Sri S.Ramanaiah

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SRI S.RAMANAIAH

II Addl., Senior Civil Judge

Thursday, this the 19th day of February, 2015.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 666/2010.

BETWEEN:

Mohammad Amanulla..Plaintiff

AND

1. Khatija bi

2. Shaik Dawood

3. Shaik Shakeera

4. Shaik gulzar Begum @ Fathima Gulzar

5. Mohammad Rafi @ Shaik Rafi Ahamad

6.Shaik Zaheda Begum ..Defendants

The suit coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Md. Aarif, advocate for plaintiff and of Sri P. Paul, advocate for Defendant and upon the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The suit is filed for recovery of amount basing on the mortgage deed and for granting of preliminary decree for suit amount of

Rs.7,34,760/- and subsequent interest @24%p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendants are land lords of the property of 3 portioned tiled house of Mangalore tiles bearing D.No.30-25-28. The first defendant is the wife of one Sk. Gouse son of late Sk. Dawood. D2 to D6 are children of first defendant and deceased Sk. Gouse, who died on 12-04-1981. The defendants borrowed separately Rs.60,000/- each for a total amount of

Rs.4,20,000/- from the plaintiff and executed promissory notes (7) after receiving consideration at Vijayawada on even dates for the purpose of their family expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest @24%p.a.

As the defendants borrowed huge amounts from the plaintiff he demanded the defendants to offer him any immovable property towards security.

The defendants offered the plaint schedule property towards security on 27-04-2007 and they executed a memorandum of deposit of title deeds on 28-04-2007 and deposited the original title deed of March, 1980 which is in the name of the deceased husband of the first defendant. The defendants admitted to pay the interest @24%p.a., as per recitals of the document. Plaintiff made several demands with the defendants to pay the amount borrowed by them with interest. The defendants postponed the same on some pretext or other. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 28-08-2009 to all the defendants. All the defendants received the same and got issued the reply notice dated 9.9.2009 with all false and frivolous averments. Therefore, plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of mortgage debt.

3. D2 filed written statement and the same is adopted by D1, D3 to D6 denying the allegations of the plaint and submitted that the property under alleged deposit of title deed dated 28-04-2007 is not executed according to law and the same is not valid unless the same is registered. There is no privity of contract or any deposit of title deed between the plaintiff and defendants and the suit transactions and documents are manipulated and brought into existence. The suit claim is barred by limitation, violation of the Provisions of the Registration Act, as amended upto date along with

Rules, notifications and appendices and violation of the provisions of the

A.P.assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) and as amended by Act No.8/2007 and Rules, notifications etc., and hence the suit is liable to be rejected or dismissed.

4. The suit promissory notes and deposit of memorandum of title deeds are fabricated. He further submitted that the plaintiff joined as tenant in the plaint schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- in the month of May 2008. He paid monthly rents and electricity charges upto November, 2008 regularly. The defendants are not worldly-wise used to approach the plaintiff for counseling and on one occasion, the plaintiff has advised the defendant to change the name of the defendants in the place of their father as it was assigned patta. On the pretext he obtained signed papers for making representation and he also represented that the assigned patta has to be transferred in their favour and for the said purpose original patta has to be surrendered, believing the version of the plaintiff parted with the signed papers and original patta in the month of

November, 2008. Therefore, the plaintiff has not paid the monthly rents from December, 2008 stating that he incurred the expenses for transfer of patta. But the plaintiff has not given any account of the expenses to them and that the matter was placed before the elders during the first week of

July, 2009 and the plaintiff has requested the elders and the defendants that he will settle the matter within 15 days and account for the same, but he has not choosen to do so. Again the defendants put the matter before the elders and the defendants demanded the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule premises and account for the rents. The plaintiff without complying with his commitments got issued the registered notice setting up false claim.

5. The defendants got filed R.C.C.64/2010 on the file of Rent controller, Vijayawada for eviction of the plaintiff and for arrears of rent.

Plaintiff has contested the matter. The provision of Sec.3 of the Act 9 of 1977 prohibits the transfer of any assigned land, and any interest thereon.

He further submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in respect of assigned land. Further the provisions of Order 1 rule 3 and Order 2 Rule 3 are violated in the filing of the suit and the promissory notes are executed on different dates and occasions and not as a single transaction.

Therefore, the suit is not maintainable on mis-joinder of cause of action.

Therefore, he prayed the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following Issues have been settled for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount?

2) Whether the suit claim is bared by law of limitation?

3) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration?

4) To what relief?

7.During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A1 to

A11 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DW1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the defendants and no documents are marked.

8.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and the defendants filed written arguments. The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted reply by way of written arguments.

9.ISSUE NO.2:- “Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?”

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants 1 to 6 borrowed Rs.60,000/- each and executed promissory note under Exs.A1 to A7 respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a. for that the defendants offered their immovable property as security for the amount and they executed deposit of title deed in favour of the plaintiff. He further submitted at para No.10 of his reply arguments that the suit is filed for redemption of mortgage, basing on memorandum of title deeds, dated 28-04-2007 under Ex.A8 and therefore the suit is filed within limitation and not barred by limitation as contended by the defendants.

10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff by colluding with the PWs 2 and 3 fabricated the alleged

Ex.A8 memorandum of deposit of title deed dated 28-4-2007 just prior to filing the suit to save the limitation of the alleged promissory note.

Further it is the contention of the plaintiff that in the cross examination

PW1 categorically admitted that he has been living in the house of the defendants since May, 2008. So it is clear that PW1 is not having any acquaintance with the defendants prior to May, 2008.. Further they contended that the signature on the alleged memorandum of title deeds are not belonged to them and the plaintiff never demanded the defendants at any point of time regarding the debt.

11. Coming to Ex.A8 Memorandum of title deed it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend such a huge amount. In the light of the arguments of learned counsels for plaintiff and defendant I would like to go through the evidence on record.

The plaintiff marked Exs.A1 to A7, all are promissory notes dated 19-04- 2007, 21.04.2007, 24.04.2007, 26-04-2007, 26-04-2007, 26-04-2007, 26- 04-2007 and Ex.A8 is the memorandum of title deeds dated 24-04-2007.

So, Ex.A8 is subsequent to Ex.A7. It is the contention of the plaintiff that basing on Ex.A8 he filed suit for recovery of amount and for preliminary decree against the plaint schedule property. Whereas the contention of the defendants is that the suit is barred by limitation and in the written arguments also the defendants pleaded that the property was assigned to the father of D2 to D6 and it cannot be transferred under Sec.3 of the Act 9 of 1977. The plaintiff stated at para No.9 of the reply arguments that property mentioned under Ex.A8 is in the name of deceased husband of first defendant and father of remaining defendants and that the property is registered property basing on the no objection certificate given M.R.O.

Therefore, the plaintiff lend the amount basing on memorandum of title deed under Ex.A8. Therefore, the averments in the written statement are all false.

12. Here Exs.A1 to A7 shows that the defendants have borrowed

Rs.60,000/- each on all promissory notes and subsequently they got executed memorandum of title deed. Though it is argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that no objection certificate was given by the M.R.O., but no such document is filed before the court. During chief examination

PW1 reiterated the contents which he averred in the plaint. Coming to the cross examination he stated that the disputed house belongs to the father of D2 i.e, Md. Gouse. He does not know whether the said house is provided by the Government. He admitted that the house was assigned by the Government in the name of Mohammad Gouse under Ex.A9. So it is clear that the schedule property is assigned land in favour of husband of

D1. Though the plaintiff submitted that M.R.O. has given no objection and no evidence has been adduced to that effect that the Ex.A9 is not transferrable. Further on perusal of Ex.A9 there is a condition No.10 that alienation is prohibited. At this stage I have gone through a decision reported in 2009 (4) ALD 473. Where his Lordship held -

13. As such, from the scheme of the Act, it can be

understood that the object is protect the assignees who are

landless poor persons from being exploited by the rich. If

the assigned property is a land the same has to be under

the cultivation of the original assignee or his legal heirs

and if it is a house site, the same has to be utilized for the

purpose of constructing a house in the said site by the

assignee and has to be enjoyed by him or his legal heirs.

All necessary safeguards have been provided under the

Act to see that the assigned property shall remain with the

original assignee or his legal heirs and it shall be enjoyed

by them only.

14. The assigned property, thus, is only heritable but

not transferable. However, Section 6 of the Act lays down

that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to the

assigned land held on to the State or Central Government,

any local authority, a co-operative society, a scheduled

bank or such other financial institutions owned,

controlled or managed by a State Government or Central

Government, as may be notified by the Government in this

behalf. From this it can be understood that the assignee

can mortgage the land to the bodies above mentioned held

by or under the control of the Government for the purpose

of securing loan.

13. So in view of the above Judgment as the suit is filed basing on

Ex.A8 if preliminary decree is passed certainly the property shall be put to charge over the amount due. The assigned property cannot be alienated, therefore the property which is belonged to husband of D1 cannot be brought to sale. Therefore, deposit of assigned land as security for the amount is in valid under law, in view of Sec.3 of Act 9 of 1977. As per the contention of the plaintiff they filed the suit basing on Ex.A8 i.e., memorandum of title deed. As there is a prohibition of alienation of assigned land the suit basing on Ex.A8 is not maintainable.

14. It is the contention of the defendants that the suit is barred by limitation. Further in the cross examination PW1 stated that D1 executed promissory notes under Ex.A1 and A2 dated 19-04-2007 and 21-4-2007 respectively. D2 executed Ex.A3 dated 24-04-2007, D4 executed Ex.A4

dated 26-04-2007, D4 executed Ex.A5 dated 26-04-2007, D5 executed

Ex.A6 and D6 executed Ex.A7. On perusal of all promissory notes they are in the month of April, 2007. The last promissory note i.e, Ex.A7 is

dated 26-04-2007. The suit is filed on 26-6-2010. In view of Limitation

Act 1963, the limitation is three years for filing the suit. The suit is filed on 26-6-2010 which clearly shows that the suit is bared by Limitation in respect of all promissory notes. Further it is argument of the plaintiff is that the suit is filed basing on Ex.A8, that itself shows that the promissory notes are barred by limitation, by the time of filing of the suit.

15. The defendants have taken plea of limitation that the suit is not maintainable as the promissory notes are barred by limitation. Therefore, evidence of both the parties in respect of their contentions regarding the capacity of the plaintiff to lend the amount, and whether promissory notes are created or fabricated, are not necessary to be considered. In the said circumstances this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

s

16.Issue No.1:-

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount ?”

Issue No.2 is answered against the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled for suit claim.

17. Issue No.3:-

“Whether the suit promissory note true, valid and supported by

consideration?”

As Issue No.2 is answered against the plaintiff, this issue does not arise.

18. Issue No.4:-

In the result, the suit is dismissed, no costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of February, 2015.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

PW1: Md. Amanulla PW2: Sk. Khamar Basha PW3: Sk. Subhani

FOR DEFENDANT:

DW1 : Sk. Dawood DW2 : Gattam Raju DW3 : K. Ramesh Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A-119-04-2007: Promissory note Ex.A-221-04-2007: Promissory note Ex.A-324-04-2007: Promissory note Ex.A-426-04-2007: Promissory note Ex.A-526-04-2007: Promissory note Ex.A-626-04-2007 Promissory note Ex.A-726-04-2007: Promissory note Ex.A-828-04-2007:Depsoit of Title deeds Ex.A-917-03-1980:Title deed. Ex.A-1028-08-2009:Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A-1109-09-2009: Reply notice.

FOR DEFENDANTS :

-Nil-

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT : SRI S. Ramanaiah, LL.M.,

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Monday, this the 23rd day of February, 2015.

O.S.No.570/2013

BETWEEN:

M/S. Lakshmi Finance, Reptd., by its Authorised .. Plaintiff

Person and G.P.A. Holder, Cherukuri Satya Narayana

AND

1. Gopu Ramya

2. A. Hari Krishna Sharma.

3. Kannepogu Dilip Kumar. .. Defendants

This suit, coming before me on 19.12.2011 for final disposal in the presence of Sri I. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Y.S.V.Pratap, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1).This is a suit for recovery of amount of Rs.3,03,653/- with future interest and costs of the suit.

2).The brief averments of the plaint are as follows The plaintiff is the proprietary concern firm, which provide vehicle finance on hypothecation basis, where as the defendant No.1 is approached the plaintiff to obtain finance in order to purchase a four wheeler i.e. Maruthi

Alto-Lxi, and that after verification the plaintiff has provided the finance amount of Rs. 2,70,000/-to the 1st defendant.to purchase the afore said vehicle and accordingly all the defendants have executed an agreement of the Hypothecation agreement on 24-06-2011 and executed promissory note on 24-6-2011 for future liabilities of Rs.3,99,492/- in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing that the loan amount shall be repayable together with interest @ 11.99% within 48 monthly installments @ Rs.8,320/- per month commencing from 24-07-2011 to 24-05-2015 and that if the 1st defendant failed to repay any instalments within stipulated time the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the vehicle financed and that the 2nd & 3rd defendants stood as guarantors to the 1st defendant they also executed agreement of guarantee on 24-06-2011, as such all the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay all the installments promptly.

3).The 1st defendant has paid a sum of Rs.1,16,413/- towards 14 monthly instalments by 24-07-2012 and that she has committed default in payment of 15th instalment and she is due of Rs. 3,03,453/- as on 30-03-2013 is payable by the defendants. In spite of several demands made by plaintiff the defendants have been postponing the payments on some pretext or the other, therefore plaintiff got issued registered legal notice dt.21.03.2013 to all the defendants calling upon them to discharge the debt. The notice was acknowledged by the 1st defendant on 22-03- 2013 and that the same was received by 2nd defendant and acknowledged by the 3rd defendant on 22-03-2013, but they neither issued reply nor comply with the demand made therein and as such as there is no other alternative, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit. D3 was set exparte. D1, D2 filed written statement denying allegations of the plaint and submitted that when the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff firm for loan amount at that juncture the firm officials obtained the signatures of 1st and 2nd defendants on some empty forms of plaintiff firm only. The 3rd defendant is not known to them and they have no acquaintance with the 3rd defendant and they have not even seen the 3rd defendant at any point of time and in such circumstances it is meaningless to allege that the defendants 1 to 3 jointly executed hypothecation agreement on 24-06- 2011 jointly is not at all true and correct and it is not possible to believe that how a stranger will join with the defendants 1 & 2 in executing the alleged documents as mentioned in the plaint by the plaintiff. It is only the plaintiff firm that got filed the empty forms that contains the signatures of defendants 1 & 2 and got filed the present suit with the help of the 3rd defendant who is the henchman of the plaintiff with an intention to gain wrongfully. The plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit through the

GPA Holder as no authorisation is there in favour of the GPA to file the suit as such the G.P.A. Holder is not entitled to file the present suit and as such the suit is liable for dismissal at once and and immediately. The interest claimed in the suit is excessive and exhorbitant and the plaintiff firm is not entitle to claim interest @ 11.99%. Therefore pray the Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4).Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by my predecessor:

1) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit through G.P.A. holder as no authorisation is there in favour of G.P.A. ?

2) Whether the documents filed by the plaintiff are true and correct ?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

4) To what relief ?

5).During the course of trial one Ch. Satyanarayana is chief recovery manager and GPA holder of plaintiff firm, examined as PW1. He deposed that the plaintiff is proprietory concern form which provides vehicle finance on hypothecation basis. D1 approached the plaintiff obtained finance of Rs. 2,70,000/- and executed agreement of hypothecation. All the defendants have executed an agreement of hypothecation and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 11.99% and the amount shall be repaid in 48 monthly installments the rate of Rs.8,320/- per month and the 1st defendant failed to pay any installment within 30 days from due date plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the vehicle. The defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors and executed agreement of guarantee as such all the defendants are liable to pay the installments jointly and severally. D1 paid of Rs.1,16,413/- towards 14 monthly instalments subsequently he committed default. As per account copy the D1 is liable to pay an amount of 3,03,4523/- as on 30-3-2013 as all the defendants failed to pay the amount, the plaintiff filed suit.

6).The plaintiff filed documents Ex.A1 to A9. A1 is certified copy of

GPA executed in favour of that plaintiff. Ex.A2 is application made by the defendant for purchase of moter vehicle on hypothecation scheme. Ex.

A3 is hypothecation agreement Ex. A4 is agreement of guaratee. Ex. A5 promissory not executed by the defendants. Ex.A6 account copy. Ex.A7 is office copy of legal notice. EX A8 is acknowledgment from D1 and Ex.

A9 is acknowledgment from D3.

7).Issue No.1:- “Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit through G.P.A. holder as no authorisation is there in favour of G.P.A.?

PW1 says that he is GPA holder and in that capacity he has given evidence. In the cross-examination nowhere it is suggested to PW1 that he has no locusstandi to file the suit as no authorisation is there to deposed. As per Ex. A1 it is an autorise from the plaintiff firm. There fore it cannot be said that PW1 has no locus standi to depose. Hence this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8).Issue No.2:-

“Whether the documents filed by the plaintiff are true and

correct?”

In the cross examination of PW1, he admitted that D1 borrowed

Rs.70,000/-. No where it is suggested to plaintiff that the documents filed by the plaintiff are not valid. Further the contention of the defendants is that they made some payments before seizure of vehicle and after conducting auction, the defendants are entitled for balance of amount. In the light of above eivdence, it can be said that the documents filed by the plaintiff are true and correct.

9).Issue No.3:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?”

During the course of arguments, the plaintiff filed memo along with 2 receipts stating that the vehicle was sold in the auction following the procedure for Rs.1,95,000/- on 12-7-2014 and they requested the Court to pass judgment in favour of the plaintiff after deducting Rs.1,95,000/- from the suit claim. The receipts are dt. 11-7-2014 for Rs. 5,000/- and another receipt dt. 12-7-2014 for Rs. 1,90,000/-. Notice also given to otherside and they reported no objection. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim after deducting Rs.1,95,000/-.

10).Issue No.4:- “To what relief?”

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs. 1,08,653/- with future interest at the rate of 6%p.a., from the date of suit till the realization on Rs.1,08,653/-.

Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in

the Open Court, this the 23rd day of February, 2015.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1:Cherukuri Satya Narayana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A-1:19-09-2011:Certified copy of G.P.A.executed in favour Of the plaintiff as Ex.A1.

Ex.A-2: 24-06-2011:Application made by the defendants for the purchase of motor vehicle on Hypothecation scheme from plaintiff firm as Ex. A2 Ex.A-3:24-06-2011:Hypothecation agreement

Ex.A-4:24-06-2011:Guarantee agreement

Ex.A-5 : 24-06-2011 : Promissory note executed by both the defendants Ex.A-6 : 28-03-2013 : Account copy Ex.A-7 : 21-03-2013 :Office copy of the legal demand notice Ex.A-8: 22-03-2013 : Acknowledgment from 1st defendant Ex.A-9 : 22-3-2013 : Acknowledgement from 3rd defendant

FOR DEFENDANTS : Nil.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

iiascjuser3

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SRI S.RAMANAIAH, LL.M.,

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge.

Thursday, this the 12th day of March, 2015.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1478 OF 2012.

BETWEEN

Katragadda Sankara Rao ..Plaintiff

AND

Tumaati Chenchayya ..Defendant

The suit coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Seshagiri Rao, advocate for plaintiff and of Sri P.D.S.Narayana, advocate for defendant and upon the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.1,00,866/- basing on the promissory note and for future interest and costs of sthe suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-5-2010 for his family expenses and executed promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a.,. Inspite of demands, the defendant did not repay the amount. Therefore the plaintiff constrained to file the suit.

3.The defendant filed Written Statement denying the allegations of iiascjuser3 the plaint and submitted that the defendant is not aware of the plaintiff and he has not seen the plaintiff and he has no acquaintance with the plaintiff. He surprised when he received the summons. The plaintiff has to explain as to how he came to know the defendant. The defendant never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff with the active collusion or the scribe and attestor, to cause wrongful gain to the plaintiff, filed this false suit. There is no privity of contract between plaintiff and cause wrongful loss to the defendant. The suit is not maintainable. Hence, he pray the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following Issues have been settled for trial:

1)Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

2)Whether the defendant has executed the suit promissory note, dt.20-5-2010?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

4)To what relief?

5.During course of trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and he examined one witness by name Pamulapati Srinivasa Rao as PW2 and examined one Doppalapudi Samba Siva Rao as PW3 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. Defendant did not adduce evidence.

6.Issue No.1:-

“Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?”

It is plea of the defendant in the Written Statement that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendant has not adduced any evidence and this Court has no jurisdiction. As per the evidence of

PW1, the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- and executed promissory note.

Nowhere it is suggested to PW1 in the cross-examination that this Court has jurisdiciton. It is suggested to PW1 that Ex.A1 transcaction took iiascjuser3 place at Chilakaluripet. PW1 denied the suggestion. On perusal of

Ex.A1, the address of the defendant is shown as Chilakaluripet, Guntur

District. As per the notice under Ex.A2 issued by the plaintiff, it is stated that the promissory note executed by defendant at Vijayawada. PW2 is attestor and PW3 is scribe . He categorically stated that the defendant executed the promissory note at Vijayawada. In the cross-examination,

PW2 stated that previously he resided at Chilakaluripet. So nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 3 that the suit promissory note is not executed at Vijayawada and that this Court has to establish that this Court has no jurisdiciton. In the said circumstances, it can be said that this Court has got jurisdiciton to entertain the suit.

7.Issue No.2:-

“Whether the defendant has executed the suit promissory note,

dt.20-5-2010?”

It is the pleading of the defendant that he never seen the plaintiff and the promissory note is fabricated. It is the evidence of PW1 that the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- and executed promissory note on 20-5-2010 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a,. As the defendant did not repay the amount, he got issued legal notiace to the defendant on 27-8-2012 demanding to repay the amount. The defendant received the same on 28-8-2012 and kept quiet. In the cross-examination, PW1 stated that he does not know the defendant prior to Ex.A1 and he knows the defendant on the date of

Ex.A1 and he lent the money to the defendant at the instance of his brother-in-law. He is residing at Sambasiva Nagar, Chilakaluripet. He denied to a suggestion that there are disputes between his brother-in-law and defendant. PW1 denied to a suggestion that at the instance of his brother-in-law as he has disputes with the defendant, the suit has got filed through him.

8.If the contention of the defendant is that he never seen the plaintiff iiascjuser3 and the plaintiff never seen the defendant, he has to suggest PW1 that the defendant never seen and he has no acquaintance with the plaintiff. No such evidence is elicited. PW2 is attestor and PW3 is scribe. They also categorically deposed and supported the evidence of PW1 in all aspects in respect of barrowing of Rs.60,000/- and execution of promissory note. In the cross-examination, PW2 stated that the defendant and scribe asked him to attest the promissory note. In the cross-examination, PW3 stated that the plaintiff is his brother-in-law and he denied to a suggestion that there are disputes between him and defendant and due to that dispute, he forged the signature of defendant in Ex.A1. He denied to a suggestion that no transcaction took place under Ex.A1.

9.PW3 is brother-in-law of the plaintiff and if it is suggested to him that there are disputes between the brother-in-law of plaintiff and defendant, the question of not knowing the defendant by the plaintiff does not arise. Further the defendant did not adduce any evidence in support of his contention. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of

PWs 1 to 3, that no transcaction took place under Ex.A1 and no consideration was passed. In the said circumstances, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 on all probabilities proves that the defendant has executed the suit promissory note. Therefore, the presumption under Sec.118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act rises in favour of the plaintiff that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration. Hence, this Issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10.Issue No.3:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?”

As Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff, plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

11.Issue No.4:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?” iiascjuser3

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.1,00,866/-, future interest is granted @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realisation on

Rs.60,000/-.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of March, 2015.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

PW1: Katragadda Sankara Rao PW2Pamulapati Srinivasa Rao PW3 Doppalapudi Sambasiva Rao

FOR DEFENDANT: -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A-1:20-5-2010: Promissory note Ex.A-2:27-8-2012:O/c of legal notice Ex.A-3:28-8-2012:Postal Acknowledgement

FOR DEFENDANT : -Nil-

II A.S.C.J, VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SRI S.RAMANAIAH, LL.M.,

II Addl., Senior Civil Judge

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2015.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1519 OF 2012.

BETWEEN

Gorijala Sree Rama Murthy ..Plaintiff

AND

Potluri Devendra Varaprasad @ Chanti ..Defendant

The suit coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.R.Satyanarayana Prasad, advocate for plaintiff and of Sri D.S.Mahendra, advocate for defendant and upon the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,01,649/- basing on the promissory note, dt.22-10-2009 and for future interest and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- on 22-10-2009 from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 21% p.a.,. The defendant did not repay the amount inspiate of demands, on that the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 21-9-2012 and it was received by the defendant on 22-9-2012. The defendant was issued reply notice to the plaintiff with false contents and he did not repay the amount. Therefore the Suit.

3.The defendant filed Written Statement denying the allegations of the plaint and he submitted that he is the nearest relative of the plaintiff and in dire need of money, he approached plaintiff in the year 2009 and requested an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and that the plaintiff agreed to advance the amount and demanded the defendant to execute the promissory note for Rs.3,40,000/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/-. Due to urgent need of money, the defendant executed the promissory note for

Rs.3,40,000/-, but infact he borrowed only Rs.2,00,000/- and he also agreed to pay the amount with interest @ 12% p.a. only. Due to the draught conditions prevailed in the vicinity of lands of defendant, he sustained huge loss and did not discharge the debt. He is intended to discharge the debt due to the plaintiff after securing money of

Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a.,.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following Issues have been settled for trial:

1)Whether the defendant has executed the promissory note dated.22-10-2009?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?

3)To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A1 to

A4 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant is examined as

DW1 and no documents are marked.

6.Issue No.1:- “Whether the defendant has executed the promissory note dated.22-10-2009?”

It is the contention of the learned counsel for plaintiff that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,40,000/- on 22-10-2009 and executed promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 21% p.a., with yearly rests. PW2 is attestor and he also supported the evidence of

PW1 and nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2 to disprove the contention of the plaintiff and prove that the defendant borrowed only Rs.2,00,000/-.

7.On the other hand, the learned counsel for defendant submitted that infact the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and on demand of the plaintiff, as he is his relation, he executed promissory note for

Rs.3,40,000/- and now the attestors and plaintiff colluded with each other and fabricated Ex.A1.

8.It is the evidence of PW1 that the defendant borrowed

Rs.3,40,000/- on 22-10-2009. One Ch.Narasimha Rao is the scribe,

P.Venkateswara Rao and B.Malakonda Reddy are attestors were present at the time of Ex.A1. In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the daughter of defendant is given into marriage to the son of plaintiff. He denied to a suggestion that he has no capacity to lent Rs.3,40,000/- to the defendant, he also denied that he lent Rs.2,00,000/-, but he obtained for

Rs.3,40,000/-. He also denied that the rate of interest is 12% p.a., but it is mentioned as 4.75% per Rs.100/- in Ex.A1. He also denied to a suggestion that he has no capacity to lent Rs.3,40,000/-. He also denied to a suggestion that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- and he is getting ready to pay now. PW2 is 2nd attestor of Ex.A1. He deposed that the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. In the cross- examination, he stated that he is tenant of the plaintiff. He went to the house of plaintiff to give rent and at that time, he signed as attestor on the promissory note. He had read the promissory note, it is in Telugu. He denied to a suggestion that the plaintiff did not lent Rs.3,40,000/- @ 21% compound interest. He denied to a suggestion that himself, Ch.Narasimha

Ra, P.Venkateswara Rao and plaintiff colluded with each other and fabricated Ex.A1.

9.As per the evidence of DW1, he himself stated that he executed promissory note for Rs.3,40,000/-. Whereas his contention is he actually borrowed Rs.2,00,000/-, but at the request of plaintiff, he executed promissory note for Rs.3,40,000/-. He himself stated that he did not discharge the debt. As per his contention, the rate of interest is 12% p.a.,.

But it is mentioned as 21% in the promissory note. As it is act that the defendant is relative of the plaintiff, because the daughter of the defendant was given in marriage to the son of plaintiff. It is admitted fact that

Ex.A1 is executed by the defendant. After that, his contention is he received only Rs.2,00,000/-. So the burden is on the defendant to prove that the promissory note is not supported by consideration of

Rs.3,40,000/-. From the cross-examination of PW1, he could not elicit as to why the promissory note is obtained by the plaintiff for Rs.3,40,000/-.

Further in the cross-examination of PW2, it is suggested to him that himself and the attestors and scribe fabricated Ex.A1. If the defendant himself admits that he executed promissory note for Rs.3,40,000/- whereas the question of fabrication of the document. So, nothing has been elicited from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the consideration is

Rs.2,00,000/- and the circumstances under which he has executed promissory note for Rs.3,40,000/-. Therefore the defendant has not shown any probabilities to believe that he borrowed only Rs.2,00,000/- and executed promissory note for Rs.3,40,000/-. Hence, it can be said that the defendant has borrowed Rs.3,40,000/- from the plaintiff and executed promissory note under Ex.A1. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10.Issue No.3:- “To what relief?”

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.2,39,405/- and future interest is granted @ 6% p.a., from the date of suit till realization on Rs.3,40,000/-.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2015.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : PW1: G.Sree Rama Murthy PW2 : B.Malakonda Reddy

FOR DEFENDANT: DW1 : P.Devendra Varaprasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF : Ex.A-1 22-10-2009: Promissory note Ex.A-221-9-2012:O/c of legal notice Ex.A-322-9-2012:Postal Acknowledgement Ex.A-427-9-2012:Reply notice

FOR DEFENDANT : -Nil-

II A.S.C.J, VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SRI S.RAMANAIAH, LL.M.,

II Addl., Senior Civil Judge.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2015.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.478 OF 2014.

BETWEEN

Ch.Lakshmi Venkata Subrahmanyam ..Plaintiff

AND

Vyyuru Koteswara Rao..Defendant

The suit coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.V.Nava Kumar, advocate for plaintiff and of Sri N.Venkata Ananda Babu, advocate for defendant and upon the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.This suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.7,54,833/- basing on the promissory note, dt.19-2-2012 and for future interest and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 19-2-2012 executed promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a.,. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendant did not repay the amount. Therefore the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 7-3-2014, inspite of it, the defendant did not comply the notice. Therefore, the suit.

3.The defendant filed Written Statement denying the allegations of the plaint and submitted that he did real estate business and sustained loss.

Therefore failed to discharge debt to his friends. He filed Insolvency

Petition on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada showing his debts. He never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he has no movable or immovable properties. He learnt from the reliable sources that one of the respondents in I.P. might have filed the present suit by filling-up the plaintiff's name on the balnk promissory note. Therefore he prays the Court that the suit may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following Issues have been settled for trial:

1)Whether the defendant had executed the suit promissory note dt.19-12-2012?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

3)To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A1 to

A3 are marked. The defendant did not adduce his evidence.

6.Issue No.1:-

“Whether the defendant had executed the suit promissory note

dt.19-12-2012?”

PW1 deposed that the defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on 19-12-2012 and executed promissory note under Ex.A1, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a.,. As the defendant did not repay the amount, he got issued legal notice under Ex.A2. Inspite of it, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount. PW2 is the scribe of promissory note. He also supported the evidence of PW1. He stated that one K.Murthy and Chandrasekhar are attested the promissory note. PW3 is second attestor of Ex.A1. He deposed that the defendant borrowed

Rs.5,00,000/- and executed the promissory note and he attested the promissory note as second attestor and one K.V.Murthy is 1st attestor and the scribe is V.Subrahmanyam(PW3).

7.In the cross-examination, PW1 stated Ex.A1 transaction took place in his house. Along with defendant, Murthy and Sekhar came to his house, consideration was given by cash. PW2 stated in his cross-examination that Ex.A1 executed in the house of PW1 at about 11.00 a.m., and defendant called him and the consideration was

Rs.5,00,000/- given by way of cash. PW3 also stated in his cross- exmaination that the defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/-, Ex.A1 transaction took place in the house of PW1 at about 11.00 a.m., and defendant called him to the house of PW1. So nothing has been elicited by the defendant that Ex.A1 transaction has not been happened. Further the defendant did not come to box to depose to substantiate his plea. In the said circumstances, it can be said that the defendant has executed the suit promissory note under Ex.A1.

8.As the plaintiff is able to prove the due execution of Ex.A1, the presumption under Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act rises in favour of the plaintiff that the suit promissory note is executed for consideration.

So Ex.A1 is executed for consideration. Therefore, this Issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9.Issue No.2:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?”

As Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

10.Issue No.3:- “To what relief?”

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.7,54,833/- and future interest is granted @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of March, 2015.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

PW1: Ch.L.V.Subrahmanyam PW2: P.Subrahmanyam PW3: B.Chandra Sekhar

FOR DEFENDANT: -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A-119-2-2012: Original Promissory note Ex.A-2:7-3-2014:O/c of the legal notice Ex.A-3:--:Returned cover

FOR DEFENDANT : -Nil-

II A.S.C.J, VJA.