Sri.S.Ramanaiah, SCJ, Kadiri

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KADIRI

Present:- Sri S. Ramanaih,

Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri.

Wednesday, 11th day of September, 2019.

Original Suit No.01/2017

Between :

Shaik Rafiq, S/o late Shaik Alam Sab, aged about 48 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, Residing at Door No.1-71-3, Mohiyar Nagar, Kadiri Town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

… Plaintiff.

And;

DharmavaramKhader Basha, S/o D.Nabi Sab, aged about 51 years, Muslim, Trader, previously residing at Door No.3-12-1, Kummaravandlapalli, now residing at Door no.4-238-2, Near Mzieedia Osmaniya Gani Street, Kummaravandlapalli village, Kadiri Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Sathyanarayana Gupta, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri Poola Sreeniasulu, Advocate for Defendant, and hearing both sides, perused the material papers and 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 amount of Rs.4,28,917/- basing on two promissory notes with future interest and costs of the suit.

2.The particulars of the plaint in brief are as follows :

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.12.2013 for his business sand family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. The defendant further borrowed another sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 21.12.2013 from the plaintiff for his business and legal necessities and executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

In spite of demands and legal notice dated 16.11.2016 the defendant did not make any payment towards debt under promissory 2 notes. The defendant is teacher hence the interest is claimed at 24% per annum.

The defendant in stead of discharging the suit debt, has filed an unjust suit in O.S. 134/2016 on the file of this court against the plaintiff with false allegations basing on agreement of sale executed by the plaintiff in his favour dated 07.11.2013. The plaintiff is contesting the said suit. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed suit denying allegations of the plaintiff and submitted that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and executed promissory notes in favour of plaintiff. The alleged signatures in the suit promissory notes are forged by the plaintiff with active collusion of scribe and witness, hence the question of demanding by the plaintiff for repayment and issuance of notice does not arise and on this score alone the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, the prayed the court that suit maybe dismissed with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following isuses are settled for trial :

(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery (1) of suit amount as prayed for?

(2)To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW.1 and examined one K. Mynoddin, attestor as PW.2 and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.5. Ex.A.1 is suit promissory note dated 09.12.2013 for

Rs.1,25,000/- Ex.A.2 is suit promissory note dated 21.12.2013 for

Rs.1,25,000/- Ex.A.3 is office copy of legal notice dated 16.11.2013.

Ex.P.4 is reply notice dated 21.11.2016 issued by the defendant.

Ex.A.5 is acknowledgment dated 30.11.2016. The defendant himself examined as DW.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

3 6The suit is filed basing on the promissory notes dated 09.12.2013 and 21.12.2013. In the written statement the defendant denied the execution of promissory notes and he further contended that the alleged signatures in the promissory notes are forged by the plaintiff. So it is for the plaintiff to prove that the suit promissory notes are executed by the plaintiff. So the issue No.1 is re-casted as below :

Whether the defendant has executed Exs.A.1 and A.2 ?

The following additional issue is also framed :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

7.Issue No.1 :-

Whether the defendant has executed Exs.A.1 and A.2 ?

During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW.1 and he reiterated the contents which he averred in the plaint and he examined one witness as PW.2 who said to be an attestor. In the chief examination PW.2 supported the evidence of PW.1 stating that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,25,000/- on 09.12.2013 and borrowed another sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 21.12.2013 and executed promissory notes and they are written by the defendant and he agreed to repay the same with the rate of interest at 24% per annum.

8.In the chief examination DW.1 reiterated the contents which he averred in his written statement stating that he never borrowed money from the plaintiff and he has no capacity to lend money. In the cross-examination PW.1 stated that the defendant himself executed

Exs.A.1 and A.2 and one revenue stamp affixed in Ex.A.1 and two revenue stamps affixed in Ex.A.2 and signatures in written statement are one and the same. He denied to a suggestion that he created

Exs.A.1 andA.2 as the defendant filed suit O.S. 134/2016 for return of advance amount against the plaintiff herein. The evidence of DW.1 in the cross-examination is that he field suit O.S. 134/2016 for refund of 4 money basing on agreement of sale and it is not connected to the suit promissory notes. So, it is different transaction. The plaintiff got issued legal notice under Ex.A.3 to the defendant and defendant had got issued reply notice under Ex.A.4. In the reply notice the defendant denied the promissory notes.

9.PW.2 said to be attestor says that both promissory notes are written by the defendant himself and the defendant borrowed

Rs.1,25,000/- on 09.12.2013 and again borrowed Rs.1,25,00,000/- on 21.12.201. In the cross-examination PW.2 says that at the time of receiving consideration amount he was present. No where it is suggested to PW.2 that he was not known to the defendant. Further no enmity is elicited with plaintiff. In the cross-examination DW.1 says that he is not having any disputes or ill feelings with the plaintiff. He admitted his signatures in Vakalat and written statement. If at all there are ill feelings between the plaintiff and defendant, it is not known as to why the plaintiff filed the suit basing on promissory notes. Further it is specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant had himself written the suit promissory notes Exs.A.1 and A.2. If the defendant says that the signatures are forged, he must have sent the documents to the handwriting expert for comparison for opinion.

10. I have gone though a decision between P. Gnanambal Vs., S.

Indiradevi held by the Hon'ble Madras High dated 30.10.2014, wherein it is held that -

“When it is contended by the defendant that the suit

promissory note must be a fabricated one, she has not

taken care either to send the same for opinion of

handwriting expert to prove her genuineness or it is not

her case that there was some enmity between herself and

the plaintiff or at least PW2 who might have had the

opportunity of fabricating the signature of the

defendant. Hence, the defence put forth by her must fall

to the ground.”

5

So, the defendant has not taken steps to send Exs.A.1 and A.2 to the handwriting expert. Further nothing has been elicited from the cross- examination of PW.2 that he was not present and amount was not received. PWs.2 specifically deposed that he was there at the time of receiving amount. Further the suit which was filed by the defendant in

O.S. 134/2016 is no way connected to Exs.A.1 and A.2 promissory

notes as per his evidence.

11.The signatures of the defendant in written statement and

Vakalat and the signatures in Exs.A.1 and A.2 which are appear to be one and the same. Even in the cross-examination PW.1 says, the signatures in Exs.A.1 and A.2 and written statement appear to be one and the same. So, as per Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act the Court can compare the signatures. In the said aspect also it can be said that the defendant has executed Exs.A.1 and A.2.

12.As the defendant executed promissory notes, presumption under Section 118 (c) of Negotiable Instruments At is in favour of the plaintiff that suit promissory notes are supported by consideration.

Nothing has been elicited by the defendant to show that no consideration is passed under ExsA.1 and A.2. Therefore, it can be said that the defendant had executed suit promissory notes for consideration.

13.Additional Issue :-

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 amount.

14.Issue No.1 :- To what relief?

6

In the result, suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.4,28,917/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/-

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of September, 2019.

Sd/- S. Ramanaiah

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

For Plaintiff:

PW 1 : Shaik Rafiq (Plaintiff), PW.2 : K. Mynoddin (Attestor).

For defendant:

DW.1 : Dharmavaram Khader Basha (Defendant).

Exhibits marked f or plaintiff:

Ex.A.1Suit promissory note for Rs.1,25,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 09.12.2013. Ex.A.2Suit promissory note for Rs.1,25,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 21.12.2013. Ex.A.3Office copy of notice dated 16.11.2016. Ex.A.4Reply notice of the defendant dated 21.11.2016. Ex.A.5Acknowledgment dated 30.11.2016.

For defendant: Nil.

Id/- S.Ramanaiah S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KADIRI

Present:- Sri S. Ramanaih,

Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri.

Wednesday, 11th day of September, 2019.

Original Suit No.01/2017

Between :

Shaik Rafiq, S/o late Shaik Alam Sab, aged about 48 years, Muslim, Agriculturist, Residing at Door No.1-71-3, Mohiyar Nagar, Kadiri Town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

… Plaintiff.

And;

DharmavaramKhader Basha, S/o D.Nabi Sab, aged about 51 years, Muslim, Trader, previously residing at Door No.3-12-1, Kummaravandlapalli, now residing at Door no.4-238-2, Near Mzieedia Osmaniya Gani Street, Kummaravandlapalli village, Kadiri Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Sathyanarayana Gupta, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri Poola Sreeniasulu, Advocate for Defendant, and hearing both sides, perused the material papers and 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 amount of Rs.4,28,917/- basing on two promissory notes with future interest and costs of the suit.

2.The particulars of the plaint in brief are as follows :

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.12.2013 for his business sand family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. The defendant further borrowed another sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 21.12.2013 from the plaintiff for his business and legal necessities and executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

In spite of demands and legal notice dated 16.11.2016 the defendant did not make any payment towards debt under promissory 2 notes. The defendant is teacher hence the interest is claimed at 24% per annum.

The defendant in stead of discharging the suit debt, has filed an unjust suit in O.S. 134/2016 on the file of this court against the plaintiff with false allegations basing on agreement of sale executed by the plaintiff in his favour dated 07.11.2013. The plaintiff is contesting the said suit. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed suit denying allegations of the plaintiff and submitted that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and executed promissory notes in favour of plaintiff. The alleged signatures in the suit promissory notes are forged by the plaintiff with active collusion of scribe and witness, hence the question of demanding by the plaintiff for repayment and issuance of notice does not arise and on this score alone the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, the prayed the court that suit maybe dismissed with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following isuses are settled for trial :

(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery (1) of suit amount as prayed for?

(2)To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW.1 and examined one K. Mynoddin, attestor as PW.2 and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.5. Ex.A.1 is suit promissory note dated 09.12.2013 for

Rs.1,25,000/- Ex.A.2 is suit promissory note dated 21.12.2013 for

Rs.1,25,000/- Ex.A.3 is office copy of legal notice dated 16.11.2013.

Ex.P.4 is reply notice dated 21.11.2016 issued by the defendant.

Ex.A.5 is acknowledgment dated 30.11.2016. The defendant himself examined as DW.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

3 6The suit is filed basing on the promissory notes dated 09.12.2013 and 21.12.2013. In the written statement the defendant denied the execution of promissory notes and he further contended that the alleged signatures in the promissory notes are forged by the plaintiff. So it is for the plaintiff to prove that the suit promissory notes are executed by the plaintiff. So the issue No.1 is re-casted as below :

Whether the defendant has executed Exs.A.1 and A.2 ?

The following additional issue is also framed :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

7.Issue No.1 :-

Whether the defendant has executed Exs.A.1 and A.2 ?

During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW.1 and he reiterated the contents which he averred in the plaint and he examined one witness as PW.2 who said to be an attestor. In the chief examination PW.2 supported the evidence of PW.1 stating that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,25,000/- on 09.12.2013 and borrowed another sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 21.12.2013 and executed promissory notes and they are written by the defendant and he agreed to repay the same with the rate of interest at 24% per annum.

8.In the chief examination DW.1 reiterated the contents which he averred in his written statement stating that he never borrowed money from the plaintiff and he has no capacity to lend money. In the cross-examination PW.1 stated that the defendant himself executed

Exs.A.1 and A.2 and one revenue stamp affixed in Ex.A.1 and two revenue stamps affixed in Ex.A.2 and signatures in written statement are one and the same. He denied to a suggestion that he created

Exs.A.1 andA.2 as the defendant filed suit O.S. 134/2016 for return of advance amount against the plaintiff herein. The evidence of DW.1 in the cross-examination is that he field suit O.S. 134/2016 for refund of 4 money basing on agreement of sale and it is not connected to the suit promissory notes. So, it is different transaction. The plaintiff got issued legal notice under Ex.A.3 to the defendant and defendant had got issued reply notice under Ex.A.4. In the reply notice the defendant denied the promissory notes.

9.PW.2 said to be attestor says that both promissory notes are written by the defendant himself and the defendant borrowed

Rs.1,25,000/- on 09.12.2013 and again borrowed Rs.1,25,00,000/- on 21.12.201. In the cross-examination PW.2 says that at the time of receiving consideration amount he was present. No where it is suggested to PW.2 that he was not known to the defendant. Further no enmity is elicited with plaintiff. In the cross-examination DW.1 says that he is not having any disputes or ill feelings with the plaintiff. He admitted his signatures in Vakalat and written statement. If at all there are ill feelings between the plaintiff and defendant, it is not known as to why the plaintiff filed the suit basing on promissory notes. Further it is specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant had himself written the suit promissory notes Exs.A.1 and A.2. If the defendant says that the signatures are forged, he must have sent the documents to the handwriting expert for comparison for opinion.

10. I have gone though a decision between P. Gnanambal Vs., S.

Indiradevi held by the Hon'ble Madras High dated 30.10.2014, wherein it is held that -

“When it is contended by the defendant that the suit

promissory note must be a fabricated one, she has not

taken care either to send the same for opinion of

handwriting expert to prove her genuineness or it is not

her case that there was some enmity between herself and

the plaintiff or at least PW2 who might have had the

opportunity of fabricating the signature of the

defendant. Hence, the defence put forth by her must fall

to the ground.”

5

So, the defendant has not taken steps to send Exs.A.1 and A.2 to the handwriting expert. Further nothing has been elicited from the cross- examination of PW.2 that he was not present and amount was not received. PWs.2 specifically deposed that he was there at the time of receiving amount. Further the suit which was filed by the defendant in

O.S. 134/2016 is no way connected to Exs.A.1 and A.2 promissory

notes as per his evidence.

11.The signatures of the defendant in written statement and

Vakalat and the signatures in Exs.A.1 and A.2 which are appear to be one and the same. Even in the cross-examination PW.1 says, the signatures in Exs.A.1 and A.2 and written statement appear to be one and the same. So, as per Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act the Court can compare the signatures. In the said aspect also it can be said that the defendant has executed Exs.A.1 and A.2.

12.As the defendant executed promissory notes, presumption under Section 118 (c) of Negotiable Instruments At is in favour of the plaintiff that suit promissory notes are supported by consideration.

Nothing has been elicited by the defendant to show that no consideration is passed under ExsA.1 and A.2. Therefore, it can be said that the defendant had executed suit promissory notes for consideration.

13.Additional Issue :-

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 amount.

14.Issue No.1 :- To what relief?

6

In the result, suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.4,28,917/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/-

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of September, 2019.

Sd/- S. Ramanaiah

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KADIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

For Plaintiff:

PW 1 : Shaik Rafiq (Plaintiff), PW.2 : K. Mynoddin (Attestor).

For defendant:

DW.1 : Dharmavaram Khader Basha (Defendant).

Exhibits marked f or plaintiff:

Ex.A.1Suit promissory note for Rs.1,25,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 09.12.2013. Ex.A.2Suit promissory note for Rs.1,25,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 21.12.2013. Ex.A.3Office copy of notice dated 16.11.2016. Ex.A.4Reply notice of the defendant dated 21.11.2016. Ex.A.5Acknowledgment dated 30.11.2016.

For defendant: Nil.

Id/- S.Ramanaiah S.C.J.

In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge :: Kadiri

Present: Sri.S.Ramanaiah,

Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri

Saturday, the 14th day of September, 2019. .

O.S.No.02 of 2015

Between:

1. Gutta Sreenivasulu Naidu, son of G.Ramaswamy Naidu, aged about 35 years, Hindu, residing at Door No.3-146-14, Ammacheruvu Mitta, B.K.Palle, Madanapalle post and Mandal, Chithoor District.

2. Boyapati Kamalakar, son of B.Reddeppa Naidu, aged about 26 years, Hindu, residing at Door No.16-590-2, Diguva Kammapalle, Nimmanapalle Road, Madanapalle Town and Mandal, Chithoor District.

… Plaintiffs. And;-

1. Katlagallu Hasan Basha, aged about 55 years,

2. Katlagallu Jinna Valli, aged about 50 years,

3. Katlagallu Nazir Khan, aged about 44 years,

4. Katlagallu Yusuf Ali Khan, aged about 44 years, Defendants 1 to 4 are sons of Late K.Rasheed Khan,

5. Katlagallu Malim Bee, wife of Late K.Rasheed Khan, aged about 75 years,

Defendants 1 to 5 are residing in Door No.2-230-5B, Nallagutta Street, Kadiri town and Mandal, Anantapur District. … Defendants.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for permanant injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in favour over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on 14-09-2019 for trial (await docuemnts) in the presence of Sri K.S.Prabhakar Reddy, advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri

G.Gurulingaswamy, Advocate for defendants ; and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Both parties present. Memos filed on behalf of plaitniff and on behalf of both parties and recorded. Accordingly, suit is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court on this the 14th day of September,

2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Kadiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

S.C.J

In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge :: Kadiri

Present: Sri.S.Ramanaiah,

Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri

Wednesday, the 11th day of September, 2019. .

O.S.No.19 of 2018

Between:

Mopalakunta Syed Basha, son of Late Nawaj Miya, aged about 45 years, Muslim, Cultivation and business, residing at Door No.1-251, Maaboob Nagar Veedhi, Kalakada post and village, Kalakada Mandal, Chittoor District. Mobile No.9985687039. … Plaintiff. And;-

Mehathar Yasadan Basha, son of Late M.M.Basha, aged about 42 years, Muslim, Realter, residing at Door No.9-88, Bellary Mission Compound, Valli Allah Mosque Street, Kadiri-515 591, Anantapur District., A.P., Mobile Number: 9059904156.

… Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for grant of prelimianry decree in favour of palintif and against the defasennt for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 30-12-2015 directing the defenant to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.34,000/- from the plaintiff and to execute the registered sale deed with regard to plaint schedule preoprty in favour of plaintiff and deliver possession of the plaint scehdule preorpty to the plaintiff and if the defendant fails to do so liberty to be granted to the plaintiff to get the same done through the process of the

Honourable court.

This suit is coming on 16-08-2019 for trial in the presence of Sri

V.Narayana Reddy, Avocate for plaintiff and of Sri Bandaru Krishna Murthy,

Advocate for defendant ; and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Suit is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of September,

2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Kadiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

S.C.J

In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge :: Kadiri

Present: Sri S.Ramanaiah, Senior Civil Judge,

Thursday, the 12th dauy of September, 2019

A.S.No.01 of 2015

Between:

Bhajanthri Obulesu, son of Chinnarappa, aged about 56 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Kondakamarla, now residing at Moolabavi Veedhi, Gorantla, Gorantla Mandalam, Anantapur District. … Appellant/Plaintiff

And

1. Bhajanthri Lakshmamma, wife of B.Narayanappa, aged about 54 years,

2. Bhajanthri Sudhakar, son of Narayanappa, aged about 36 years, Both are Hindus, Cultivation, residing at Kondakamarla, Kondakamarla Post, O.D.Cheruvu Mandalam, Anantapur District.

… Respondents/Defendants

This appeal suit filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 12-08-2014 made in O.S.No.216 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, and made :-

Between:-

Bhajanthri Obulesu . . . Plaintiff And:-

1. Bhajanthri Lakshmamma

2. Bhajanthri Sudhakar. . . . Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 12-09-2019 for filing memo (Hearing) in the presence of Sri. G.Gurulinga swamy, Advocate for appellant and of Sri B.Rajendra Naidu, Advocate for respondents; and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Memo not filed that whether the appellant died or not. On 7-3-2019 it is reported that appellant died, but no memo is filed. Appellant called absent, no representation. Hence, Appeal is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of September, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Kadiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

S.C.J.