Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

1

OS.No.244/2015, Dt.03-09-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PARCHUR. IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PARCHUR.

Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

Senior Civil Judge, Parchur. Senior Civil Judge, Parchur.

Tuesday, this the 3rd Tuesday, this the 3rd day of September, 2019 day of September, 2019

O.S.No.244/2015 O.S.No.244/2015

BETWEEN:BETWEEN:

Sri Thrivikrama and Agastheswara Swamy Temple,Sri Thrivikrama and Agastheswara Swamy Temple, Cherukuru, represented by its executive authority,Cherukuru, represented by its executive authority, having its office at Cherukuru village, Parchur.having its office at Cherukuru village, Parchur.

..Plaintiff..Plaintiff

AND AND

Duddu Kiran, s/o Bheemaiah, aged about 25 years,Duddu Kiran, s/o Bheemaiah, aged about 25 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Devarapalli vilalge , Parchur Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Devarapalli vilalge , Parchur … Defendant … Defendant * * ** * *

This suit is presented before me on this day in the presence ofThis suit is presented before me on this day in the presence of Sri Ch. Subba Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri C. SubbaSri Ch. Subba Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri C. Subba Rao, Advocate for the defendant and after hearing the counsel forRao, Advocate for the defendant and after hearing the counsel for both parties and upon perusing the material on record and havingboth parties and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered thestood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:following:

JUDGMENT JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff-temple against theThis is a suit filed by the plaintiff-temple against the defendant for recovery of balance of rent contending that, thedefendant for recovery of balance of rent contending that, the defendant became a tenant of the land for an extent of Ac.6.10defendant became a tenant of the land for an extent of Ac.6.10 cents and Ac.2.50 cents in S.No.253/1, 253/2 respectively ofcents and Ac.2.50 cents in S.No.253/1, 253/2 respectively of

Cherukuru village belong to the plaintiff-temple in a public auctionCherukuru village belong to the plaintiff-temple in a public auction conducted for lease hold rights on 06-05-2010 for yearly rent ofconducted for lease hold rights on 06-05-2010 for yearly rent of

Rs.75,000/- and Rs.27,000/- to the above said lands for three yearsRs.75,000/- and Rs.27,000/- to the above said lands for three years ie., from 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 and that the defendant has toie., from 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 and that the defendant has to pay the rent in advance. Subsequently the defendant cultivated thepay the rent in advance. Subsequently the defendant cultivated the land for the years 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 and the defendantland for the years 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 and the defendant 2

OS.No.71/2017, Dt.20-08-2019

failed to pay the rent for the year2011-2012 to 2012-2013,failed to pay the rent for the year2011-2012 to 2012-2013,ttherebyhereby committed default in paying the rent. In spite of repeatedcommitted default in paying the rent. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay the balance of rent for thedemands, the defendant failed to pay the balance of rent for the years 2010-2011 to 2012 to 2013. Hence, the suit for recovery ofyears 2010-2011 to 2012 to 2013. Hence, the suit for recovery of amount thereon. amount thereon.

2. 2. The defendant has filed written statement denying theThe defendant has filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint and contended that, he has not committedcontents of the plaint and contended that, he has not committed any default in payment of maktha to the plaintiff-temple. Heany default in payment of maktha to the plaintiff-temple. He contended that, he made part payments to the plaintiff-temple, butcontended that, he made part payments to the plaintiff-temple, but the same not shown in the plaint, as such he has not committedthe same not shown in the plaint, as such he has not committed any default. He further contended that, the plaintiff-temple neverany default. He further contended that, the plaintiff-temple never demanded him for payment of balance amount before institution ofdemanded him for payment of balance amount before institution of the suit. He averred that, the plaintiff-temple took the land from himthe suit. He averred that, the plaintiff-temple took the land from him forcibly and conducted auction without giving any opportunity toforcibly and conducted auction without giving any opportunity to him to cultivate the land and to discharge the entire lease amount.him to cultivate the land and to discharge the entire lease amount.

Had the plaintiff-temple allowed him to cultivate the land, he wouldHad the plaintiff-temple allowed him to cultivate the land, he would have discharged the balance amount. He added that, he has spenthave discharged the balance amount. He added that, he has spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to cultivate the land, sustained heavy lossa sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to cultivate the land, sustained heavy loss and that he was unable to recover the above said from the aboveand that he was unable to recover the above said from the above said land, as such, he is unable to pay the balance amount and thatsaid land, as such, he is unable to pay the balance amount and that the plaintiff-temple is full aware of the above aspects, yet, filed thethe plaintiff-temple is full aware of the above aspects, yet, filed the suit only to harass him. He further averred that, this Court has nosuit only to harass him. He further averred that, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit, thereby, finally requested thisjurisdiction to entertain this suit, thereby, finally requested this

Court to dismiss the suit.Court to dismiss the suit.

3

OS.No.244/2015, Dt.03-09-2019

3.3.Basing the above pleadings, the following issues settledBasing the above pleadings, the following issues settled for trial:for trial:

1.1. Whether the plaintiff-temple is entitled for arrears Whether the plaintiff-temple is entitled for arrears of rent as claimed? of rent as claimed?

2. 2. To what relief?To what relief?

4.4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff-During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff- temple, P.W.1 examined and Exs.A1 and Ex.A2 marked. On behalftemple, P.W.1 examined and Exs.A1 and Ex.A2 marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 examined, but no documents marked.of the defendant, D.W.1 examined, but no documents marked.

5.5.Heard both sides.Heard both sides.

6.6. This Court has perused the material available on record, This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses and has given thoughtfulverified the depositions of the witnesses and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.consideration to the matter.

In re In re Issue No.1: Issue No.1:

1.1. Whether the plaintiff-temple is entitled for arrears Whether the plaintiff-temple is entitled for arrears of rent as claimed? of rent as claimed?

Evidence Evidence

7.7.On behalf of the plaintiff-temple, the Executive OfficerOn behalf of the plaintiff-temple, the Executive Officer examined as PW.1 has given evidence-in-chief in tune with theexamined as PW.1 has given evidence-in-chief in tune with the plaint. Through him Exs.A1 and Ex.A2 bid lists received in evidence.plaint. Through him Exs.A1 and Ex.A2 bid lists received in evidence.

In the cross-examination, PW.1 pleaded ignorance as to the aspectIn the cross-examination, PW.1 pleaded ignorance as to the aspect whether the defendant sustained loss for three years in thewhether the defendant sustained loss for three years in the cultivation due to scanty rain and menace of insects and that hecultivation due to scanty rain and menace of insects and that he incurred Rs.3,00,000/- per annum towards the expenditure of theincurred Rs.3,00,000/- per annum towards the expenditure of the agriculture.agriculture.

4

OS.No.71/2017, Dt.20-08-2019

8.8.The defendant by examining himself as DW.1, has givenThe defendant by examining himself as DW.1, has given evidence-in-chief in tune with the written statement. In the cross-evidence-in-chief in tune with the written statement. In the cross- examination, the defendant admitted that he stood as an highestexamination, the defendant admitted that he stood as an highest bidder in an auction conducted on 06-05-2010 in respect of Ac.6.10bidder in an auction conducted on 06-05-2010 in respect of Ac.6.10 cents and Ac.2.50 cents by the plaintiff-temple for lease hold rightscents and Ac.2.50 cents by the plaintiff-temple for lease hold rights for the years 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 for Rs.75,000/- andfor the years 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 for Rs.75,000/- and

Rs.27,000/- p.a., respectively and that the rent has to be paid inRs.27,000/- p.a., respectively and that the rent has to be paid in advance every year and he cultivated the land for three years andadvance every year and he cultivated the land for three years and that for the first year he paid the lease amount. Thethat for the first year he paid the lease amount. The defendant/DW.1 further admitted that for the second year indefendant/DW.1 further admitted that for the second year in respect of Ac.6.10 cents he paid only Rs.50,000/- as againstrespect of Ac.6.10 cents he paid only Rs.50,000/- as against

Rs.75,000/- and he fell due of Rs.25,000/- for the year 2011-2012Rs.75,000/- and he fell due of Rs.25,000/- for the year 2011-2012 and he has to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- for the year 2012-2013. Heand he has to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- for the year 2012-2013. He further admitted that for two years he has not paid any leasefurther admitted that for two years he has not paid any lease amount of Rs.27,000/- p.a., in respect of Ac.2.50 cents and in thisamount of Rs.27,000/- p.a., in respect of Ac.2.50 cents and in this way he fell due of Rs.1,95,275/- that is the suit amount as on theway he fell due of Rs.1,95,275/- that is the suit amount as on the date of institution of the suit.date of institution of the suit.

Marshalling of facts and Analysis of evidence Marshalling of facts and Analysis of evidence

9.9. On conglomeration of above evidence what emerges On conglomeration of above evidence what emerges clear is that, the plaintiff is the temple, it has leased out its land inclear is that, the plaintiff is the temple, it has leased out its land in

S.No.253/1, 2 of Cherukuru village to an extend of Ac.6.10 centsS.No.253/1, 2 of Cherukuru village to an extend of Ac.6.10 cents and 2.10 cents and the defendant stood as highest bidder in theand 2.10 cents and the defendant stood as highest bidder in the auction conducted by the plaintiff-temple on 06-05-2010 in respectauction conducted by the plaintiff-temple on 06-05-2010 in respect of land in an extent of A.6.10 cents and 2.10 cents in S.No.253/1,2of land in an extent of A.6.10 cents and 2.10 cents in S.No.253/1,2 of Cherukuru village for the year 2011-2012 to 2012-2013 forof Cherukuru village for the year 2011-2012 to 2012-2013 for 5

OS.No.244/2015, Dt.03-09-2019

Rs.75,000/- and Rs.27,000/- respectively. However, he committedRs.75,000/- and Rs.27,000/- respectively. However, he committed default to pay the rent for the year 2011-12 to 2012-2013. Despitedefault to pay the rent for the year 2011-12 to 2012-2013. Despite demand, he failed to pay the above amount, on that, the plaintiff-demand, he failed to pay the above amount, on that, the plaintiff- temple sued the defendant.temple sued the defendant.

10.10.The defendant in the written statement took the pleaThe defendant in the written statement took the plea that, he made certain part payments and that the plaintiff-templethat, he made certain part payments and that the plaintiff-temple has not shown the said part payments. His contention that, hehas not shown the said part payments. His contention that, he made part payments is incorrect, as he failed to come up with themade part payments is incorrect, as he failed to come up with the facts and figures as to the said part payments and the datesfacts and figures as to the said part payments and the dates thereon. Thus, the defence thereto, is set to naught.thereon. Thus, the defence thereto, is set to naught.

11.11.On the other hand, the defendant himself admitted that,On the other hand, the defendant himself admitted that, he fell due of Rs.1,95,275/- as on the date of institution of the suithe fell due of Rs.1,95,275/- as on the date of institution of the suit to the plaintiff-temple. The feeble evidence set forth by theto the plaintiff-temple. The feeble evidence set forth by the defendant, that he incurred huge loss and that he incurred hugedefendant, that he incurred huge loss and that he incurred huge expense of Rs.3,00,000/- and that due to scanty rain and menace ofexpense of Rs.3,00,000/- and that due to scanty rain and menace of insects, thereby, he could not pay rent, cannot be countenanced.insects, thereby, he could not pay rent, cannot be countenanced.

Thus, his defence is set to naught. Thus, his defence is set to naught.

12. On agglomeration of the above discussion, the Court is of12. On agglomeration of the above discussion, the Court is of the considered view that, the evidence of the plaintiff-templethe considered view that, the evidence of the plaintiff-temple together with documentary evidence in the form of bid lists istogether with documentary evidence in the form of bid lists is suffice, to hold that the plaintiff-temple is entitled for arrears ofsuffice, to hold that the plaintiff-temple is entitled for arrears of rent as prayed for. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of therent as prayed for. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff-temple and against the defendant.plaintiff-temple and against the defendant.

6

OS.No.71/2017, Dt.20-08-2019

Issue No.2:To what relief ?Issue No.2:To what relief ?

13.13.In as much as, when the plaintiff has succeeded inIn as much as, when the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing its case in respect of the rigmarole in Issue No.1, theestablishing its case in respect of the rigmarole in Issue No.1, the only corollary is to decree the suit. Hence the suit is decreed. only corollary is to decree the suit. Hence the suit is decreed.

14.14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against theIn the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,95,275/-(Rupees one lakh ninetydefendant for an amount of Rs.1,95,275/-(Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand two hundred and seventy five only) with subsequentfive thousand two hundred and seventy five only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit, till the date of decreeinterest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization thereon.and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization thereon.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rdpronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of September, 2019. day of September, 2019.

Sd/-. Sd/-.

Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARCHUR. PARCHUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINEDWITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF: : PLAINTIFF

PW.1 : Nimmagadda Venkata Ravi Kumar,PW.1 : Nimmagadda Venkata Ravi Kumar,

DEFENDANT:DEFENDANT:

DW.1 : Duddu Kiran (Defendant)DW.1 : Duddu Kiran (Defendant)

Documents Marked on behalf of the PlaintiffDocuments Marked on behalf of the Plaintiff

Ex.A1Ex.A1:: Bid list, dated 06-05-2010 pertain to Ac.6.10 centsBid list, dated 06-05-2010 pertain to Ac.6.10 cents

Ex.A2Ex.A2:: Bid list, dated 06-05-2010 pertain to Ac.2.50 centsBid list, dated 06-05-2010 pertain to Ac.2.50 cents

Documents Marked on behalf of the DefendantDocuments Marked on behalf of the Defendant

-NIL--NIL-

Sd/-. Sd/-.

Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARCHUR PARCHUR

7

OS.No.244/2015, Dt.03-09-2019

// TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY //

SCJ., Parchur. SCJ., Parchur.

1

OS.No.17/2018, Dt.04-09-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PARCHUR. IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PARCHUR.

Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

Senior Civil Judge, Parchur. Senior Civil Judge, Parchur.

Wednesday, this the 4th Wednesday, this the 4th day of September, 2019 day of September, 2019

O.S.No.17/2018 O.S.No.17/2018

BETWEEN:BETWEEN:

1.1.Lanka Venkata Subba Reddy, s/o late Venkata Reddy,Lanka Venkata Subba Reddy, s/o late Venkata Reddy, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation,aged about 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Door No.2-50, Kothapalem, h/o Cherukuru,r/o Door No.2-50, Kothapalem, h/o Cherukuru, Parchur Mandal.Parchur Mandal.

2. 2. Smt. Lanka Sivamma, w/o late Venkata Reddy,Smt. Lanka Sivamma, w/o late Venkata Reddy, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation,aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Door No.2-50, Kothapalem, h/o Cherukuru,r/o Door No.2-50, Kothapalem, h/o Cherukuru, Parchur Mandal.Parchur Mandal.

..Plaintiffs..Plaintiffs

AND AND

Lanka Srinivasa Reddy, s/o Butchi Reddy,Lanka Srinivasa Reddy, s/o Butchi Reddy, aged about 53 years, Hindu, Business,aged about 53 years, Hindu, Business, r/o 3-10-31, Flat No.501, Satyateja Apartments,r/o 3-10-31, Flat No.501, Satyateja Apartments, 3/1, Behind RTO Office, Pattabhipuram, Guntur.3/1, Behind RTO Office, Pattabhipuram, Guntur. … Defendant … Defendant * * ** * *

This suit is presented before me on this day in the presence ofThis suit is presented before me on this day in the presence of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Sri R. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K. Narendra Kumar,, Advocate for the defendant and after hearing theNarendra Kumar,, Advocate for the defendant and after hearing the counsel for both parties and upon perusing the material on recordcounsel for both parties and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Courtand having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:delivered the following:

JUDGMENT JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against defendant forThis is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against defendant for recovery of amount based on promissory note.recovery of amount based on promissory note.

2. 2. As seen from the contents of the plaint, the plaintiffsAs seen from the contents of the plaint, the plaintiffs pleaded that, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.9,50,000/-pleaded that, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- on 18-03-2015 for his business purpose from Lanka Venkata Reddyon 18-03-2015 for his business purpose from Lanka Venkata Reddy and executed a promissory note in favour of Lanka Venkata Reddyand executed a promissory note in favour of Lanka Venkata Reddy 2

OS.No.17/2018, Dt.04-09-2019

on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24%on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to Lanka Venkata Reddy or to his order onper annum either to Lanka Venkata Reddy or to his order on demand. It is further averred that, inspite of issuance of legal noticedemand. It is further averred that, inspite of issuance of legal notice and demands made by the said Lanka Venkata Reddy, theand demands made by the said Lanka Venkata Reddy, the defendant failed to repay the said debt. In the meanwhile the saiddefendant failed to repay the said debt. In the meanwhile the said

Lanka Venkata Reddy died on 12-12-2017 intestate leaving theLanka Venkata Reddy died on 12-12-2017 intestate leaving the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as his legal representatives. On that the plaintiffsplaintiffs 1 and 2 as his legal representatives. On that the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to pay the amount due under suitdemanded the defendant to pay the amount due under suit promissory note, but the defendant failed to discharge the debtpromissory note, but the defendant failed to discharge the debt due. Hence, the suit.due. Hence, the suit.

3. 3. The defendant filed written statement denying theThe defendant filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint. He specifically contended that, he is a nativecontents of the plaint. He specifically contended that, he is a native of Kothapalem, Parchur Mandal, whereas the plaintiffs are theof Kothapalem, Parchur Mandal, whereas the plaintiffs are the residents of said village, as such there are long standing disputesresidents of said village, as such there are long standing disputes between their families for the last more than 10 years. Thebetween their families for the last more than 10 years. The defendant contended that, the plaintiffs created the suit promissorydefendant contended that, the plaintiffs created the suit promissory note in the name of Venkata Reddy only to make wrongful gain bynote in the name of Venkata Reddy only to make wrongful gain by forging the signatures of the defendant and that the defendant hasforging the signatures of the defendant and that the defendant has no necessity to borrow the amount from the said Venkata Reddy.no necessity to borrow the amount from the said Venkata Reddy.

The defendant specifically contended that, he is in the habit ofThe defendant specifically contended that, he is in the habit of putting signature in the English, whereas, the signature on the suitputting signature in the English, whereas, the signature on the suit promissory note are in Telugu, as such, this itself shows that thepromissory note are in Telugu, as such, this itself shows that the suit promissory note is fabricated with the help of henchmen of thesuit promissory note is fabricated with the help of henchmen of the plaintiffs, thereby sought for the dismissal of the suit.plaintiffs, thereby sought for the dismissal of the suit.

3

OS.No.17/2018, Dt.04-09-2019

4.4.Basing the above pleadings, the following issues settledBasing the above pleadings, the following issues settled for trial:for trial:

1.1.Whether the promissory note is true, valid andWhether the promissory note is true, valid and binding?binding?

2. 2. Whether the signature of the defendant is forgedWhether the signature of the defendant is forged and fabricated?and fabricated?

3.3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover theWhether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?suit amount as prayed for?

4. 4. To what relief?To what relief?

5.5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs,During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs,

P.W.1 to PW.4 examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A5 marked. On behalf ofP.W.1 to PW.4 examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A5 marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 examined, but no documents marked.the defendant, D.W.1 examined, but no documents marked.

6.6.Heard both sides.Heard both sides.

7.7. This Court has perused the material available on record, This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses and has given thoughtfulverified the depositions of the witnesses and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.consideration to the matter.

In re In re Issue Nos.1 to 3: Issue Nos.1 to 3:

1.1.Whether the promissory note is true, valid and Whether the promissory note is true, valid and binding?binding?

2. 2. Whether the signature of the defendant is forgedWhether the signature of the defendant is forged and fabricated?and fabricated?

3.3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover theWhether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?suit amount as prayed for?

Evidence Evidence

8.8.The first plaintiff examined as PW.1 has given evidence-The first plaintiff examined as PW.1 has given evidence- in-chief in tune with the plaint. Through him Ex.A1 to A5 received inin-chief in tune with the plaint. Through him Ex.A1 to A5 received in evidence. The cross-examination proceeded on the lines ofevidence. The cross-examination proceeded on the lines of suggestions of the contents of the written statement in nut shellsuggestions of the contents of the written statement in nut shell 4

OS.No.17/2018, Dt.04-09-2019

and the plaintiff/PW.1 denied the said suggestions. Except this,and the plaintiff/PW.1 denied the said suggestions. Except this, nothing elicited to shatter the evidence-in-chief of PW.1.nothing elicited to shatter the evidence-in-chief of PW.1.

The PWs.2 and 3 are the attestors to the suitThe PWs.2 and 3 are the attestors to the suit promissory note. Through their evidence-in-chief, they havepromissory note. Through their evidence-in-chief, they have espoused the cause of the plaintiffs. In the cross-examination, it hasespoused the cause of the plaintiffs. In the cross-examination, it has been suggested to them that, their evidence-in-chief is false. been suggested to them that, their evidence-in-chief is false.

The scribe of suit promissory note examined asThe scribe of suit promissory note examined as

PW.4, he too espoused the cause of the plaintiffs through hisPW.4, he too espoused the cause of the plaintiffs through his evidence-in-chief and the self same suggestion put to him.evidence-in-chief and the self same suggestion put to him.

9.9.The defendant examined as DW.1, has given evidence-The defendant examined as DW.1, has given evidence- in-chief in tune with the written statement. The defendant in hisin-chief in tune with the written statement. The defendant in his cross-examination deposed that though for the last 20 years he hascross-examination deposed that though for the last 20 years he has disputes with the plaintiffs in connection with cattle shed, clarifieddisputes with the plaintiffs in connection with cattle shed, clarified that, in this regard neither notice issued nor suits filed. He deniedthat, in this regard neither notice issued nor suits filed. He denied the factum of receipt of legal notice got issued by the originalthe factum of receipt of legal notice got issued by the original lender, yet, he identified the address found therein that of him. lender, yet, he identified the address found therein that of him.

Marshalling of facts and Analysis of evidence Marshalling of facts and Analysis of evidence

10.10. On conglomeration of the above evidence what emerges On conglomeration of the above evidence what emerges clear is that, the suit of the plaintiffs edificed on the suit promissoryclear is that, the suit of the plaintiffs edificed on the suit promissory note. The same has been attested by the attestors. Added to this,note. The same has been attested by the attestors. Added to this, the scribe has also been examined as as a witness. On togetherthe scribe has also been examined as as a witness. On together reading of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and theirreading of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and their witnesses, what could be culled out is that, the defendant havingwitnesses, what could be culled out is that, the defendant having borrowed the amount under the suit promissory note from theborrowed the amount under the suit promissory note from the 5

OS.No.17/2018, Dt.04-09-2019

father and the husband of the plaintiffs respectively has executedfather and the husband of the plaintiffs respectively has executed the same and that he failed to repay the same despite demand, asthe same and that he failed to repay the same despite demand, as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of suit amount assuch, the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for and that the suit promissory note is true, valid andprayed for and that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding.binding.

11.11.The feeble contention of the defendant that he is in theThe feeble contention of the defendant that he is in the habit of putting signature in English and that his signature foundhabit of putting signature in English and that his signature found place on the suit promissory note is fabricated cannot beplace on the suit promissory note is fabricated cannot be countenanced amidst the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 especially incountenanced amidst the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 especially in those circumstances, whereby, the defendant failed to exemplifythose circumstances, whereby, the defendant failed to exemplify the alleged long standing disputes between the families of thethe alleged long standing disputes between the families of the parties that lead original lender to fudge the suit document. It isparties that lead original lender to fudge the suit document. It is also not the case of the defendant that, the attestors and the scribealso not the case of the defendant that, the attestors and the scribe bore grudge against him in an endeavour to fabricate the suitbore grudge against him in an endeavour to fabricate the suit promissory note. Thus, the defence set forth by the defendant is setpromissory note. Thus, the defence set forth by the defendant is set to naught. Hence, issue Nos.1 to 3 answered in favour of theto naught. Hence, issue Nos.1 to 3 answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.plaintiffs and against the defendant.

Issue No.4:To what relief ?Issue No.4:To what relief ?

12.12.In as much as, when the plaintiffs have succeeded inIn as much as, when the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing its case in respect of the rigmarole in Issue Nos.1 to 3,establishing its case in respect of the rigmarole in Issue Nos.1 to 3, the only corollary is to decree the suit. Hence the suit is decreed. the only corollary is to decree the suit. Hence the suit is decreed.

13.13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against theIn the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.14,60,625/-(Rupees fourteen lakhdefendant for an amount of Rs.14,60,625/-(Rupees fourteen lakh sixty thousand six hundred and twenty five only) with subsequentsixty thousand six hundred and twenty five only) with subsequent 6

OS.No.17/2018, Dt.04-09-2019

interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit, till the date of decreeinterest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the principaland thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees nine lakh fifty thousand only)amount of Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees nine lakh fifty thousand only)

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4thcorrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of September, 2019.day of September, 2019.

Sd/-. Sd/-.

Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARCHUR. PARCHUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINEDWITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFFS: : PLAINTIFFS

P.W.1 : Lanka Venkata Subba Reddy (Plaintiff)P.W.1 : Lanka Venkata Subba Reddy (Plaintiff)

P.W.2 : Gorla VenkateswarluP.W.2 : Gorla Venkateswarlu

P.W.3 : Kollam Subba ReddyP.W.3 : Kollam Subba Reddy

P.W.4 : Kallam Singa ReddyP.W.4 : Kallam Singa Reddy

DEFENDANT:DEFENDANT:

DW.1 : Lanka Srinivasa Reddy (Defendant)DW.1 : Lanka Srinivasa Reddy (Defendant)

Documents Marked on behalf of the PlaintiffDocuments Marked on behalf of the Plaintiff

Ex.A1Ex.A1:: Suit Promissory Note, dt.18-03-2015Suit Promissory Note, dt.18-03-2015

Ex.A2Ex.A2:: Office copy of notice, dt.04-12-2017Office copy of notice, dt.04-12-2017

Ex.A3Ex.A3:: Postal receipt, dt.05-12-2017Postal receipt, dt.05-12-2017

Ex.A4Ex.A4:: Postal acknowledgment, dt.13-12-2017Postal acknowledgment, dt.13-12-2017

Ex.A5Ex.A5:: Certified copy of family members certificate of LankaCertified copy of family members certificate of Lanka Venkata Reddy issued by Tahsildar, Parchur, datedVenkata Reddy issued by Tahsildar, Parchur, dated 02-02-201802-02-2018

Documents Marked on behalf of the DefendantDocuments Marked on behalf of the Defendant

-NIL--NIL-

Sd/-. Sd/-.

Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARCHUR PARCHUR

// TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY //

SCJ., Parchujjr. SCJ., Parchujjr.

1

OS.No.149/2015, Dt.06-09-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PARCHUR. IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PARCHUR.

Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

Senior Civil Judge, Parchur. Senior Civil Judge, Parchur.

Friday, this the 6th Friday, this the 6th day of September, 2019 day of September, 2019

O.S.No.149/2015 O.S.No.149/2015

BETWEEN:BETWEEN:

Sri Lakshmi Chenna Kesava Swamy Temple,Sri Lakshmi Chenna Kesava Swamy Temple, Santharavuru village.Santharavuru village. Represented by its Manager, P. Srinivasa Rao,Represented by its Manager, P. Srinivasa Rao, s/o Ranganayakulu, Hindu, aged about 45 years,s/o Ranganayakulu, Hindu, aged about 45 years, r/o Vetapalem village and Mandal. r/o Vetapalem village and Mandal. ..Plaintif..Plaintif

AND AND

Thumati Durga Rao, s/o Prasad Rao, Hindu,Thumati Durga Rao, s/o Prasad Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years, r/o Rangappanayuduvaripalem,aged about 45 years, r/o Rangappanayuduvaripalem, via Kodavaripalem post, Karamchedu Mandal. via Kodavaripalem post, Karamchedu Mandal. … Defendant … Defendant * * ** * * This suit is presented before me on this day in the presence ofThis suit is presented before me on this day in the presence of Sri K. Solomon, Sri C.V. Rami Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif-Sri K. Solomon, Sri C.V. Rami Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif- temple and of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the defendant andtemple and of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the defendant and after hearing the counsel for both parties and upon perusing theafter hearing the counsel for both parties and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till thismaterial on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif-temple against theThis is a suit filed by the plaintif-temple against the defendant for recovery of balance of rent contending that, in thedefendant for recovery of balance of rent contending that, in the year 2010 the plaintif-temple conducted auction of the lease holdyear 2010 the plaintif-temple conducted auction of the lease hold rights of the land in S.No.294/2 to an extent of Ac.2.06 cents inrights of the land in S.No.294/2 to an extent of Ac.2.06 cents in

Kodavalivaripalem village, Karamchedu Mandal and that theKodavalivaripalem village, Karamchedu Mandal and that the defendant participated in the bid on 24-05-2010 for the year 2010-defendant participated in the bid on 24-05-2010 for the year 2010- 2011 to 2012-2013 and the lease period is three years and has2011 to 2012-2013 and the lease period is three years and has became highest bidder for an amount of Rs.21,000/- per annum andbecame highest bidder for an amount of Rs.21,000/- per annum and he paid part payment of Rs.6,000/- on 26-06-2013 vide receipthe paid part payment of Rs.6,000/- on 26-06-2013 vide receipt

No.35. Subsequently, the defendant did not pay the due amount ofNo.35. Subsequently, the defendant did not pay the due amount of

Rs.21,000/- for the year 2012-2013. As per the terms andRs.21,000/- for the year 2012-2013. As per the terms and 2

OS.No.149/2015, Dt.06-09-2019

conditions, the defendant has to pay maktha on or before 31stconditions, the defendant has to pay maktha on or before 31st

March of every year and if the defendant failed to do so, theMarch of every year and if the defendant failed to do so, the defendant will be evicted from the land and also liable to paydefendant will be evicted from the land and also liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a., on the maktha arrears. In spite of repeatedinterest @ 12% p.a., on the maktha arrears. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay the due balance amount ofdemands, the defendant failed to pay the due balance amount of

Rs.15,000/- with interest for the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013Rs.15,000/- with interest for the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 due amount of Rs.21,000/- Hence, the suit for recovery of amountdue amount of Rs.21,000/- Hence, the suit for recovery of amount thereon. thereon.

2. 2. The defendant has filed written statement contendingThe defendant has filed written statement contending that, at the time of auction the plaintif-temple agreed to receivethat, at the time of auction the plaintif-temple agreed to receive rent @ 10,000/- per annum instead of Rs.21,000/-, if water facility isrent @ 10,000/- per annum instead of Rs.21,000/-, if water facility is not arranged and accordingly on that premise, the defendant andnot arranged and accordingly on that premise, the defendant and other farmers participated in the auction. However, the departmentother farmers participated in the auction. However, the department not provided water facility for the irrigation and the plaintif-templenot provided water facility for the irrigation and the plaintif-temple received rent of Rs.10,000/- per annum every year for three yearsreceived rent of Rs.10,000/- per annum every year for three years from the defendant as agreed. Thus, the defendant never fell due offrom the defendant as agreed. Thus, the defendant never fell due of any rent to the plaintif-temple. It is averred that, taking advantageany rent to the plaintif-temple. It is averred that, taking advantage of the auction papers, the plaintif has filed the suit, with falseof the auction papers, the plaintif has filed the suit, with false grounds, as such, there are no bonafides in the suit, therebygrounds, as such, there are no bonafides in the suit, thereby requested this Court to dismiss the suit.requested this Court to dismiss the suit.

3.3.Basing the above pleadings, the following issues settledBasing the above pleadings, the following issues settled for trial:for trial:

1.1. Whether the plaintif-temple is entitled to recover Whether the plaintif-temple is entitled to recover the suit amount by way of arrears of Maktha fromthe suit amount by way of arrears of Maktha from the defendant with interest ?the defendant with interest ?

2. 2. To what relief?To what relief?

3

OS.No.149/2015, Dt.06-09-2019

4.4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintif-During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintif- temple, P.W.1 examined and Exs.A1 to A7 marked. On behalf of thetemple, P.W.1 examined and Exs.A1 to A7 marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 examined, but no documents marked.defendant, D.W.1 examined, but no documents marked.

5.5.Heard both sides.Heard both sides.

6.6. This Court has perused the material available on record, This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses and has given thoughtfulverified the depositions of the witnesses and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.consideration to the matter.

In re In re Issue No.1: Issue No.1:

1.1. Whether the plaintif-temple is entitled to recover Whether the plaintif-temple is entitled to recover the suit amount by way of arrears of Maktha from thethe suit amount by way of arrears of Maktha from the defendant with interest ?defendant with interest ?

Evidence Evidence

7.7.On behalf of the plaintif-temple, the manager of plaintif-On behalf of the plaintif-temple, the manager of plaintif- temple examined as PW.1 has given evidence-in-chief in tune withtemple examined as PW.1 has given evidence-in-chief in tune with the plaint. Through him Exs.A1 to A7 received in evidence. In thethe plaint. Through him Exs.A1 to A7 received in evidence. In the cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that, the lands are wet irrigatedcross-examination, PW.1 admitted that, the lands are wet irrigated and while conducting the auction, the lands referred as wetand while conducting the auction, the lands referred as wet irrigated, but in the entire auction proceedings, nowhere, the natureirrigated, but in the entire auction proceedings, nowhere, the nature of the land referred as dry land or wet or wet irrigated.of the land referred as dry land or wet or wet irrigated.

In respect of Ex.A4, the PW.1 deposed that, the landIn respect of Ex.A4, the PW.1 deposed that, the land referred as wet. However, it is a mistake and no steps taken toreferred as wet. However, it is a mistake and no steps taken to correct the same. The PW.1 further admitted that the defendantcorrect the same. The PW.1 further admitted that the defendant paid Rs.7,000/- on one day and Rs.10,000/- on yet another day andpaid Rs.7,000/- on one day and Rs.10,000/- on yet another day and again Rs.10,000/-. But, however in the plaint, it is not mentionedagain Rs.10,000/-. But, however in the plaint, it is not mentioned for which year, the defendant paid the amount. for which year, the defendant paid the amount.

4

OS.No.149/2015, Dt.06-09-2019

8.8.The defendant examined as DW.1, has given evidence-The defendant examined as DW.1, has given evidence- in-chief in tune with the written statement. In the cross-in-chief in tune with the written statement. In the cross- examination, the defendant admitted that, in the terms of auction,examination, the defendant admitted that, in the terms of auction, there is no condition of provision of water for irrigation etc..,there is no condition of provision of water for irrigation etc..,

However, he adds that there was oral word to that efect. HeHowever, he adds that there was oral word to that efect. He denied the suggestion that, there was no such oral word at all. denied the suggestion that, there was no such oral word at all.

Marshalling of facts and Analysis of evidence Marshalling of facts and Analysis of evidence

9.9. On conglomeration of above evidence what emerges On conglomeration of above evidence what emerges clear is that, the entire defence set forth by the defendant is that,clear is that, the entire defence set forth by the defendant is that, though in the auction proceedings, amount of rent specified asthough in the auction proceedings, amount of rent specified as

Rs.21,000/- per annum, the same will be levied only if water isRs.21,000/- per annum, the same will be levied only if water is arranged for irrigation or else, the plaintif-temple said to havearranged for irrigation or else, the plaintif-temple said to have accepted to receive only Rs.10,000/- per annum. Admittedly there isaccepted to receive only Rs.10,000/- per annum. Admittedly there is no such clause in the auction proceedings. The defendant in hisno such clause in the auction proceedings. The defendant in his cross-examination also deposed that in the terms of auction there iscross-examination also deposed that in the terms of auction there is no such condition for provision of water for irrigation. The claim ofno such condition for provision of water for irrigation. The claim of the defendant that there was a oral word from the plaintif-templethe defendant that there was a oral word from the plaintif-temple to the above efect, cannot be countenanced. Thus, the defence setto the above efect, cannot be countenanced. Thus, the defence set forth by the defendant thereto, is set to naught.forth by the defendant thereto, is set to naught.

10.10. On agglomeration of the above discussion, the Court is On agglomeration of the above discussion, the Court is of the considered view that, the evidence of the plaintif-templeof the considered view that, the evidence of the plaintif-temple together with documentary evidence in the form of Ex.A1 to Ex.A7together with documentary evidence in the form of Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 has clinchingly established the case to recover the suit amount ashas clinchingly established the case to recover the suit amount as prayed for. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif-prayed for. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif- temple and against the defendant.temple and against the defendant.

5

OS.No.149/2015, Dt.06-09-2019

Issue No.2:To what relief ?Issue No.2:To what relief ?

11.11.In as much as, when the plaintif has succeeded inIn as much as, when the plaintif has succeeded in establishing its case in respect of the rigmarole in Issue No.1, theestablishing its case in respect of the rigmarole in Issue No.1, the only corollary is to decree the suit. Hence the suit is decreed. only corollary is to decree the suit. Hence the suit is decreed.

12.12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against theIn the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.48,684/-(Rupees forty eightdefendant for an amount of Rs.48,684/-(Rupees forty eight thousand six hundred and eighty four only) with subsequent interestthousand six hundred and eighty four only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit, till the date of decree andat 12% p.a. from the date of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization thereon.thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization thereon.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6thcorrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of September, 2019.day of September, 2019.

Sd/-. Sd/-.

Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARCHUR. PARCHUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINEDWITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF: : PLAINTIFF

PW.1 : Pothini Srinivasa Rao PW.1 : Pothini Srinivasa Rao

DEFENDANT:DEFENDANT:

DW.1 : Thumati Durga Rao(Defendant)DW.1 : Thumati Durga Rao(Defendant)

Documents Marked on behalf of the PlaintifDocuments Marked on behalf of the Plaintif

Ex.A1 :: Terms and condition of lease publication dt.4-05-2010Ex.A1Terms and condition of lease publication dt.4-05-2010

Ex.A2 :: List of depositors dated 24-05-2010Ex.A2List of depositors dated 24-05-2010

Ex.A3 :: Highest Bidder dated 24-05-2010Ex.A3Highest Bidder dated 24-05-2010

Ex.A4 :: True copy of auction confirmation issued by AssistantEx.A4True copy of auction confirmation issued by Assistant Commissioner, Ongole dated 29-07-2010Commissioner, Ongole dated 29-07-2010

Ex.A5 :: True copy of part payment of Rs.6,00,000/- receipt No.35Ex.A5True copy of part payment of Rs.6,00,000/- receipt No.35

dated 26-06-2013dated 26-06-2013

6

OS.No.149/2015, Dt.06-09-2019

Ex.A6 :: Office copy of plaintif notice dated 21-01-2013Ex.A6Office copy of plaintif notice dated 21-01-2013

Ex.A7 :: Acknowledgment of the defendant dated 31-01-2013Ex.A7Acknowledgment of the defendant dated 31-01-2013

Documents Marked on behalf of the DefendantDocuments Marked on behalf of the Defendant

-NIL--NIL-

Sd/-. Sd/-.

Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARCHUR. PARCHUR.

// TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY //

SCJ., Parchur. SCJ., Parchur.

1

OS.No.82/2017, Dt.04-09-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PARCHUR. IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PARCHUR.

Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

Senior Civil Judge, Parchur. Senior Civil Judge, Parchur.

Wednesday, this the 4th Wednesday, this the 4th day of September, 2019 day of September, 2019

O.S.No.82/2017 O.S.No.82/2017

BETWEEN:BETWEEN:

Lanka Venkata Subba Reddy, s/o late Venkata Reddy,Lanka Venkata Subba Reddy, s/o late Venkata Reddy, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation,aged about 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Door No.2-50, Kothapalem, h/o Cherukuru,r/o Door No.2-50, Kothapalem, h/o Cherukuru, Parchur Mandal.Parchur Mandal.

..Plaintiff..Plaintiff

AND AND

Lanka Srinivasa Reddy, s/o Butchi Reddy,Lanka Srinivasa Reddy, s/o Butchi Reddy, aged about 53 years, Hindu, Business,aged about 53 years, Hindu, Business, r/o 3-10-31, Flat No.501, Satyateja Apartments,r/o 3-10-31, Flat No.501, Satyateja Apartments, 3/1, Behind RTO Office, Pattabhipuram, Guntur.3/1, Behind RTO Office, Pattabhipuram, Guntur. … Defendant … Defendant * * ** * *

This suit is presented before me on this day in the presence ofThis suit is presented before me on this day in the presence of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Sri R. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K. Narendra Kumar,, Advocate for the defendant and after hearing theNarendra Kumar,, Advocate for the defendant and after hearing the counsel for both parties and upon perusing the material on recordcounsel for both parties and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Courtand having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:delivered the following:

JUDGMENT JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant forThis is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of amount based on a suit promissory note contendingrecovery of amount based on a suit promissory note contending that, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- on 27-12-2014that, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- on 27-12-2014 for his business purpose and executed a promissory note forfor his business purpose and executed a promissory note for

Rs.9,00,000/- in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interestRs.9,00,000/- in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.at the rate of 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.

The defendant, despite repeated demands and issuance of legalThe defendant, despite repeated demands and issuance of legal notice, failed to pay the amount. Hence, the suit. notice, failed to pay the amount. Hence, the suit.

2

OS.No.71/2017, Dt.20-08-2019

2. 2. The defendant filed written statement denying theThe defendant filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint. He specifically contended that, he is a nativecontents of the plaint. He specifically contended that, he is a native of Kothapalem, Parchur Mandal, whereas the plaintiff is the residentof Kothapalem, Parchur Mandal, whereas the plaintiff is the resident of said village, as such there are long standing disputes betweenof said village, as such there are long standing disputes between their families for the last more than 10 years. The defendanttheir families for the last more than 10 years. The defendant contended that, the plaintiff created the suit promissory note in thecontended that, the plaintiff created the suit promissory note in the name of plaintiff only to make wrongful gain by forging thename of plaintiff only to make wrongful gain by forging the signatures of the defendant and that the defendant has nosignatures of the defendant and that the defendant has no necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff. The defendantnecessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff. The defendant specifically contended that, he is in the habit of putting signaturesspecifically contended that, he is in the habit of putting signatures in the English, whereas, the signatures on the suit promissory notein the English, whereas, the signatures on the suit promissory note are in Telugu, as such, this itself shows that the suit promissoryare in Telugu, as such, this itself shows that the suit promissory note is fabricated with the help of henchmen of the plaintiff, therebynote is fabricated with the help of henchmen of the plaintiff, thereby sought for the dismissal of the suit.sought for the dismissal of the suit.

3.3.Basing the above pleadings, the following issues settledBasing the above pleadings, the following issues settled for trial:for trial:

1.1.Whether the promissory note is true, valid andWhether the promissory note is true, valid and binding?binding?

2. 2. Whether the signature of the defendant is forgedWhether the signature of the defendant is forged and fabricated?and fabricated?

3.3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suitWhether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?amount as prayed for?

4. 4. To what relief?To what relief?

4.4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to PW.4 examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A4 marked. On behalf of theto PW.4 examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A4 marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 examined, but no documents marked.defendant, D.W.1 examined, but no documents marked.

3

OS.No.82/2017, Dt.04-09-2019

5.5.Heard both sides.Heard both sides.

6.6. This Court has perused the material available on record, This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses and has given thoughtfulverified the depositions of the witnesses and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.consideration to the matter.

In re In re Issue Nos.1 to 3: Issue Nos.1 to 3:

1.1.Whether the promissory note is true, valid and Whether the promissory note is true, valid and binding?binding?

2. 2. Whether the signature of the defendant is forgedWhether the signature of the defendant is forged and fabricated?and fabricated?

3.3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suitWhether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?amount as prayed for?

Evidence Evidence

7.7.The plaintiff examined as PW.1 has given evidence-in-The plaintiff examined as PW.1 has given evidence-in- chief in tune with the plaint. Through him Ex.A1 to A4 received inchief in tune with the plaint. Through him Ex.A1 to A4 received in evidence. The cross-examination proceeded on the lines ofevidence. The cross-examination proceeded on the lines of suggestions of the contents of the written statement in nut shell,suggestions of the contents of the written statement in nut shell, and the plaintiff denied the said suggestions. Except this, nothingand the plaintiff denied the said suggestions. Except this, nothing elicited to shatter the evidence-in-chief of PW.1. elicited to shatter the evidence-in-chief of PW.1.

The PWs.2 and 3 are the attestors to the suitThe PWs.2 and 3 are the attestors to the suit promissory note. Through their evidence-in-chief, they havepromissory note. Through their evidence-in-chief, they have espoused the cause of the plaintiff. In the cross-examination, it hasespoused the cause of the plaintiff. In the cross-examination, it has been suggested to them that, their evidence-in-chief is false. been suggested to them that, their evidence-in-chief is false.

The scribe of suit promissory note examined asThe scribe of suit promissory note examined as

PW.4, he too espoused the cause of the plaintiff through hisPW.4, he too espoused the cause of the plaintiff through his evidence-in-chief and the self same suggestion put to him.evidence-in-chief and the self same suggestion put to him.

4

OS.No.71/2017, Dt.20-08-2019

8.8.The defendant examined as DW.1 has given evidence-in-The defendant examined as DW.1 has given evidence-in- chief in tune with the written statement. The defendant in hischief in tune with the written statement. The defendant in his cross-examination though deposed that for the last 20cross-examination though deposed that for the last 20 years he has years he has disputes with the plaintiff in connection with cattle shed clarifieddisputes with the plaintiff in connection with cattle shed clarified that, in this regard neither notice issued nor suits filed. He deniedthat, in this regard neither notice issued nor suits filed. He denied the factum of receipt of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff, yet,the factum of receipt of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff, yet, he identified the address found therein that of him. he identified the address found therein that of him.

Marshalling of facts and Analysis of evidence Marshalling of facts and Analysis of evidence

9.9. On conglomeration of the above evidence what emerges On conglomeration of the above evidence what emerges clear is that, the suit of the plaintiff edificed on the suit promissoryclear is that, the suit of the plaintiff edificed on the suit promissory note. The same has been attested by the attestors. Added to this,note. The same has been attested by the attestors. Added to this, the scribe has also been examined as as a witness. On togetherthe scribe has also been examined as as a witness. On together reading of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and his witnesses,reading of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and his witnesses, what could be culled out is that, the defendant having borrowed thewhat could be culled out is that, the defendant having borrowed the amount under the suit promissory note from the plaintiff hasamount under the suit promissory note from the plaintiff has executed the same and that he failed to repay the same despiteexecuted the same and that he failed to repay the same despite demand, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amountdemand, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for and that the suit promissory note is true, valid andas prayed for and that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding.binding.

10.10.The feeble contention of the defendant that he is in theThe feeble contention of the defendant that he is in the habit of putting signature in English and that his signature foundhabit of putting signature in English and that his signature found place on the suit promissory note is fabricated cannot beplace on the suit promissory note is fabricated cannot be countenanced amidst the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 especially incountenanced amidst the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 especially in those circumstances, whereby, the defendant failed to exemplifythose circumstances, whereby, the defendant failed to exemplify the alleged long standing disputes between the families of thethe alleged long standing disputes between the families of the 5

OS.No.82/2017, Dt.04-09-2019

parties that lead the plaintiff to fudge the suit document. It is alsoparties that lead the plaintiff to fudge the suit document. It is also not the case of the defendant that, the attestors and the scribe borenot the case of the defendant that, the attestors and the scribe bore grudge against him in an endeavour to fabricate the suit promissorygrudge against him in an endeavour to fabricate the suit promissory note. Thus, the defence set forth by the defendant is set to naught.note. Thus, the defence set forth by the defendant is set to naught.

Hence, issue Nos.1 to 3 answered in favour of the plaintiff andHence, issue Nos.1 to 3 answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.against the defendant.

Issue No.4:To what relief ?Issue No.4:To what relief ?

11.11.In as much as, when the plaintiff has succeeded inIn as much as, when the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing its case in respect of the rigmarole in Issue Nos.1 to 3,establishing its case in respect of the rigmarole in Issue Nos.1 to 3, the only corollary is to decree the suit. Hence the suit is decreed. the only corollary is to decree the suit. Hence the suit is decreed.

12.12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against theIn the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.13,81,950/-(Rupees thirteen lakhdefendant for an amount of Rs.13,81,950/-(Rupees thirteen lakh eighty one thousand nine hundred and fifty only) with subsequenteighty one thousand nine hundred and fifty only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit, till the date of decreeinterest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the principaland thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakh only)amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakh only)

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4thcorrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of September, 2019.day of September, 2019.

Sd/-. Sd/-.

Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARCHUR. PARCHUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINEDWITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF: : PLAINTIFF

P.W.1 : Lanka Venkata Subba Reddy (Plaintiff)P.W.1 : Lanka Venkata Subba Reddy (Plaintiff) P.W.2 : Gorla VenkateswarluP.W.2 : Gorla Venkateswarlu P.W.3 : Kollam Subba ReddyP.W.3 : Kollam Subba Reddy P.W.4 : Kallam Singa ReddyP.W.4 : Kallam Singa Reddy 6

OS.No.71/2017, Dt.20-08-2019

DEFENDANT:DEFENDANT:

DW.1 : Lanka Srinivasa Reddy (Defendant)DW.1 : Lanka Srinivasa Reddy (Defendant)

Documents Marked on behalf of the PlaintiffDocuments Marked on behalf of the Plaintiff

Ex.A1Ex.A1:: Suit Promissory Note, dt.27-12-2014Suit Promissory Note, dt.27-12-2014

Ex.A2Ex.A2:: Office copy of notice, dt.04-12-2017Office copy of notice, dt.04-12-2017

Ex.A3Ex.A3:: Postal receipt, dt.05-12-2017Postal receipt, dt.05-12-2017

Ex.A4Ex.A4:: Postal acknowledgment, dt.13-12-2017Postal acknowledgment, dt.13-12-2017

Documents Marked on behalf of the DefendantDocuments Marked on behalf of the Defendant

-NIL--NIL-

Sd/-. Sd/-.

Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARCHUR. PARCHUR.

// TRUE COPY //// TRUE COPY //

SCJ., Parchur.SCJ., Parchur.

7

OS.No.82/2017, Dt.04-09-2019

1

OS.243/2015, Dt.30-08-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PARCHUR.

Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

Senior Civil Judge, Parchur.

Friday, this the 30th day of August, 2019

O.S.No.243/2015

BETWEEN: Daggubati Venkateswarlu, s/o Raghavaiah, aged about 81 years, Hindu, Cultivation, r/o Karamchedu village and Mandal.

… Plaintif

AND

1. Devineni Anantha Sangha Mitra, d/o late Tirupathirayudu, aged about 22 years, Student, Hindu, r/o Leela Mahal Gardens, Purushothampatnam, Simhachalam road, Visakhapatnam Mandal.

2. Devineni Rama Krishna, s/o late Roop Narayana, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Business, r/o Leela Mahal Gardens, Purushothampatnam, Simhachalam road, Visakhapatnam Mandal.

3. Devineni Profulla Kumar, s/o late Roop Narayana, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Business, r/o Leela Mahal Gardens, Purushothampatnam, Simhachalam road, Visakhapatnam Mandal.

4. Devineni Pradeep Kumar, s/o late Roop Narayana, aged about 41 years, Hindu, Business, r/o Leela Mahal Gardens, Purushothampatnam, Simhachalam road, Visakhapatnam Mandal. … Defendants * * *

This suit is presented before me today for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Surendra, Advocate for the plaintif and of and the defendants having remained and set exparte and and after hearing the counsel for both parties and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

OS.243/2015, Dt.30-08-2019

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif to declare the plaintif as the owner of the plaint “A” schedule property (ie., B schedule property mentioned as security in Registered Sale Deed, dt.14-07- 1981) with free of encumbrances on title and for consequential delivery of possession of the suit “A” schedule property and to direct the defendants to pay Rs.4,91,110/- to the plaintif as per calculation memo with future interest from the date of suit from the estate of the Yarlagadda Ramaiah, Plaint “B” schedule which is in the hands of the defendants and for future profits and to create charge on suit schedule property and for costs.

2.As ferret out from the plaint, it is the case of the plaintif that, his wife Nagendramma and son Chenchurama Rao, purchased agriculture land in an extent of Ac.8.44 ½ cents situated in S.No.77 of Karamched village under three registered sale deeds, dt.14-07- 1981, 15-07-1981 and 15-07-1981 executed by Devineni Roop

Narayana and his sons, Devineni Madana Mohana Seshagiri Rao and his sons and Devineni Venkata Ramaiah @ Raja Rao and that one

Yarlagadda Ramaiah and gave plaint “A” schedule property as security to compensate the loss or substitute the extent diminished in litigation according to the plaintif.

It is further averred in the plaint that, one Ravipati

Veeraiah, filed suits in Os.78/1981 and 79/1981 on the file of

Subordinate Judge’s Court, Chirala basing on the contract of sales

dated 10-08-1978 executed by vendors of plaintif herein to a total

3

OS.243/2015, Dt.30-08-2019

extent of Ac.8.44 2/3 cents against the plaintif, his wife and son and vendors of plaintif herein for specific performance and the said suits were decreed on 16-09-1994 on merits. Against the said

Judgments, the plaintif, his wife and his son preferred appeals in

AS.1595/94 and 1578/94 on the file of Honourable High Court of AP

and the said appeals were partly allowed on 28-12-2012 by accepting the purchase of Ac.2.72 2/3 cents by the wife of plaintif herein so also the extent to Ac.2.81 cents purchased by the son of the plaintif and got rejected the purchase of Ac.2.86 by the plaintif. So the sale deed dated 14-07-1981 purchased by the plaintif was rejected, basing on the said Appeals, the plaintif and his son preferred appeal before Honourable Supreme Court vide in

SLPCC.No.10054/2013 and 1055/2013 and the same were dismissed on 02-07-2013 without granting special leave.

It is further averred that, the plaintif filed the suit to compensate due to prolonged litigation, against the LRs of deceased Yarlagadda Ramaiah ie., the defendants, as the deceased executed registered sale deed dated 14-07-1981 along with vendors of the plaintif, as such it is clear that the option is given to the plaintif to recover loss by substituting the land or compensate, not only from the suit schedule property, but also on the other properties of late Yarlagadda Ramaiah.

It is further averred that, the deceased had only one daughter viz., Anantha Lakshmi, w/o Roop Narayanarao who is predeceased to his death and the said Ramaiah also died on 27-03- 1996, as such the father of D1 and D2 to D4 are the grand sons of 4

OS.243/2015, Dt.30-08-2019

the deceased Ramaiah and after the death of the said Ramaiah, the defendants succeeded the estate. While it is so, on 12-07-2013 the father of D1 died leaving behind D1 as his LR, as such the estate of the said Ramaiah is now in the hands of the defendants, hence the plaintif is entitled for the suit claim against the schedule properties.

It is further averred that, after disposal of

OS.78/1981 and 79/1981 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Chirala, the LRs of the deceased Yarlagadda Ramaiah, the defendants executed sham documents in respect of security of the property, on that the plaintif filed OS.24/1996 on the file of this court against the defendants for permanent injunction and the said suit was partly decreed in respect of permanent injunction and monitory relief was dismissed, and as the appeals are disposed of, the plaintif filed suit to enforce his rights on the changed properties and the alienations of the secured properties and other property, given as security by the deceased Yarlagadda Ramaiah are not binding on the plaintif, as the lis is pending from 14-07-1981 to till the disposal of the appeal on the file of Honourable Supreme Court ie., on 02-07-2013.

The plaintif further averred that, though the plaintif made all eforts to protect title of purchased property, but due to the deceitfull acts of his vendors, the plaintif lost his land and the plaintif also deposited amounts in pending suits in

O.78/1981 and 79/1981 as per the directions of Honourable High

Court in CRP.No.7668/1982, CPR.No.7970/1982 and CRP.7971/1982 and also deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- per annum as per the order of Honourable High Court in pending appeals, as such the 5

OS.243/2015, Dt.30-08-2019

total deposits with interest is Rs.4,91,110/-, as such the plaintif is entitled to recover his share of said amount from the estate of the late Yarlagadda Ramaiah, which is shown as “B” schedule in the present suit. As such, as there is no alternative to the plaintif for recovery of “A” schedule as compensate loss and substitute the extent diminished in court proceedings and recovery of money against the estate of deceased Yarlagadda Ramaiah ie., plaint “B” schedule property, hence the suit.

2.The defendants remained exparte.

3.Now the point for consideration is –

Whether the plaintif is entitled for the decree of the suit as prayed for?

4.The plaintif in order to prove his case, himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined PW.2 and got marked Ex.A1 and A27.

Point:

5.The Court has perused the pleadings set forth by the plaintif, considered the exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintif and also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintif.

6.Only because the defendants set exparte, it does not mean that the Court has to countenance the case of the plaintif in toto and proceed thereto.

7.On the contrary, it is imperative on the part of this Court 6

OS.243/2015, Dt.30-08-2019

to evaluate the material available on record and to consider the suit contention. On such evaluation, amidst the unrebutted evidence of the plaintif and the documents marked on behalf of the plaintif, such as, Ex.A1 Calculation memo deposits made by the plaintif into

Court, Ex.A2 Certified copy of Registered Sale deed executed by

D.M.S. Girirao & Sons in favour of Plaintif dated 14-07-1981, Ex.A3

Certified copy of decree in OS.78/1981 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Chirala dated 16-09-1994, Ex.A4 Certified copy of

decree and Judgment in AS.1587/94 and 1595/94 on the file of

Hon’ble High Court of A.P, dt.28-12-2012, Ex.A5 Certified copy of

order SLP (C) C.C.No.10054 &10055/2013 of Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, dt.02-07-2013, Ex.A6 Certified copy of decree passed in O.S.24/1996 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Parchur dated 06-04-2004, Ex.A7 Certified copy of death certificate of Y. Ramaiah issued by Mee Seva dated 20-07-2015, Ex.A8

Certified copy of Registered Will dated 25-12-1986 issued by late

Yarlagadda Ramaiah, Ex.A9 Certified copy of death certificate of D.

Tyirupathi Rayudu issued by Mee Seva dated 18-02-2015, Ex.A10

Certified copy of ledger 1983-84 page No.191 & 195 in

O.S.135/1981 & OS.78/1981 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s

Court, Chirala dated 17-11-1983, Ex.A11 Certified copy of Challan

BR No.18/1995-96 dated 22-04-1995, Ex.A12 Certified copy of

Challan BR No.6/1997-98 dated 19-04-1997, Ex.A13 Certified copy of Challan BR No.9/1998-99 dated 23-04-1998, Ex.A14 Certified copy of Challan BR No.6/1990-2000 dated 17-04-2000, Ex.A15

Certified copy of Challan BR No.6/2000-01 dated 15-04-1999,

Ex.A16 Certified copy of Challan BR No.5/2000-01 dated 17-04- 7

OS.243/2015, Dt.30-08-2019

2001, Ex.A17 Certified copy of Challan BR No.6/2002-03 dated 19- 04-2002, Ex.A18 Certified copy of Challan BR No.13/2003-04 dated 22-04-2003, Ex.A19 Certified copy of Challan BR No.14/2004-05

dated 14-04-2004, Ex.A20 Certified copy of Challan BR No.8/2005-

06 dated 13-04-2005, Ex.A21 Certified copy of Challan BR

No.2/2006-07 dated 14-04-2006, Ex.A22 Certified copy of Challan

BR No.11/2007-08 dated 12-04-2007, Ex.A23 Certified copy of

Challan BR No.7/2008-09 dated 10-04-2008, Ex.A24 Certified copy of Challan BR No.4/2009-10 dated 15-04-2009, Ex.A25 Certified copy of Challan BR No.0/2010-11 dated 13-04-2010, Ex.A26

Certified copy of Challan BR No.2/2011-12 dated 08-04-2011,

Ex.A27 Certified copy of Challan BR No.6/2012-13 dated 12-04- 2012, the Court is of the view that the case of the plaintif is edificed on those documents and that the claim of the plaintif is remained unsatisfied, and that the plaintif is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for. The suit claim is in time; and that the defendants have to remedy the claim made by the plaintif through his plaint. Thus, the plaintif has made out a case for his suit claim.

Thereby, the point is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants, holding that the plaintif is entitled for decree of the suit as prayed for.

8.In the result, the suit of the plaintif is decreed with costs by declaring the plaintif as owner of Plaint “A” schedule property (that is “B” schedule property mentioned as security in Registered

Sale Deed dated 14-07-1981) with free encumbrances on title and consequential delivery of possession of the suit “A” schedule 8

OS.243/2015, Dt.30-08-2019

property and further the defendant is directed to pay Rs.4,91,110/- (Rupees four lakh ninety one thousand one hundred and ten only) with 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and @6% p.a., till the date of realization there on, from the estate of the deceased Yarlagadda Ramaiah. The plaintif is directed to file separate application for future profits.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30th day of August, 2019.

Sd/-.

Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARCHUR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined For plaintif: For defendant :

P.W.1 – Dagubati Venkateswarlu Plaintif); - NONE - P.W.2 – Rayana Venkanna Chowdary

Documents Marked For plaintif:

Ex.A1 : Calculation memo deposits made by the plaintif into Court Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Registered Sale deed executed by D.M.S. Girirao & Sons in favour of Plaintif dated 14-07-1981 Ex.A3 : Certified copy of decree in OS.78/1981 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Chirala dated 16-09-1994

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of decree and Judgment in AS.1587/94 and 1595/94 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P, dt.28-12- 2012 Ex.A5 : Certified copy of order SLP (C) C.C.No.10054 &10055/2013 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dt.02-07-2013. Ex.A6 : Certified copy of decree passed in O.S.24/1996 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Parchur dated 06-04-2004

Ex.A7 : Certified copy of death certificate of Y. Ramaiah issued by Mee Seva dated 20-07-2015 Ex.A8 : Certified copy of Registered Will dated 25-12-1986 issued by late Yarlagadda Ramaiah Ex.A9 : Certified copy of death certificate of D. Tyirupathi Rayudu issued by Mee Seva dated 18-02-2015 Ex.A10: Certified copy of ledger 1983-84 page No.191 & 195 in

O.S.135/1981 & OS.78/1981 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Chirala dated 17-11-1983

Ex.A11: Certified copy of Challan BR No.18/1995-96 dated 22-04- 1995 9

OS.243/2015, Dt.30-08-2019

Ex.A12: Certified copy of Challan BR No.6/1997-98 dated 19-04- 1997 Ex.A13: Certified copy of Challan BR No.9/1998-99 dated 23-04- 1998 Ex.A14: Certified copy of Challan BR No.6/1990-2000 dated 17-04- 2000 Ex.A15: Certified copy of Challan BR No.6/2000-01 dated 15-04- 1999 Ex.A16: Certified copy of Challan BR No.5/2000-01 dated 17-04- 2001 Ex.A17: Certified copy of Challan BR No.6/2002-03 dated 19-04- 2002 Ex.A18: Certified copy of Challan BR No.13/2003-04 dated 22-04- 2003 Ex.A19: Certified copy of Challan BR No.14/2004-05 dated 14-04- 2004 Ex.A20: Certified copy of Challan BR No.8/2005-06 dated 13-04- 2005 Ex.A21: Certified copy of Challan BR No.2/2006-07 dated 14-04- 2006 Ex.A22: Certified copy of Challan BR No.11/2007-08 dated 12-04- 2007 Ex.A23: Certified copy of Challan BR No.7/2008-09 dated 10-04- 2008 Ex.A24: Certified copy of Challan BR No.4/2009-10 dated 15-04- 2009 Ex.A25: Certified copy of Challan BR No.0/2010-11 dated 13-04- 2010 Ex.A26: Certified copy of Challan BR No.2/2011-12 dated 08-04- 2011 Ex.A27: Certified copy of Challan BR No.6/2012-13 dated 12-04- 2012

For defendant : -NIL-

Sd/-.

Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PARCHUR.

// TRUE COPY //

S.C.J., Parchur.