Sri S.Vijayachandar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

ADDANKI

Present: Sri S.Vijaya Chandar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Tuesday, this the second (2nd) day of May, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.160 of 2014

Between:

Goli Koteswara Rao, Son of Kotaiah, aged about 68 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Peda Ambadipudi village, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District. ….

PLAINTIFF

and

1.Oruganti Santha Kumari, W/o. Late Yedukondalu, aged about 35 years, Hindu, cultivation, Resident of Nagulavaram village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, Vinukonda JCJC 2.Oruganti Jayanthi, D/o. Late Yedukondalu, aged about 12 years, Hindu, 3.Oruganti Manikanta, S/o. Late Yedukondalu, aged about 10 years, Hindu, (defendants 2 and 3 are being minors, rep. by their mother-guardian, Oruganti Santha Kumari, Wife of late Yedukondalu, Resident of Nagulavaram village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, Vinukonda PJCJ ) 4.Oruganti Nagamma, Wife of Venkateswarlu, aged about 60 years, R/o. Kukatlapalli village, Ballikurava Mandal, Addanki JCJC. …. DEFENDANTS

This suit coming on 26.4.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri I. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Ramesh, Advocate for the defendants 1 to 3 and of Sri P. Ramesh, Advocate for the 4th defendant, upon hearing both sides , upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on record and having stood over till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of

Rs.98,292/- (Rupees ninety eight thousand two hundred and ninety two

2

only) being the balance of principal and interest due on the suit promissory notes dated 21.9.2012 and 16.5.2013 executed by one

Oruganti Yedukondalu, who is husband of the first defendant, father of the defendants 2 and 3 and son of the fourth defendant, in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each, for costs and other reliefs, as against the estate of the deceased Oruganti

Yedukondalu, lying in the hands of the defendants 1 to 4.

II.The averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff, in brief, are as follows:-

The plaintiff submitted that one Oruganti Yedukondalu, who is husband of the first defendant, father of the defendants 2 and 3 and son of the fourth defendant, for his family expenses, having borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) on 21.9.2012 from the plaintiff, executed an even dated promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a.compoundable yearly rests either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Again, the said Oruganti Yedukondalu, having borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) on 16.5.2013 from the plaintiff, executed an even dated promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a.compoundable yearly rests either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. The said Oruganti Yedukondalu borrowed the amounts for the benefit of the joint family. Subsequently, despite demands made by the plaintiff both personally and through mediators, the said

Yedukondalu did not choose to clear of the debts and postponed the payment on some pretext or other. About five months back, the said

Oruganti Yedukondalu died intestate leaving behind him, the defendants

3

as his legal representatives and consequent to his death, the defendants have succeeded his estate and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thus, the defendants became liable to discharge the debts of the plaintiff. As the defendants failed to discharge the debt due, despite demands made by the plaintiff both oral and by way of issuance of legal notice dated 13.10.2014, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of the debt. As the original borrower is an agriculturist, the interest is scaled down and is claimed at 12 ½ % simple as per the provisions of Act IV/1938 and the defendants are not entitled to the benefits of any Debt Relief Laws.

III(a) The first defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants 2 and 3. The averments of the written statement filed by the first defendant, in brief, are as follows:-

The first defendant denied the averments of the plaint and contended that her husband never borrowed any amount and the suit promissory notes are rank forged documents and that her husband never cared to look after the defendants 1 to 3 properly and he used to lead a life of spendthrift without feeling any responsibility. Moreover, subsequent to death of her husband, the defendants 1 to 3 were completely neglected by her husband and they forcibly necked out them without any mercy. During the lifetime of husband of the defendant, father of the deceased Yedukondalu used to act as manager and kartha of the joint family and hence the question of husband of the defendant acting as kartha of the join family and borrowing amounts does not arise.

What all the properties owned by the joint family are in possession and enjoyment of father of the deceased Yedukondalu and as such the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prayed to

4

dismiss the suit with costs.

(b)The averments of the written statement filed by the fourth defendant, in brief, are as follows:-

The fourth defendant denied the averments of the plaint and submitted that her son Edukondalu went out of the family long back and was living at Nagulavaram village on his own accord along with his family members and he has no properties at all kept joint with the defendant and the defendant did not succeed any propeties of

Edukondalu and as such the defendant is not liable for any debt said to have been contacted by late Edukondalu and that the suit debts are not true and correct and they were brought into existence in collusion with the defendants 1 to 3 to put this defendant to trouble and loss and the plaintiff never demanded her for payment of the debt and she had given befitting reply for the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

IV.On the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:-

1. Whether the suit promissory notes dated 21.9.2012 and 16.5.2013 are true, valid and binding on the defendants?

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

3.Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

4. To what relief?

V. During trial, on behalf of the the plaintiff, he, besides, examining himself as P.W.1, examined the scribe and attestor of Ex.A1 pronote as

P.Ws.2 and 3 and the scribe and attestor of Ex.A2-poronote as P.Ws.4 and 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the defendants, the fourth defendant is examined as D.W.1 and no document is marked.

5

VI.Heard both sides.

VII.Issue No.1:- 1(a) The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 5 is consistent and their evidence coupled with Exs.A1 and

A2 clearly shows that Oruganti Yedukondalu, having borrowed the amounts, executed the suit promissory notes.

1(b)The learned counsel for the plaintiff further argued that the inaction on the part of the defendants in not sending the suit promissory notes to expert to ascertain the genuineness of the signatures found therein in relation to the admitted signatures of Oruganti Edukondalu clearly shows that there is no force in the contention of the defendants and hence the suit has to be decreed.

2.The learned counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the suit promissory note and hence the suit has to be dismissed.

3.Since the defendants denied the borrowal of the amount and execution of the suit promissory notes by the deceased borrower

Oruganti Edukondalu, the burden of establishing the same is heavy on the plaintiff. In order to discharge the legal burden, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and he filed his chief examination affidavit in tune with the contents of the plaint. P.Ws. 2 and 3 filed their chief examination affidavits in tune with the contents of the plaintiff regarding borrowal of the amount by Oruganti Edukondalu and execution of Ex.A1- suit promissory note and P.Ws.4 and 5 filed their chief examination affidavits in tune with the contents of the plaintiff regarding borrowal of the amount by Oruganti Edukondalu and execution of Ex.A2-suit

6

promissory note.

4.In cross-examination done by the counsel for the defendants 1 to 3, P.W.1 deposed that the original borrower Oruganti Yedukondalu was living in his house on rent by the time of borrowing the amounts and that Exs.A1 and A2 were executed at his house at about 8.00 or 9.00

A.M.on the respective dates. He denied the suggestion that Yedukondalu left his family members prior to execution of the promissory notes and did not spend the same to his family and hence the defendants 1 to 3 are not liable to pay the amount and that since father of D1 is alive, the defendants 1 to 3 are not liable to discharge the debts under Exs.A1 and

A2. In the cross-examination done by fourth defendant, P.W.1 admitted that as kartha of family, the deceased borrowed the amounts from him and denied the suggestion that the deceased left no properties to be succeeded and hence the fourth defendant is not liable to discharge the debt and by the time of borrowal the deceased had severed from the joint family and went out of the parents house.

5.As could be seen from the above cross-examination, it is evident that the defendants 1 to 3 on one hand and the fourth defendant on the other hand want to impress upon the court that since the deceased had left no properties to be succeeded by them they have no liability to discharge the amount and it is the further contention of the defendants 1 to 3 that since father of the deceased borrower was alive and since the deceased Yedukondalu never looked after them, they are not liable to discharge the debt , whereas it is that of the fourth defendant that since the deceased severed his connections with the family, the fourth defendant is not liable to discharge the debts due under Exs.A1 and A2.

7

6. In cross-examination, P.W.2 deposed that Ex.A1 was drafted at about 9.00 a.m. and P.W.3 deposed to the same effect. They both denied the suggestions that the decesed Yedukondalu never borrowed the amount and never executed the Ex.A1- promissory note.

7.In cross-examination, P.Ws.4 and 5 deposed that the deceased borrower had leased the rice mill from one Potlagunta Haribabu and that the defendants 1 to 3 had been residing in Peda Ambadipudi village when the deceased borrower was running the rice mill and denied the suggestion that the deceased Yedukondalu never borrowed the amount and never executed the Ex.A2- promissory note.

8.As could be seen from the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 1 to 5 , no material whatsoever was elicited from him to discredit their testimony regarding borrowal of the amounts and execution of the suit promissory notes.

9.Thus, by examining himself as P.W.1, examining the scribe and attestor of Ex.A1 pronote as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and that of Ex.A2 as P.Ws.4 and 5, the plaintiff could discharge the initial burden of establishing the execution of the suit promissory notes by the defendant, having borrowed the amount mentioned therein. Thus, the burden shifts on to the defendant to disprove the borrowal of the amount and execution of the suit promissory notes.

10. In order to discharge his burden, the fourth defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and filed her chief examination affidavit in tune with the contents of his written statement. In cross-examination, D.W.1 pleaded ignorance as to whether her deceased son had taken money covered under Exs.A1 and A2 from the plaintiff and denied the suggestion that

8

she has knowledge about the debt contracted by son covered under

Exs.A1 and A2.

11.Thus, as could be seen from the tenor of the cross-examination of

P.Ws.1 to 5 and the evidence let in by the fourth defendant as D.W.1, it is evident that the defendants sought to contend that the deceased

Yedukondalu did not left any properties to be succeeded by the defendants and thus they are not liable to discharge the debt covered under Exs.A1 and A2 rather than disproving the execution of the pronotes.

12.Further, the defendants, except taking a contention that the suit promissory notes are outcome of forgery by the plaintiff only to gain wrongfully, did not choose to place any evidence before this court to show that the signatures contained on Exs.A1 and A2 are not that of the deceased Oriuganti Yedukondalu. More over, the defendants though stated that the suit promissory notes are forged and never executed by the deceased Yedukondalu, did not also choose to send them to handwriting expert for comparison with his admitted signatures. Thus, the defendants failed to discharge the burden shifted on them.

13.The learned counsel for the fourth defendant contended that in the absence of showing that the fourth defendant though related to maker, has inherited his estate so as to become liable to repay his debts, the suit is not maintainable and hence the suit has to be dismissed. For this proposition, he relied on the decision in Govindammal and another v.

Bhuvaneswari Financing Corporation reported in AIR 2002

MADRAS, 296.

14.As could be seen from cross-examination of D.W.1, she in clear

9

terms admitted that their Hindu undivided family properties are not yet partitioned and this clearly suggests that the Hindu undivided family of which the deceased borrower is one of the members has properties and upon partition he will be entitled to a share therein and consequent to his death, on notional partition, the fourth defendant being mother and class-I heir will be entitled for a share and thus the contention of the fourth defendant in this regard fails.

15. In view of the above observations and findings, this court sincerely opines that the suit promissory notes are true, valid and executed by the deceased Oruganti Yedukondalu. Accordingly, issue

No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

VIII.Issue No.3:-

A perusal of the suit promissory notes show that the deceased borrower agreed to discharge the amounts due whenever demanded either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Thus, cause of action arose as and when the plaintiff demanded the deceased borrower or the defendants after death of the original borrower. Admittedly, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A3-legal notice to the defendants as evidence by Ex.A4- postal receipts and the fourth defendant received the said notice as evidenced by Ex.A5-postal acknowledgement and got issued Ex.A6-reply notice to Ex.A3 notice. Since the defendants did not discharge the debt due though demanded, cause of action for the suit arose. Accordingly, issue No.3 has been answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

IX.Issue No.2:-

10

(1)A perusal of the suit promissory notes/Exs.A1 and A2 show that the deceased borrower borrowed the amount for meeting his family expenses. The deceased borrower agreed to discharge the amount borrowed by him together with interest at 24% p.a. It is brought in the cross-examination of D.W.1 that the deceased had taken a rice mill on lease. It is not at all the contention of the defendants that the deceased borrower is an agriculturist and thus entitled to the benefits of Act

IV/1938.

(2) The defence set out by the defendants is one of total denial of borrowal and execution of the suit promissory notes. It is not at all their contention that either the deceased borrower or thereafter they had made any part payments. A perusal of Exs.A1 and A2 also show no part payment endorsements.

In view of the above observations and findings, this court sincerely opines that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

X. Issue No.4:-

In view of my answering on issue No.1 that the the suit promissory notes are true, valid and executed by the deceased Oruganti

Yedukondalu, on issue No.2 that there is cause of action for the suit and on issue No.3 that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount, this court sincerely opines that the suit has to be decreed.

In the result the suit is decreed for an amount of Rs.98,292/- (Rupees ninety eight thousand two hundred and ninety two only) with costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6%

11

p.a. till realisation, on the principal amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) against the estate of the deceased Oruganti

Yedukondalu, lying in the hands of the defendants.

Typed to my dictation directly on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WINTESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff for defendants

P.W.1: Goli Koteswara Rao D.W.1: Oruganti Nagamma

P.W.2: Bhotlagunta Srinivasa Rao

P.W.3: Bhotlagunta Koteswara Rao

P.W.4: J. Hanuman

P.W.5: Palle Chandramohan

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff

Ex.A1/21.09.2012:Original promissory note for Rs.40,000/- executed by Oruganti Yedukondalu in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A1/16.05.2013:Original promissory note for Rs.40,000/- executed by Oruganti Yedukondalu in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A3/13.10.2014:Office copy of the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants

Ex.A4/13.10.2014:Four postal receipts

Ex.A5/21.05.2006:Postal acknowledgment of the fourth defendant

Ex.A6/27.10.2014:Reply notice got issued by the fourth defendant

For defendants:

NIL

P.J.C.J.

ADDANKI

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

ADDANKI

Present: Sri S.Vijaya Chandar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Tuesday, this the second (2nd) day of May, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.160 of 2014

Between:

Goli Koteswara Rao, Son of Kotaiah, aged about 68 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Peda Ambadipudi village, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District. ….

PLAINTIFF

and

1.Oruganti Santha Kumari, W/o. Late Yedukondalu, aged about 35 years, Hindu, cultivation, Resident of Nagulavaram village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, Vinukonda JCJC 2.Oruganti Jayanthi, D/o. Late Yedukondalu, aged about 12 years, Hindu, 3.Oruganti Manikanta, S/o. Late Yedukondalu, aged about 10 years, Hindu, (defendants 2 and 3 are being minors, rep. by their mother-guardian, Oruganti Santha Kumari, Wife of late Yedukondalu, Resident of Nagulavaram village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, Vinukonda PJCJ ) 4.Oruganti Nagamma, Wife of Venkateswarlu, aged about 60 years, R/o. Kukatlapalli village, Ballikurava Mandal, Addanki JCJC. …. DEFENDANTS

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.98,292/- (Rupees ninety eight thousand two hundred and ninety two only) being the balance of principal and interest due on the suit promissory notes dated 21.9.2012 and 16.5.2013 executed by one Oruganti Yedukondalu, who is husband of the first defendant, father of the defendants 2 and 3 and son of the fourth defendant, in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each, for costs and other reliefs, as against the estate of the deceased Oruganti Yedukondalu, lying in the hands of the defendants 1 to 4.

plaint presented on 17.11.2014 plaint filed on 26.11.2014

Cause of action for the suit arose on 21.09.2012 and 16.5.2013 when late Oruganti Yedukondalu borrowed Rs.40,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and executed suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, and about 5 months prior to filing of the suit, when the said Yedukondalu died intestate leaving behind him the defendants herein as his L.Rs.and when the defendants succeeded the entire estate of late Yedukondalu, on 13.10.2014 when the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants, when the fourth defendant got issued a reply with false allegations, at Ambadipudi village of Ballikurava Mandal where the suit promissory notes were executed, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit coming on 26.4.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri I. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Ramesh, Advocate for the defendants 1 to 3 and of Sri P. Ramesh, Advocate for the 4th defendant, upon hearing both sides , upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on record and having stood over till this day, this court DOTH ORDER

AND DECREE

(a)that the defendants to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs.98,292/- (Rupees ninety eight thousand two hundred and ninety two only) with costs and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till realisation, on the principal amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) from out of the estate of the deceased Oruganti Yedukondalu, lying in their hands, and

(b)that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff, an amount of Rs.9,743/- towards costs of the suit, bearing their own costs of the suit, a sum of Rs. Nil (CM &FC not filed)

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 2nd

day of May, 2017.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

ADDANKI

TABLE OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR

DEFENDANTS

Stamps on vakalat Rs. 2-00Rs. stamps on plaint Rs.4,792-00Rs. stamps on process Rs. 200-00Rs. stamps on petitions Rs. ---------Rs. commissioner's fee Rs.----------Rs. Expert fee Rs. ---------Rs. CM&FC NOT FILED Advocate fee Rs.4,649-00Rs. Typing chargesRs. 100-00 Rs.

---------------------------------

Total Rs.9,743-00Rs. NIL

---------------------------------

P.J.C.J.,

ADDANKI

NOTE: Both parties/parties concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non-exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “ the same should produce as and when required by the Court”.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

ADDANKI

Present: Sri S.Vijaya Chandar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Tuesday, this the second (2nd) day of May,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.74 of 2015

Between:

Somu Rajasekhara Reddy, son of Nagi Reddy, aged about 39 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Sankhavarappadu village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC….PLAINTIFF

AND

Minnekanti Ramakrishna, son of Mohan Rao, aged about 36 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Ramakuru village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC….

DEFENDANT

This suit coming on 28.4.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri I. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri V.Veeranarayana, Advocate for the defendant , upon hearing the arguments of the Advocates on record, upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

IThis is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,63,533/- (Rupees one lakh sixty three thousand five hundred and thirty three only) being the principal and interest due under the suit promissory note dated 10.10.2012 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), for subsequent interest, costs and other reliefs.

IIThe averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

It is submitted that the defendant, for his family expenses, having borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff on 10.10.2012 executed an even dated promissory note in his own hand in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with 2 interest at 24% p.a.compoundable yearly rests either to the plaintiff or his order. Subsequently, inspite of demands made by the plaintiff for repayment of the debt both oral and by way of issuance of legal notice

dated 13.04.2015, the defendant failed to discharge the debt. The

defendant is not entitled for the benefits of any Debt Relief Laws, hence the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at contractual rate, but restricting himself to claim simple interest. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

IIIThe averments of the written statement filed by the defendant, in brief, are as follows:-

The defendant denied the averments of the plaint and contended that the plaintiff is running a milk dairy and used to collect milk from ryots of surrounding villages and the defendant agreed to supply milk tot he dairy of the plaintiff and they both entered into an oral agreement and as per the terms of the said agreement, the defendant has to supply milk to the dairy of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has to pay the bill every month and the plaintiff had also agreed to arrange loans to the defendant for development of milk production. The defendant further submits that on the pretext or arranging loan to the defendant and other ryots, the plaintiff obtained empty promissory notes from the defendant, but failed to advance loan, despite demands made by the defendant. Having vexed with the conduct of the plaintiff, the defendant demanded him to return the blank signed pronote, but the plaintiff did not do so. The defendant stopped supplying milk to the dairy of the plaintiff and started sending the milk to another dairy. Thus, the plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant and got the blank signed promissory note filled to suit his convenience and pressed the same into service by filing the suit. The defendant never borrowed any amount and 3 never executed any promissory note much less the suit promissory note and no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note and the same is a brought up one. The defendant further came to know that the plaintiff obtained loan from a bank in the name of the defendant and utilized the loan amount for his own without paying any amount to the defendant and at the time of payment of bills also the plaintiff had deducted some amount from the defendant on the pretext of payment of the alleged bank loan, which was not at all availed by the defendant.

There is no cause of action for filing the suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

IVOn the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:-

1.Whether the suit promissory note is fabrication of the blank signed pronote of the defendant obtained by the plaintiff under the pretext or arranging loan?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount?

3.To what relief?

V.During the course of trial, the plaintiff besides examining himself as P.W.1, examined scribe Ex.A1-suit promissory note as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the defendant, he himself examined as D.W.1 , but no document is marked.

VI.Heard both sides.

VIIIssue No.1:- 1(a)The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent and corroborating with each other and their evidence coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 shows that the defendant having borrowed the amount executed the suit promissory note and failed to discharge the same despite demands made by the plaintiff and hence the suit has to be decreed.

4 1(b)The learned counsel for the plaintiff further argued that since the defendant admitted the execution of the suit promissory note, burden lies on him to rebut the presumption as to passing of consideration under section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act and as the defendant failed to rebut the said presumption, the suit has to be decreed with costs.

2(a)Whereas, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that the evidence of P.W.1 that he is one of the partners of Prasannanjaneya milk dairy and that P.W.2 is manager of the said dairy and that the defendant used to supply milk to their dairy probablizes the contention of the defendant that the suit promissory note was brought into existence in the circumstances stated by him in his written statement and thus the suit has to be dismissed.

3.From the tenor of the contents of the written statement, the defendant admitted the execution of the suit promissory note but contending that the management of Prasannanjaneya Dairy obtained blank promissory note from him as security on the pretext or advancing loans and later they neither arrange loans nor returned the blank promissory note and as the defendant stopped supplying milk to the dairy of the plaintiff and is supplying milk to another dairy, the blank promissory note available with them was filled as if the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and got this suit filed and thus no consideration whatsoever was passed under the suit promissory note.

4. To substantiate his contentions that the defendant borrowed the amount and executed suit promissory note in his favour, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and field his chief examination in tune with the contents of the plaint. P.W.2, who is said to be scribe of the suit 5 promissory note, filed his chief examination corroborating the contentions of the plaintiff regarding borrowal of the amount and execution of the suit promissory note by the defendant.

5.In cross-examination, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that their dairy used to lent money to people to purchase buffalos and for running milk collection centers and that they obtained the signatures of various persons on blank pronotes but neither advance amounts nor returned the blank pronotes. He further deposed that the consideration was sale proceeds of the paddy and the same was paid in Rs.500/- denomination and a month prior to execution of the pronote, the defendant asked him to lend the amount.

6

6.In cross-examination, P.W.2 deposed that there may be about 50 suits filed by the partners of their dairy and that he has been working in

Prasannajaneya dairy since 2005. He admitted that their dairy used to arrange loans to farmers for purchase of buffalos. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that the dairy advanced loan to the defendant and obtained his signatures on blank promissory note and deposed that the dairy has no concern with the suit pronote.

7.From the suggestion posed to P.W.2 that the dairy advanced loan to the defendant and obtained his signatures on blank promissory note clearly suggests that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration. Further, since the defendant admitted the execution of the suit promissory note, the presumption as to passing of consideration arises under section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act and it is for the defendant to rebut the said presumption by producing convincing oral or documentary evidence.

8.In order to rebut the presumption, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and filed his chief examination affidavit in tune with the contents of the written statement. In cross-examination, he, in clear terms admitted that the signatures on Ex.A1 pronote are of him. He admitted that he did not execute Ex.A1 pronote when it was blank and that Prasannanjaneya Dairy is not at all responsible for the suit filed by the plaintiff but denied the suggestion that he had borrowed the suit amount from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 pronote.

9.Thus, except taking the contention that he handed over signed blank pronote to dairy management at the time of taking advance, he did not choose to file any scrap of paper to substantiate the same. More over, though he contends that it is the usual practice of dairy in 7 advancing loans and obtaining blank signed promissory notes, he did not choose to examine any one from whom such pronote was received by the management.

10.It is also relevant here to note that Ex.A4-acknowledgement is a clear proof of service of Ex.A2 notice on the defendant. Admittedly, no reply has been sent. Had there been any truth in the contentions put forth by the defendant, he would have sent a reply putting forth his contentions. The inaction on the part of the defendant also gives out an inference that the defence now taken by him is only an after thought.

11.In view of the above observations and findings, since the defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note but failed to prove the circumstances in which the promissory note came into being by placing any convincing evidence and since the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 clearly shows that the defendant, having borrowed the amount from the plaintiff, executed the suit promissory note and the defendant failed to prove that the suit promissory note is fabrication of the blank signed pronote of the defendant obtained by the plaintiff under the pretext or arranging loan

Accordingly, issue No.1 has been answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

VIII.Issue No.2:- (1) A perusal of the suit promissory note shows that the defendant borrowed the amount for family expenses agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a. compoundable yearly rests. However, the plaintiff had restricted himself to claim simple interest at 24% p.a.

The defendant did not even take the plea that the interest claimed is 8 usurious nor did he file even a scrap of paper to show that he is entitled to any of the Debt Relief Laws or Act IV/1938. Further, it is brought on record through the evidence of the witnesses that the defendant is doing milk business. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount together with simple interest at 24% p.a.

(2)It is not at all the contention of the defendant that he made any part payments towards the debt due under the suit promissory note and a perusal of Ex.A1 document shows that it does not contain any part payment endorsements.

(3)In view of the above observations and findings, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount. Accordingly, issue No.2 has been answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

X.Issue No.3:-

In view of answering issue No.1 holding that the defendant failed to prove that the suit promissory note is fabrication of the blank signed pronote of the defendant obtained by the plaintiff under the pretext or arranging loan and on issue No.2 that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, the suit has to be decreed.

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

Rs.1,63,533/- (Rupees one lakh sixty three thousand five hundred and thirty three only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a.till realization, on the principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

9

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2 nd day of May, 2017.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

ADDANKI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff for defendant

P.W.1: Somu Rajasekhara Reddy D.W.1:Minnekanti

Ramakrishna

P.W.2: Ure Janakirama Sarma

DOCUMENTS MARKED

for plaintiff

Ex.A1/10.10.2012: Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A2/13.04.2015:Office copy of the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant

Ex.A3/13.04.2015:Postal receipt

Ex.A4/ : Postal acknowledgement of the defendant.

For defendant :

NIL

P.J.C.J.

ADDANKI

10

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

ADDANKI

Present: Sri S.Vijaya Chandar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Tuesday, this the second (2nd) day of May,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.74 of 2015

Between:

Somu Rajasekhara Reddy, son of Nagi Reddy, aged about 39 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Sankhavarappadu village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC….PLAINTIFF

AND

Minnekanti Ramakrishna, son of Mohan Rao, aged about 36 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Ramakuru village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC….

DEFENDANT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,63,533/- (Rupees one lakh sixty three thousand five hundred and thirty three only) being the principal and interest due under the suit promissory note dated 10.10.2012 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), for subsequent interest, costs and other reliefs.

Plaint presented on 3.6.2015 Plaint filed on 15.06.2015

Cause of action for the suit arose on 10.10.2012 when the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and executed promissory note, when the defendant failed to discharge the debt despite demanded by the plaintiff both oral and by way of issuance of legal notice on 13.4.2015, at Sankhavarappadu village of Addanki Mandal, wherein the suit promissory note was executed within the jurisdiction of this court.

Suit valuation and court fee:-

The suit is valued at Rs.1,63,533/- being the principal and interest due on the suit promissory note, on which a court fee of Rs.4,126/- is paid under section 20 of ACF & SV Act.

This suit coming on 28.4.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri I. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri V.Veeranarayana, Advocate for the defendant , upon hearing the arguments of the Advocates on record, upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on record, this court doth order and decree

(a) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff, an amount of 11

Rs.1,63,533/- (Rupees one lakh sixty three thousand five hundred and thirty three only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a.till realization, on the principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)

(b) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff, an amount of Rs.10,936/- (Rupees ten thousand nine hundred and thirty six only) towards costs of the suit bearing his own costs of the suit, a sum of Rs. NIL (CM& FC not filed)

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

ADDANKI

TABLE OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Stamps on vakalat Rs. 2-00 stamps on plaint Rs.4,126-00 stamps on process Rs. 100-00 stamps on petitions Rs. 2-00 stamps afd. On docts. Rs.---------- Advocate fee Rs.6,606-00 CM&FCnot filed Typing charges Rs. 100-00

--------------------------------

TOTAL Rs.10,936-00NIL

----------------------------------

PRL.JR.CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ADDANKI

C.C.No. 257/2014

Complaint :STATE: Sub Inspector of Police, Martur Police station,

Description of the Accused:Shaik Nisar Ahammad @ Nisar, S/o. Mahaboob Saheb, aged about 29 years, Muslim, Kalifamohalla Village, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State, driver of Eicher Van AP 02 W/2968

Offence: Under section 304-A I.P.C.and section 134(b) r/w. 187 of Motor Vehicle Act.

Plea of the accused :Not guilty

Finding of the Court :Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 304-A I.P.C. and section 134(b) r/w. 187 of M.V. Act and as such he is acquitted of the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no property in this case, as such no specific order.

DATES OF

Offence 23/24-09-2010 Complaint 24.09.2010 Apprehension of Accused 27.09.2010 Released on bail 28.09.2010 Commencement of trial 09.01.2015 Closure of trial 09.03.2015 Date of judgment 04.05.2017

Explanation for the delay:- This case was taken on file against the accused under Sec.304-A I.P.C., section 134(b) r/w. 187 of M.V. Act against the accused on 10.11.2010. On 14.12.2010, copies of documents are furnished to them under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. On

2

12.8.20134, the accused were examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and explained him the accusation under sections 304-A I.P.C., section 134(b) r/w. 187 of M.V. Act , for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 9.1.2015, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and

Ex.P1 was marked. On 23.1.2015, P.W.3 was examined and Ex.P2 was marked. On 6.2.2015, P.W.4 was examined and Exs.P3 and P4 were marked. ON 20.02.2015, P.W.5 was examined and Ex.P5 was marked.

On 9.3.2015, P.W.6 was examined and Exs.P6 P9 were marked and prosecution evidence was closed. When the matter was posted for examination of the accused to 17.3.2015, he did not appear before this court and hence NBW was issued against him and on 4.5.2017 he appeared before this court and filed a petition under section 70(2) of

Cr.PC.and the NBW was recalled. Since the NBW against the accused could not be executed the matter underwent adjournments from 17.3.2015 to 4.5.2017. Arguments were heard and judgment was

pronounced on 4.5.2017. Hence, the delay.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOIR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

Copy submitted to :-

The Hon'ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

3

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDANKI

Present: Sri S. Vijayachandar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Thursday, this the fourth (4th) day of May, 2017

C.C.No.257 OF 2014

Between:

State: Sub- Inspector of Police, Martur Police Station … complainant

And

Shaik Nisar Ahammad @ Nisar, S/o. Mahaboob Saheb, aged about 29 years, Muslim, Kalifamohalla Village, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State, driver of Eicher Van AP 02 W/2968… Accused

This case coming on4.5.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri Y. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The sub Inspector of Police, Martur Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.99/2010 of his station for the offences punishable under sections 304-A

I.P.C. and section 134(b) r/w. 187 of Motor Vehicle Act.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a) The accused is the driver and deceased is cleaner of Eicher Van bearing No.

AP 02 W/2986 and L.W.6/Subhan Riyaz basha is its owner. P.W.1 is driver and P.W.2 is cleaner of the lorry AP 27 Y/2367. P.W.1 left pothur near Kavali with load of cotton for

Guntur on the intervening night of 23/24-9-2010 and they came near Kanakadurga temple, Martur at about 5.30 hours on 24.9.2010 and P.W.1 parked his lorry on the road margin there and got down the lorry along with the cleaner to take tea there and by the time, the accused, while proceeding from Mulbagal to Vijayawada with loan of tomato arrived there driving the van in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over his vehicle and dashed behind the stationed lorry of P.W.1 and as a result, the cabin of the van damaged and deceased died on the spot due to multiple injuries and struck up

4

in the damaged cabin. P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 witnessed the occurrence. Then, P.W.1 came to

Martur P.S.and gave report of the cocurrence and P.W.6/ASI of Police, Martur

P.S.,registered the report as a case in Cr.No.9/2010 under sectons 304-A I.P.C.of Martur

P.S. and investigated into.

(b) During the course of investigation, P.W.6 visited the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators viz., P.W.4/Boppudi Sanjeevarayudu and L.W.8-Pathan

Karimullah, prepared an observation report (Ex.P3), he secured the presence of the witnesses, examined them and recorded their detailed statements. P.W.6 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdors viz., P.W.4/Boppudi

Sanjeevarayudu, L.W.9-Alamuri Malleswarao and L.W.10- Bathula Durga Rao under cover of Ex.P4-Inquest Report and subjected the dead body of the deceased to autopsy.

L.W.12/MVI, Darsi, I/c. Chirala, inspected the crime vehicle on the requisition of P.W.6.

(c)On 27.9.2010, P.W.6 arrested the accused and sent him for remand to judicial custody and later L.W.14/M.Seshagiri Rao, Sub Inspector of police, Martur

P.S.took up further investigation. L.W.11/Dr.S.S.Reddy, CAS, Community Health

Centre, Chilakaluripet , who conducted autopsy, issued P.M.Certificate opining that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to vital organs. After completion of investigation, L.W.14/M.Seshagiri Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Martur P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-A I.P.C. and section 134(b) r/w. 187 of M.V. Act.

3.Originally, this case was taken on file as C.C.328 of 2010 against the accused for the offences under sections 304-A I.P.C. and section 134(b) r/w. 187 of M.V. Act by the

Additional Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Addanki. On appearance of the accused,

copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

Subsequently, this case was received by transfer from Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Addanki to this Court as per the District Court’s proceedings in Dis.No.10296

dated 18.09.2014 and the same was renumbered as C.C.No.257 of 2014. Later the

accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating grounds

5

appearing against him for the offences punishable under section 304-A I.P.C. and section 134(b) r/w. 187 of M.V. Act, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked Exs. P1 to P9. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he denied and stated that he had nok defence evidence on his behalf.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 304-A I.P.C. and section 134 (b) r/w. 187 of M.V.Act beyond reasonable doubt?

7.POINT:-

(a)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 , 4 to 6 coupled with Exs.P1, P3 to P9 clearly shows that the accused drove the tipper lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and the evidence let in by the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to hold that the accused is liable for punishment for the charges levelled against him.

(b)Whereas the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. Even

P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the alleged eyewitnesses for the accident did not spell out even a word against the accused and they clear deposed that they did not see the driver of the accident and thus there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the accident and hence the accused may be acquitted.

(c)This is a case of fatal road accident that occurred on 23/24-9-2010 at about 5.30 hours on 24.9.2010 near Kanakadurga temple, Martur in which the deceased died on the spot. To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 304-A I.P.C., the

6

prosecution has to establish the following ingredients to make out the offence under section 304-A I.P.C. i.e. (1) that the death of person in question; (2) that the accused caused such death; (3) that such act of accused was rash or negligent, although it did not amount to culpable homicide.

(d)In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as six (6) witnesses from out of the fourteen (14) witnesses listed in the charge sheet.

(e)P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.2 is another eyewitness to the occurrence. They are the driver and cleaner of the lorry which was hit by the crime vehicle while was stationed on the road.

(f) P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant and who is cited as direct witness, deposed that on the night of 24.9.2010 started from Singarayakonda with a cotton load to go to

Guntur and at about 5.30 a.m., he stopped the lorry in the road margin on left side to take tea and while they are taking tea one lorry coming from Ongole side dashed his stationed lorry on its back and due to that the cleaner of the crime vehicle bearing

No.AP 02 W/2968 died on the spot. He further deposed that he did not see the lorry driver on the date of accident.

(g)Thus, as per the chief examination evidence of P.W.1 itself shows that he did not see the lorry driver on the date of accident.

(h)P.W.2 too deposed that he did not observe the crime lorry driver as he was having tea in the hotel and he does not remember the number of the crime vehicle.

(i)As could be seen from the cross-examination of P.W.1, there is no much dispute regarding the involvement of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 02 W/2968 and it is only disputed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of P.W.1 only the accident occurred. This court is unable to digest the contention of the defence that the accident occurred due to the negligence of P.W.1 since his lorry was stationed by the side of the road, that too in the absence of the contention by the defence that P.W.1 has parked his vehicle by the side of the road without taken proper precautions.

7

(j)Thus, since the defence did not lay much stress on the involvement of the crime vehicle, it can be safely concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 02 W/2968 by its driver. But, since

P.Ws.1 and 2 ,who are said to be the direct witnesses to the accident, themselves deposed that they did not see the driver of the vehicle on that day, there is absolutely no material on record to connect the accused with the accident.

(k)Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the accused on the fateful day of the accident.

(l)From the above, it is evident that though the prosecution could prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, but failed to prove that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the material point of time. Thus, it is not safe to convict the accused for the offence under section 304-

A of I.P.C.

(m)Now coming to the other offences under section 134(b) r/w. 187 of M.V.Act, as discussed above, since the prosecution failed to place any material on record to show that the accused was the driver at the time of the accident, it can be safely held that the prosecution failed to prove the offences under section 134(b) r/w. 187 of M.V.Act and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal of the said offence.

(n)In view of the above discussion and findings, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 304-A I.P.C. and sections 134(b) r/w. 187 of M.V. Act and he is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

8.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 304-A

I.P.C. and section 134(b) r/w. 187 of M.V. Act and as such he is acquitted of the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no property in this case, as such no specific order.

8

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 4th day of May, 2017 .

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WINTESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution for defence

P.W.1: G. Suresh NONE P.W.2: R. Hari P.W.3: Ch. Vijaya Babu P.W.4: B. Sanjeeva Rayudu P.W.5: K. Subba Rao P.W.6: B. Seshagiri Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:

Ex.P1/24.09.2010: Report of P.W.1 given by him to police Ex.P2/24.09.2010: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P3/24.09.2010: Scene observation report Ex.P4/24.09.2010: Inquest report of the deceased Ex.P5/24.09.2010: 161 (3) Cr.P.C.statement of P.W.5 Ex.P6/ 24.09.2010: First information Report in Cr.No.99/2010 of Martur Police Station Ex.P7/ : Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P8/29.10.2010 : Postmortem certificate Ex.P9/06.10.2010 : Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report

For Defence:

NIL

PRL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

ADDANKI

Present: Sri S.Vijaya Chandar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Thursday, this the fourth (4th) day of May,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.46 of 2017

Between:

Nrusimhadri Jayaramulu, Son of late Jaggaiah, aged about 65 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Addanki Town and Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC….PLAINTIFF AND Grandhi Subba Ratnamma, W/o. Late Venkateswarlu, aged about 51 years, Hindu, business, resident of Addanki Town, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC …. DEFENDANT

This suit coming on this day for payment of batta in the presence of Sri M. Subhash Babu, Advocate for the plaintiff and he filed memo stating that both parties compromised as adjusted out of court, upon perusal of the material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,86,120/- (Rupees one lakh eighty six thousand one hundred and twenty only) being the principal and interest due on the suit promissory note dated 7.6.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty two thousand only) executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

2.This suit is advanced from 27.7.2017 to this day as per order in

I.A.No.1190/2017 dated 4.5.2017. Plaintiff counsel filed a memo stating that both parties are compromised as adjusted out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence, suit is dismissed as adjusted out of court without costs.

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 4 th day of May, 2017.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

No oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side.

PRL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

2

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ADDANKI

Present: Sri S.Vijaya Chandar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Thursday, this the fourth (4th) day of May,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.46 of 2017

Between:

Nrusimhadri Jayaramulu, Son of late Jaggaiah, aged about 65 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Addanki Town and Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC….PLAINTIFF AND Grandhi Subba Ratnamma, W/o. Late Venkateswarlu, aged about 51 years, Hindu, business, resident of Addanki Town, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC …. DEFENDANT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,86,120/- (Rupees one lakh eighty six thousand one hundred and twenty only) being the principal and interest due on the suit promissory note dated 7.6.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty two thousand only) executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Plaint presented on 22.02.2017 Plaint filed on 23.02.2017

Cause of action for the suit arose on 7.6.2015 when the defendant borrowed Rs.40,000/- and executed pronote in favour of the plaintiff, when the defendant failed to discharge despite demands made by the plaintiff both oral and written, at Addanki, where the suit pronote was executed, within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation of the suit:-

The suit is valued at Rs.1,768,120/- being the principal and interest due on the suit pronote, on which a court fee of Rs.4,326/- is paid under section 20 of ACF & SV Act.

This suit coming on this day for payment of batta in the presence of Sri M. Subhash Babu, Advocate for the plaintiff and he filed memo stating that both parties compromised as adjusted out of court, upon perusal of the material available on record, this court doth order and decree

(a)that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as adjusted out of court

(b) that there be no order as to costs of the suit

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 4 th day of May, 2017.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

ADDANKI

Present: Sri S.Vijaya Chandar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Thursday, this the fourth (4th) day of May,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.47 of 2017

Between:

Nrusimhadri Jayaramulu, Son of late Jaggaiah, aged about 65 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Addanki Town and Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC….PLAINTIFF AND Grandhi Subba Ratnamma, W/o. Late Venkateswarlu, aged about 51 years, Hindu, business, resident of Addanki Town, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC …. DEFENDANT

This suit coming on this day for payment of batta in the presence of Sri M. Subhash Babu, Advocate for the plaintiff and he filed memo stating that both parties compromised as adjusted out of court, upon perusal of the material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,86,120/- (Rupees one lakh eighty six thousand one hundred and twenty only) being the principal and interest due on the suit promissory note dated 7.6.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty two thousand only) executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

2.This suit is advanced from 27.7.2017 to this day as per order in

I.A.No.1190/2017 dated 4.5.2017. Plaintiff counsel filed a memo stating that both parties are compromised as adjusted out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence, suit is dismissed as adjusted out of court without costs.

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 4 th day of May, 2017.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

No oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side.

PRL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

2

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ADDANKI

Present: Sri S.Vijaya Chandar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Thursday, this the fourth (4th) day of May,2017

ORIGINAL SUIT No.47 of 2017

Between:

Nrusimhadri Jayaramulu, Son of late Jaggaiah, aged about 65 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Addanki Town and Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC….PLAINTIFF AND Grandhi Subba Ratnamma, W/o. Late Venkateswarlu, aged about 51 years, Hindu, business, resident of Addanki Town, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District, Addanki JCJC …. DEFENDANT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,86,120/- (Rupees one lakh eighty six thousand one hundred and twenty only) being the principal and interest due on the suit promissory note dated 7.6.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty two thousand only) executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Plaint presented on 22.02.2017 Plaint filed on 23.02.2017

Cause of action for the suit arose on 7.6.2015 when the defendant borrowed Rs.40,000/- and executed pronote in favour of the plaintiff, when the defendant failed to discharge despite demands made by the plaintiff both oral and written, at Addanki, where the suit pronote was executed, within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation of the suit:-

The suit is valued at Rs.1,768,120/- being the principal and interest due on the suit pronote, on which a court fee of Rs.4,326/- is paid under section 20 of ACF & SV Act.

This suit coming on this day for payment of batta in the presence of Sri M. Subhash Babu, Advocate for the plaintiff and he filed memo stating that both parties compromised as adjusted out of court, upon perusal of the material available on record, this court doth order and decree

(a)that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as adjusted out of court

(b) that there be no order as to costs of the suit

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 4 th day of May, 2017.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI