Sri S.M.Phani Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

Present: Sri S.M.Phani Kumar, 

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Friday, the 18th day of October, 2019.

Original Suit No.77 of 2014

Somula Rama Krishna Reddy ... Plaintiff

Versus

Somula Narayana Reddy and another … Defendants

This suit came up for final hearing before me today in the presence of Sri G.Muralidhar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri P.Nageswara

Reddy, Advocate for the Defendants, upon hearing both counsel and having perused the material on record, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff praying the Court to pass a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such equal share to the plaintiff and also to grant mesne profits on a separate application along with costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint are as follows:­

The plaint schedule property originally belongs to one Somula Bala

Narayana Reddy. The said Somula Bala Narayana Reddy has got three sons namely Somula Rama Krishna Reddy (plaintiff), father of the 1st defendant namely Somula Subba Reddy and one Thathi Reddy. Among them, Thathi Reddy became vagabond and left the village. Therefore, it is only the plaintiff and the father of 1st defendant namely Subba Reddy succeeded the property of their father including the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff for his personal reasons is residing with his family at his in­laws house at Chinna Kommerla Village of Jammalamadugu 2

Mandal. Even though the plaintiff is residing there, he is in joint and constructive possession of the plaint schedule property along with the 1st defendant. The plaint schedule property was leased out and as such, the plaintiff used to get his share of lease amount. The 1st defendant by taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff is not residing in the village where the property is situated managed the revenue authorities and got entered the entire property in his name and is making illegal attempts to alienate the property to the 2nd defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants 1 and 2 demanding them to come forward for amicable partition of the suit properties. Even after receiving the legal notice, the defendants did not choose to come forward. The plaint schedule property originally belongs to the father of the plaintiff and the father of 1st defendant by name Bala Narayana Reddy, who died intestate.

Therefore, the plaintiff and 1st defendant are having equal share in the plaint schedule property. Moreover, both the father and mother of 1st defendant are no more and as such, the 1st defendant is entitled to get one equal share along with the plaintiff. As the 1st defendant is trying to alienate the properties, the plaintiff felt that it is not proper to continue in joint possession of the property and as such, filed the present suit seeking partition. Hence, the suit.

3.After receiving summons from the Court, the 1st defendant made his appearance and filed written statement. The 2nd defendant adopted the written statement filed by the 1st defendant. The averments of the written statement filed by the 1st defendant are as follows:­

The 1st defendant denied all the material averments made in the plaint except the factum of relationship in between the parties. It is further contended in the written statement that the properties were already partitioned orally between the plaintiff and 1st defendant long 3 back and the plaintiff also took his share and he was in possession and enjoyment of his property. Subsequently, the plaintiff addicted to bad vices and sold away all his properties and developed a greedy eye to grab the properties which fell to the share of the 1st defendant.

It is further contended in written statement that the 2nd defendant is no way connected with the properties but he was unnecessarily added as a party to the present suit. The 1st defendant purchased properties on his own and as such, the properties are his exclusive properties. There is no cause of action to file the present suit and the suit is filed only to harass the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff is not entitled to seek for partition of the suit properties and prayed the Court to consider the circumstances and dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, this Court has framed the following issues for trial:­

1. Whether the suit schedule properties are the exclusive properties of the second defendant as pleaded ?

2. Whether the suit schedule property is liable for partition ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property as pleaded?

4. To what relief?

5.To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The plaintiff also got filed the chief examination affidavit of one independent witness by name M.Pakkira

Reddy but he did not turn up for cross­examination and consequently, his chief examination affidavit was eschewed by this Court on 23.10.2017.

The plaintiff examined another independent witness by name Reddy Pedda

Sanjeevarayudu as P.W.3. On the other hand, the 1st defendant got examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. The defendants also 4 examined one independent witness by name Mudimela Subba Reddy as

D.W.2.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and also the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants. Perused the entire material on record.

Issue No.1 to 3:­

1. Whether the suit schedule properties are the exclusive properties of the second defendant as pleaded ?

2. Whether the suit schedule property is liable for partition ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property as pleaded?

7.I take up Issues 1 to 3 together for discussion for convenience and also to avoid repetition of evidence and discussion. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Admittedly, one Somula Bala

Narayana Reddy has got three sons i.e., plaintiff, one Somula Thathi

Reddy and Somula Subba Reddy (father of the 1st defendant). It is also admitted that the said Somula Bala Narayana Reddy died intestate. The father and mother of 1st defendant also died. It is also an admitted fact that another brother of the plaintiff by name Somula Thathi Reddy has left the village long back. These are the admitted facts in this case.

8.The contention of the plaintiff is that plaint schedule property belongs to his father who died intestate. His father has got three sons, one son by name Thathi Reddy has left the Village as vagabond.

Therefore, all his properties will devolve upon his two sons i.e., the plaintiff and the father of 1st defendant. Since the father of 1st defendant is no more, his share will devolve upon the 1st defendant and as such, the 5 properties are liable to be partitioned equally among the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Since the 1st defendant is trying to alienate the plaint schedule property to 2nd defendant, he filed the present suit seeking for partition. The plaintiff in support of his contentions got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4. Ex.A1 is the genealogical tree of plaintiff’s family which is not in dispute. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 13.5.2013 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. Ex.A3 is the postal receipts, two in number, for issuing legal notice to the defendants 1 and 2. Ex.A4 is the encumbrance certificate.

9.On the other hand, the contention of the 1st defendant is that the properties succeeded from their father have already been partitioned between him and the plaintiff orally long back and they are enjoying their respective properties. The plaint schedule property herein is the exclusive property of 1st defendant and he has purchased the same for consideration and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition.

The 1st defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and he got marked

Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 8.7.2009. Ex.B2 is the ROR passbook stands in the name of 1st defendant. Ex.B3 is the 1B register issued under ROR Act relating to the properties of the 1st defendant.

10.During the cross­examination, the plaintiff who gave evidence as

P.W.1 categorically admitted that he sold some property out of the plaint schedule property to third parties. The plaintiff also admitted that the 1st defendant also sold away some property to third parties and they jointly also sold away some part of suit properties to third parties and all these facts were not at all reflected by the plaintiff in the plaint. The plaintiff also admitted that there was an oral partition only in respect of the lands 6 situated in Survey No.221. Surprisingly, the admissions made by the plaintiff during the cross­examination were not at all pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint. As per the evidence of the plaintiff, admittedly there was an oral partition between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.

According to him, he along with the 1st defendant also sold away some properties and they individually also sold away some properties. If all these are taken into consideration, the plaintiff is supposed to specifically plead as to what are the properties owned by his father. He must also plead as to what are the properties which are partitioned between them previously and what are the properties left over for partition. He must also specifically plead as to what are the properties which are sold to third parties. The plaintiff without furnishing any such particulars pleaded that the plaint schedule property is liable for partition and he got half share in the said property. Considering the evidence deposed by the plaintiff, it is evident that there are no bonafides in the case of the plaintiff.

11.The plaintiff also admitted during cross­examination that all his three brothers are also having a share in the property. It was admitted that Thathi Reddy is married and all three bothers are entitled to a share in the property which is a deviation in the evidence of the plaintiff.

According to plaintiff, the said Thathi Reddy has left the village as vagabond, as such he is not entitled to any share. However, during evidence, the plaintiff admitted that Thathi Reddy who is his brother is also entitled to a share. Moreover, the plaintiff also did not specifically plead that the said Thathi Reddy is having wife and also whether they are having children or not which itself shows that there are no bonafides in the case of the plaintiff. Moreover, when some joint properties were sold away previously, jointly and also separately by the plaintiff and 1st defendant, all such particulars should be pleaded in the case and the 7 properties which are left after partition should be specifically stated. But no such particulars have been furnished by the plaintiff. Moreover, even according to the plaintiff, both the plaintiff as well as the 1st defendant sold away some extents of properties out of the plaint schedule properties.

But those particulars were not at all furnished by the plaintiff in the plaint but admitted by him during cross­examination. Though the plaintiff got examined one independent witness as P.W.3, his evidence does not repose any confidence of the Court. According to the version of the plaintiff and 1st defendant, the properties belong to their father and they are to be shared upon the parties. Surprisingly, P.W.3 stated that the properties are the ancestral properties of the parties which itself shows that he does not know the facts of the case and as such, much credibility cannot be given to his evidence.

12.Coming to the evidence of defendants, the 1st defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. As per Ex.B1 sale deed, the 1st defendant has purchased an extent of Ac.0­37 cents in survey No.221/2 and Ac.0­45 cents in survey No.222/1 and put together comes to Ac.0­82 cents which are the self­acquired properties of the 1st defendant according to him. The 1st defendant also purchased Ac.1­17 cents in survey No.221/2 as per Ex.B3 1­B register maintained under

ROR Act. Ex.B2 is the ROR passbook which also shows that the 1st defendant has got properties which are covered under Ex.B3. The contention of 1st defendant is that as per Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, the properties are the self­acquired properties of the 1st defendant. When Ex.B1 to

Ex.B3 are perused, the 1st defendant is having Ac.1­83 cents in Survey

Nos.222/1, 221/2 and 221/1 and the entire Ac.1­83 cents are shown as self­acquired properties of the 1st defendant which he got under registered sale deeds. The contention of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant 8 purchased the properties covered under Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 from the joint family nucleus and as such, those properties shall be considered as ancestral properties. The 1st defendant purchased the properties from the ancestral income and as such, 1st defendant cannot claim those properties as his exclusive properties. The plaintiff having taken a plea that the 1st defendant has purchased the properties in his name from the joint family nucleus, the plaintiff is supposed to prove the existence of joint properties at the relevant time when the properties were purchased by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has not filed any document to show the existence of the joint family nucleus other than the properties covered under Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 which stands in the name of 1st defendant as purchased by him. Moreover, it is not the case of plaintiff in the plaint that the 1st defendant purchased some properties in his name with the ancestral funds. In the absence of any such pleading, the plaintiff cannot raise such a point during evidence. Moreover, the plaintiff is claiming partition of Ac.6­00 of land. Therefore, the plaintiff has to establish that the joint family has got Ac.6­00 of land, but no such document has been filed by the plaintiff to establish the existence of Ac.6­00 of land either in the name of 1st defendant or any other family member. On the other hand, the 1st defendant is able to prove that he got Ac.1­83 cents of land in suit survey numbers which are his exclusive properties purchased under sale deeds. Considering the entire material on record, this Court holds that it is evident from the admission made by the plaintiff that the properties of his father were already partitioned between them and the parties have also sold some of the properties succeeded by them.

Moreover, neither the plaintiff nor the 1st defendant are in possession and enjoyment of Ac.6­00 of land which is shown as the plaint schedule. The 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of only Ac.1­83 cents and it was established by the 1st defendant as his exclusive property purchased 9 under sale deeds. The 1st defendant is not in possession and enjoyment of any land other than the property covered under Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.

Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish that the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property which is liable for partition. The plaintiff has to succeed in the suit on his own strength by establishing his case and he cannot depend upon the weakness of the case of the 1st defendant. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of the plaint schedule properties since the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of Ac.6­00 of land which was shown as plaint schedule in the name of any of his family member and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim half share as pleaded by him. However, the 1st defendant could able to establish that he is the exclusive owner of

Ac.1­83 cents in suit survey numbers out of Ac.6­00 of land and after deducting Ac.1­83 cents of the 1st defendant, the remaining land is not in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff or the 1st defendant or any other family member. Moreover, it was admitted by the plaintiff that some part of the suit schedule properties were already sold away by the plaintiff and 1st defendant jointly and also separately. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition. Accordingly, Issues 1 to 3 are answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.4:­ To what relief?

13.In view of the findings given by this Court on Issues 1 to 3, this

Court holds that the plaintiff failed to establish his claim in the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

14.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

10

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18th day of October, 2019.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

NANDYAL.

FAC OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff:­ P.W.1S.Rama Krishna Reddy P.W.2M.Pakkira Reddy (eschewed) P.W.3Reddy Pedda Sanjeevarayudu

For Defendants 1 and 2:­ D.W.1Somula Narayana Reddy D.W.2Mudimela Subba Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:­ Ex.A.1Genealogical tree of plaintiff’s family. Ex.A.2Office copy of legal notice dated 13.5.2013. Ex.A.3Two postal receipts dated 13.5.2013. Ex.A.4Encumbrance certificate dated 13.6.2013.

For Defendants 1 and 2:­ Ex.B1Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 8.7.2009. Ex.B2Pattadar passbook in the name of D.W.1. Ex.B3Mee­seva ROR 1­B Extract, dated 7.7.2018.

PSCJ, NDL.

FAC of SCJ, ALG.

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ALLAGADDA

Present:- Sri S.M.Phani Kumar,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Friday, the 25th day of October, 2019.

Original Suit No.248 of 2016

Between

Madisetty Srenivasa Chakravarthi… Plaintiff

Vs.

Gali Adi Gowri @ Perugu Adi Gowramma … Defendant

This suit came up before me for final hearing on 18.10.2019 in the presence of Sri N.K.Venugopal, Sri S.V.Konda Reddy and Sri

H.C.V.Shekar Babu, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri

B.Neelakanteswaram and Sri E.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocates for the Defendant, upon hearing both counsel, having perused the material on record and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money basing on two promissory note transactions said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff along with interest and costs of the suit.

2.The defendant for her family necessities borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.9.2016 and again borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- on 20.9.2016 and executed two promissory notes each for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff on the respective dates agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and the suit transactions took place at

Allagadda in the house of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant did not choose to pay any amount towards the discharge of the promissory note debts, as such, the plaintiff is 2 constrained to file the present suit for recovery of money. Hence, the suit.

3.After receiving summons from the Court, the defendant made her appearance and filed written statement. The averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:-

The defendant denied all the material averments made in the plaint. It is further contended in the written statement that the defendant has no acquaintance with the plaintiff. The signatures present on the suit promissory notes do not belong to the defendant and they are forged and fabricated documents.

The defendant is only a housewife and as such, there is no necessity for her to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff.

The defendant came to know that there are some disputes between her husband and the plaintiff, as such the plaintiff developed grudge and got filed the present suit by forging the signatures of the defendant. The contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is doing business is false and the same is invented for the purpose of the suit. The present suit is filed only to harass the defendant and her husband and the suit promissory notes are not supported by any consideration and prayed the Court to consider the circumstances and dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, this Court has framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as sought in the plaint ? and

3. To what relief ?

5.To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff got examined himself as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The plaintiff also examined the scribe of the suit promissory notes by name Syed

Imran Basha as P.W.2. The plaintiff also examined the attestor of

Ex.A2 promissory note by name Dudekula Dasthagiri as P.W.3. On 3 the other hand, the defendant got examined herself as D.W.1 but no documentary evidence was adduced by the defendant.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and also the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant.

Perused the entire material on record.

Issues 1 and 2:-

7.I take up Issues 1 and 2 together for discussion for convenience and also to avoid repetition of evidence and discussion.

8.The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1. The plaintiff deposed in his evidence that the defendant borrowed amounts from him on two occasions and executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes; subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the promissory note debts, as such, he filed the present suit. During cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that the husband of the defendant requested him to lend amount. The plaintiff further deposed that he paid the consideration amount to the husband of the defendant. The scribe and the attestor were also brought by the husband of the defendant for the transaction. In support of his claim, the plaintiff also examined the scribe and attestor of suit promissory notes as P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively.

9.On the other hand, the defendant got examined herself as

D.W.1. The defendant deposed in her evidence that she has no facial acquaintance with the plaintiff, scribe and attestor, she is only a housewife and as such, there is no necessity for her to borrow the amount from the plaintiff and that there are disputes between her husband and the plaintiff; subsequently, the plaintiff forged and fabricated the suit promissory notes and filed the present suit for wrongful gain and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. Therefore, the defendant pleaded that she has no acquaintance with the plaintiff and as such, there is no scope for the suit transaction in between them. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that he got acquaintance with the 4 defendant and under what circumstances, he lend amount to the defendant. In this context, the plaintiff who gave evidence as

P.W.1 categorically admitted during cross-examination that it is only the husband of the defendant who had requested him to lend amount. The second admission made by the plaintiff is that he paid the consideration amount to the husband of the defendant.

Moreover, the scribe and attestor were also brought by the husband of the defendant. The plaintiff further stated that he has no acquaintance with the defendant but he knows the defendant through her husband. Therefore, when the request to lend amount and the payment of consideration and the entire negotiations took place between the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant then why the promissory note was kept in the name of the defendant is to be explained by the plaintiff. Even according to the plaintiff, he does not know the financial capacity and the source of income of the defendant. Therefore, without knowing the financial capacity of the defendant and without any acquaintance with her, what made the plaintiff to obtain promissory notes in the name of the defendant is not properly explained. If really all the negotiations and transactions took place between the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant, then why the defendant was involved in the financial transaction is not explained by the plaintiff and this fact throws doubt over the entire case of the plaintiff.

10.Though the plaintiff examined the scribe as well as the attestor of suit promissory notes as P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively, their evidence is also not cogent and trustworthy. P.W.2 who is the scribe of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pronotes categorically stated that the consideration amount under the pronotes was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant but not to her husband. Surprisingly,

P.W.3 who is an attestor to Ex.A2 promissory note transaction categorically stated that the consideration amount was paid to the husband of the defendant but not to the defendant.

Therefore, the payment of consideration is an important aspect in 5 respect of the promissory notes transaction. The evidence of

P.Ws.2 and 3 is inconsistent in this regard and also throws doubt over their credibility. Therefore, it appears that P.Ws.2 and 3 are planted witnesses in this case and they have not witnessed any transaction. If really the transaction took place in their presence, they would have stated the material aspect with regard to the payment of consideration consistently without any deviation. This material aspect also throws doubt over the case of the plaintiff and also evidently shows that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is not trustworthy. Moreover, P.W.2 also categorically admitted during cross-examination that he does not know the contents of his chief- examination affidavit and the recitals in his affidavit were not readover and explained to him. Therefore, it is evident that the chief-examination affidavit of P.W.2 was prepared as per his instructions.

11.The other important aspect is that the plaintiff did not choose to issue legal notice to the defendant prior to filing of the suit. If at all the transaction is genuine, the plaintiff is supposed to demand the defendant for repayment of money by issuing a legal notice but no such legal notice has been issued and no explanation was offered by the plaintiff for not issuing legal notice. Moreover, P.Ws.2 and 3 stated that it is only the husband of the defendant who called them to scribe the promissory notes and to sign as an attestor but the defendant has not called them as witnesses. Considering the entire material on record, it is evident that the request to lend amount has been made by the husband of the defendant and the consideration amount was paid to the husband of the defendant and negotiations were also took place in between them and the defendant has not played any role in the transaction as per the evidence of the witnesses but the promissory notes were obtained from the defendant and no explanation was offered either by the plaintiff or the witnesses as to what is the necessity to obtain the promissory notes in the name of the defendant when all the transactions took place 6 between the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant.

Considering the entire material on record and the defence taken by the defendant, this Court holds that the plaintiff failed to establish the execution of promissory notes by the defendant and passing of consideration. Therefore, this Court holds that the suit promissory notes are not true, valid and genuine documents and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amount under the suit promissory notes. Accordingly, Issues 1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.3:-

12.In view of the findings given by this Court on Issues 1 and 2, this Court holds that the plaintiff failed to establish his claim in the suit and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

13.In the result, the suit is dismissed, without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th day of October, 2019.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDYAL.

FAC OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif:- P.W.1Madisetty Srenivasa Chakravarthi P.W.2Syed Imran Basha P.W.3Dudekula Dasthagiri

For Defendant:- D.W.1 Gali Adi Gowri @ Perugu Adi Gowramma

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintif:- Ex.A1Original suit promissory note for Rs.1,50,000/- dated 19.9.2016. Ex.A2Original suit promissory note for Rs.1,50,000/- dated 20.9.2016.

For Defendant:- Nil 7

PSCJ, NDL.

FAC SCJ, ALG.

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

Present:­ Sri S.M.Phani Kumar, 

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Friday, the 18th day of October, 2019.

Original Suit No.89 of 2018.

Perumalla Venkata Subbaiah …. Plaintiff

Versus

Chekkara Venkata Subbaiah … Defendant

This suit came up for final hearing before me today in the presence of Sri B.V.Subba Reddy and Sri B.Chinna Venkatanna, Advocates for the

Plaintiff and of Sri C.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Defendant, upon hearing both counsel and having perused the material on record, this

Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money basing on four promissory note transactions said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, along with interest and costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint are as follows:­

The defendant and plaintiff are acquainted with each other. Out of acquaintance, the defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 1.2.2016, Rs.1,00,000/­ on 8.7.2016, Rs.62,000/­ on 7.9.2016 and

Rs.76,880/­ on 4.10.2016 and executed four promissory notes for the respective amounts on the respective dates as stated above, agreeing to repay the amounts with interest at 24% per annum. All the suit promissory notes were scribed by the defendant in his own handwriting and the amounts were borrowed for the family expenses of the defendant.

Subsequently, the defendant did not choose to discharge the promissory 2 note debts in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of money.

Hence, the suit.

3.After receiving summons from the Court, the defendant made his appearance and filed written statement. The averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:­

The defendant denied all the material averments made in the plaint.

It is further contended in the written statement that the defendant has only borrowed Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on one occasion in the year 2016 and in that context, the plaintiff insisted the defendant to sign on four blank promissory notes. According to the demand made by the plaintiff, the defendant signed on four empty promissory notes and has received consideration of only Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff.

Subsequently, the defendant has discharged the entire debt of

Rs.1,00,000/­ with interest at the rate of 24% per annum in November, 2016 and demanded the plaintiff to return the empty promissory notes. At that time, there was a dispute with regard to payment of interest as the plaintiff demanded to pay interest at the rate of 50% per annum for which the defendant refused. Therefore, the plaintiff fabricated empty promissory notes available with him in collusion with the attestors and got filed the present suit for wrongful gain. In fact, four suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration and therefore, prayed the Court to consider the circumstances and dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, this Court has framed the following issues for trial:­

1. Whether the suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration?

3

2. Whether the defendant paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff in November, 2016 as pleaded by him in his written statement?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as sought in the plaint? and

4. To what relief?

5.To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the four suit promissory notes as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. In support of his claim, the plaintiff also examined one of the attestor of

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes by name Pagadala Subba Rayudu as

P.W.2. The plaintiff also examined the attestor of Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 promissory notes by name K.Venkatrami Reddy as P.W.3. On the other hand, the defendant did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his contentions. Therefore, there is no evidence on behalf of the defendant either in oral or documentary.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and also the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant. Perused the entire material on record.

Issue No.1 to 3:­

1. Whether the suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration?

2. Whether the defendant paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­

with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff in

November, 2016 as pleaded by him in his written statement?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as sought in the plaint? 

7.I take up Issues 1 to 3 together for discussion for convenience and also to avoid repetition of evidence and discussion. The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1. The plaintiff deposed in his evidence that the defendant borrowed amounts from him on four occasions and executed 4

Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 promissory notes, subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the debts covered under Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 promissory notes; as such, he filed the present suit and P.W.2 is the attestor in respect of Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 promissory notes and P.W.3 is the attestor in respect of Ex.A3 and

Ex.A4 promissory notes. P.W.2 and P.W.3 also categorically stated in their evidence that the execution of suit promissory notes by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff took place in their presence at the house of the plaintiff and they have also witnessed the defendant receiving consideration from the plaintiff. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 clearly establishes that the defendant has received consideration from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 promissory notes. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is cogent and trustworthy.

Even during cross­examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 also, nothing was extracted from the witnesses contrary to the case of the plaintiff.

8.On the other hand, the defendant failed to enter into the witness box to prove the contentions raised by him in the written statement.

Therefore, the contentions raised by the defendant in the written statement are not proved. Even according to the version of the defendant, he has admitted his signatures present on Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 promissory notes. The only contention of the defendant is that he borrowed only

Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff but he signed on four empty promissory notes. Once the defendant admits his signatures on the promissory notes, the burden is on him to establish that he has not received any consideration under the promissory notes. But the defendant failed to adduce any evidence to prove the said contentions raised by him. The defendant also pleaded that he has discharged Rs.1,00,000/­ debt obtained by him from the plaintiff but he has not produced any documentary proof evidencing the same. Moreover, if really the defendant 5 has totally discharged the debt and the plaintiff has obtained four empty promissory notes from him, he is supposed to take legal action against the plaintiff for not returning the promissory notes or atleast expected to issue legal notice demanding to return the promissory notes, but no such action has been initiated by the defendant. So, all the circumstances clearly show that the defendant has set up the defence for the purpose of the suit only to avoid the suit debt. Therefore, this Court holds that the suit promissory notes are true and genuine documents and supported by consideration and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. The defendant failed to establish that he repaid Rs.1,00,000/­ to the plaintiff with interest in the month of November, 2016 as pleaded by him in the written statement.

Accordingly, Issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.4:­ To what relief?

9.In view of the findings given by this Court on Issues 1 to 3, this

Court holds that the plaintiff is able to establish his claim in the suit and therefore, entitled to get a decree for recovery of money as prayed for.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.4,20,728/­ to the plaintiff with interest at 12% per annum pending suit and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,88,880/­.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18th day of October, 2019.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

NANDYAL.

FAC OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

6

ALLAGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1Perumalla Venkata Subbaiah P.W.2Pagadala Subba Rayudu P.W.3K.Venkatrami Reddy

For Defendant: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A.1Original promissory note dated 1.2.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.50,000/­.

Ex.A.2Original promissory note dated 8.7.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/­.

Ex.A.3Original promissory note dated 7.9.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.62,000/­.

Ex.A.4Original promissory note dated 4.10.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.76,880/­.

For Defendant: Nil

PSCJ, NDL.

FAC of SCJ, ALG.

7

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

Present:­ Sri S.M.Phani Kumar, 

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

Friday, the 25th day of October, 2019.

Original Suit No.33 of 2018.

Nandyala Ramasekhara Reddy …. Plaintiff

Versus

Matha Padmavathi … Defendant

This suit came up for final hearing before me today in the presence of Sri G.Muralidhar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri N.Chandra

Sekhar, Advocate for the Defendant, upon hearing both counsel and having perused the material on record, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money basing on a promissory note transaction said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, along with interest and costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint are as follows:­

The defendant for her family expenses borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 22.3.2015 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Mandalur Village of Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool

District. Later, inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to discharge the promissory note debt.

Therefore, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 8.1.2018. After receiving the legal notice, the defendant got issued reply notice with false allegations. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of money. Hence, the suit.

2

3.After receiving summons from the Court, the defendant made her appearance and filed her written statement. The averments of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:­

The defendant denied all the material averments made in the plaint.

It is further contended in the written statement that the plaintiff is a stranger to the defendant. The relative of the plaintiff by name Karri

Adireddy filed a suit against the defendant on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Ramachandrapuram in O.S.No.98 of 2014 and the said suit was dismissed by the Court. The relatives of the plaintiff are residing in Visakhapatnam and running unauthorized private chit business and are creating forged and fabricated documents to get wrongful gain from the unknown persons.

The suit promissory note is also rank forged document brought into existence by the plaintiff to get wrongful gain from the defendant. The defendant is also going to take steps to send the suit promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison. The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff under the suit promissory note and as such, prayed the Court to consider the circumstances and dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, this Court has framed the following issues for trial:­

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as sought in the plaint?

and

3. To what relief?

5.To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The plaintiff did not choose to examine any independent witness on his behalf. On the other hand, the defendant 3 did not choose to enter into the witness box and therefore, there is no evidence on behalf of the defendant either in oral or documentary.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendant did not choose to address any arguments. Perused the entire material on record.

Issue No.1 and 2:­

7.I take up Issues 1 and 2 together for discussion for convenience and also to avoid repetition of evidence and discussion.

8.The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1. The plaintiff deposed in his evidence that the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/­ from him and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour, subsequently, the defendant did not choose to repay the promissory note debt; as such he got issued Ex.A2 legal notice to the defendant. The defendant after receiving legal notice got issued Ex.A3 reply notice with false allegations.

Therefore, he is constrained to file the present suit.

9.On the other hand, there is no evidence on behalf of the defendant.

The defendant contended in his written statement that the plaintiff is a stranger to her. The suit promissory note is a rank forged and fabricated document. The relatives of the plaintiff are doing unauthorized chit business at Visakhapatnam and creating forged and fabricated documents and filing suits at different places in Andhra Pradesh. The defendant though raised the said contentions in her written statement failed to prove the said contentions by entering into the witness box. The only evidence available on record is of the plaintiff. The oral evidence of the plaintiff coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 clearly establish that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff and subsequently failed to discharge the 4 promissory note debt. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, Issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.3:­

10.In view of the findings given by this Court on Issues 1 and 2, this

Court holds that the plaintiff is able to establish his claim in the suit and therefore, entitled to get a decree for recovery of money as prayed for.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,39,000/­ to the plaintiff with interest at 12% per annum pending suit and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/­.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th day of October, 2019.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

NANDYAL.

FAC OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALLAGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1Nandyala Rama Sekhar Reddy

For Defendant: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A.1Original promissory note dated 22.3.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/­. Ex.A.2Office copy of legal notice dated 8.1.2018. Ex.A.3Reply notice dated 23.1.2018.

For Defendant: Nil

PSCJ, NDL.

FAC of SCJ, ALG.

5

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

::NANDYAL::

Present : Sri S.M.Phani Kumar,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC.II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

Wednesday, the 2nd day of December, 2020.

MOP.No.22 of 2020

1) Narravula Golla Seshaphani, Aged about 34 years, Son of N.Golla Bala Subbaiah, Hindu, Agricultural coolie Resident of H.No.3-98, Ramapuram village, Owk Mandal, Kurnool District

2) M.Lakshmi Maheswari alias Narravula Golla Maheswari, aged about 22 years, wife of N.Golla Seshaphani, Daughter of M.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, presently residing at H.No.2/138, Ameenabad village, Thuggali Mandal, Kurnool District …Petitioners 1 and 2 - Versus - - NIL-…Respondents

This petition coming on this day i.e., on 02.12.2020 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.J.P.N.Reddy and Sri G.Mahesh,

Advocates for the petitioners and upon hearing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner and upon considering the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

01.This is an original petition filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 who are the husband and wife respectively, under Section 13 (B) of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying the Court to grant divorce by mutual consent.

02.The averments of the petition are as follows:

The marriage of the petitioners was performed at

Maheswara Swamy Devasthanam, Yaganti Kshethram, Pathapadu of

Banaganapalli Mandal, on 25-11-2017 as per Hindu rites and customs 2 and their marriage was consummated. No issues were born to the petitioners during their wedlock. Since from the beginning of marriage, the petitioners 1 and 2 quarreled with each other and never lived happily. They have no faith in each other and both are of egoistic nature. The first petitioner suffered from fits and taking treatment. The petitioners are living seprately from 10-12-2017 and inspite of best efforts of elders, the petitioners 1and 2 are not prepared to rejoin.

There is no chance of their living together and hence, they filed the petition seeking divorce by mutual consent. The petitioners 1 and 2 handed over the belongings of each other received at the time of marriage. The first petitioner agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- and 1½ tulas of gold to the second petitioner on the date of granting divorce by the

Court, towards full and final payment and towards permanent alimony and the second petitioner agreed to relinquish all her rights upon the first petition, including future alimony. Hence, the petition.

03.There are no contesting respondents in this petition.

04.Immediately after numbering of this petition, the matter is adjourned for six months, as an observation period to enable the petitioners to rethink about their wish to get divorce by mutual consent.

After completion of six months period, the petitioners 1 and 2 appeared

before the Court and stated that there is no scope for their reunion and

they are willing to obtain divorce by mutual consent. Therefore, this

Court has proceeded further to record the evidence of petitioners.

05.The petitioners 1 and 2 who are husband and wife, respectively, got examined themselves as PW1 and PW2 and got marked

Exs.A1 and A2.

06.Heard the counsel for petitioners.

07.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled for dissolution of their marriage as claimed by them ?

3

08.Point:

The petitioners are contending that their marriage took place on 25-11-2017 at Sri Uma Maheswara Swamy Devasthanam,

Yaganti Kshethram, Pathapadu of Banaganapalli Mandal, according to

Hindu rites and customs and ever since their marriage they never lived happily due to their egoistic nature and they are living separately. The efforts made by elders to reunite them, proved futile and there is no chance of their reunion and hence, they decided to seek divorce from the Court by mutual consent. To establish their matrimonial relationship, the petitioners got examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 got marked Exs.A1 and A2, which are the payment receipt for performance of marriage in the temple and the marriage photographs.

The petitioners also filed the Aadhar Cards to prove their identify.

09.Considering the material placed on record and the averments made in the petition and the oral evidence adduced by

PWs.1 and 2, admittedly the petitioners 1 and 2 who are legally wedded husband and wife respectively, as per Hindu Rites and Customs, could not continue their matrimonial relationship due to their egoistic nature.

Petitioners 1 and 2 also categorically stated in their evidence that there is no chance of any reunion in between them in future and therefore, they approached this Court to seek divorce by mutual consent. The petitioners further deposed that the first petitioner has agreed to pay

Rs.25,000/- and 1½ tulas gold to the second petitioner on the date of granting divorce by the Court, towards her full and final maintenance and permanent alimony and the second petitioner agreed to relinquish her rights upon the first petitioner. The petitioners also stated that there is no collusion between them in filing the petition. Taking into consideration of all the circumstances and material placed before the

Court, this Court feels it proper to grant divorce to petitioners 1 and 2 by mutual consent.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed granting divorce by mutual consent, by dissolving the marriage of the first petitioner 4 (husband) with the second petitioner (wife), which took place on 25-11-2017 and the petitioners shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2nd day of December, 2020.

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC.II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For PetitionersFor Respondents

PW1: N.G.SeshaphaniNONE PW2: M.Lakshmi Maheswari

Exhibits marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1: Payment receipt for performance of marriage between the petitioners issued by Sri Uma Maheswara Swamy Devasthanam, Patapadu, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District, dated 25-11-2017.

Ex.A2: Marriage photographs (3 in number).

For Respondents: - Nil -

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

PSCJ, NDL.

FAC. II ASCJ, NDL.

5 6