015, thereafter he has not paid any rent inspite of demands made by the plaintif.

Chief examination affidavit of plaintif/PW1 shows that his wife is running Nursing

Home by name and style Dr.V.K.R.Nursing Home, Chittoor on the above said building ground floor and first floor and they wanted to expand their hospital by way of providing additional beds for convenience of the patients, for which the plaintif is necessarily required the suit schedule basement floor for the said bonafide own purpose. As per the terms and conditions of the said oral agreement three months notice has to be issued for vacating the suit schedule premises.

Chief examination affidavit of PW1 shows that he issued legal notice through his counsel on 07.01.2016 to the defendant calling upon him to vacate the notice schedule premises and also pay the arrears of rent and also informing that he is terminating the defendant as a tenant but the registered post returned with an endorsement 'door locked' it was unserved. The plaintif again he has been issued legal notice dated 27.01.2016 calling upon him to vacate the suit schedule premises and also to pay the arrears of rent and also terminating the defendant as his tenant through his counsel to the defendant's permanent address and also suit premises address but the notice has been served to his original residence address and other registered post returned on 4.2.2016 with an endorsement 'intimation served and he has not claimed the registered post', the registered post', the registered un-served cover, postal acknowledgement are herewith enclosed for kind perusal of the same. More over the defendant is a defaulter in paying rents since September, 2015. Inspite of receiving legal notice the defendant has not given either reply or paid the arrears of rent but he approached the plaintif to extend further time but the plaintif bluntly refused to extend lease and his tenant because they are required the suit schedule premises for their own purpose to expand their hospital for their livelihood purpose. In the said circumstances, plaintif is obliged to file the suit. In support of the oral evidence of plaintif/PW1, office copy of legal notice dt.7.1.2016 issued by plaintif/PW1 to the defendant with postal receipt and returned envelope was marked as Ex.A1, office copy of legal notice dt.27.1.2016 issued by plaintif/PW1 to the defendant with postal receipt and acknowledgment card was marked as Ex.A2, unserved returned postal envelope was marked as Ex.A3 and proceedings of the District Medical and Health Officer,

Chittoor dated:19.10.2014 (Attested copy of said proceedings compared with original proceedings was marked) was marked as Ex.A4. The said unrebutted evidence of plaintif/PW1 and the said document Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 has proved the case of the plaintif.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintif.

8. In the result, suit is decreed by directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises and hand over the same to the plaintif within three months from the date of decree. The defendant is further directed to pay the rent arrear of Rs.70,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of this suit till the date of realization. The relief sought for future rent is concerned, plaintif is directed to file fresh suit for recovery of the same.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and

pronounced in the Open Court on the 23rd day of September, 2016.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintif Defendant

PW1:P.SureshExparte

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintif

Ex.A1: Office copy of legal notice dt.7.1.2016 issued by plaintif/PW1 to the defendant with postal receipt and returned envelope

Ex.A2: office copy of legal notice dt.27.1.2016 issued by plaintif/PW1 to the defendant with postal receipt an d acknowledgment card

Ex.A3: unserved returned postal envelope

Ex.A4: Proceedings of the District Medical and Health Officer, Chittoor dated:19.10.2014 (Attested copy of said proceedings compared with original proceedings is marked)

Defendant

Nil

PJCJ., CTR.

FAC I AJCJ., CTR.