Shaik Baba Fakroddin

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDYAL.

Present:- Sri.Shaik Baba Fakroddin,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

TUESDAY, THE 12 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.

O.S.No.283/2011

1. Doodekula Nadipi Hissaini, age 58 years, S/o.Late Doodekula Kamali, Doodekula Caste,

2. Doodekula Rasool Bi, age 50 years,

W/o.Doodekula Nadipi Hussaini, Doodekula Caste. ... Plaintiffs

-Vs-

1. Doodekula Bazaaramma, age 56 years, W/o.Doodekula Kamali Late, S/o.Kamali,

2. Doodekula Pedda Swamy, age 34 years, S/o.Bazaramma and Kamali, Grand son of Late Doodekula Kamali, Both are Doodekula Caste, Agriculturists, Yerraguntla Village, Bandi-Atmakur Mandal,

3. Boggula Janardhan, age 41 years, S/o.Boggula Anjaneyulu, R/o.H.No.24/65-2, Harijanawada, Nandyal,

4. Poola Yesu, age 35 years, S/o.Poola Yohan, R/o.H.No.3-165, Yerraguntla Village,

Bandi-Atmakur Mandal. ... Defendants

This suit is coming on 06.12.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.D.Ahammed Hussain, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri.K.Hussain Basha and S.Obul Reddy, Advocates for Defendants 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 by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking for

Permanent Injunction over the suit schedule property to restrain the defendants, their men, agents, legal heirs, executors etc., either from 2 trespassing into the suit schedule properties or from causing any sort of inconvenience for peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties and costs of the suit.

2.The brief facts averred in the plaint are, that the first plaintiff and one Late Bala Hussain are sons of late Doodekula Kamali. Defendants 3 & 4 are strangers of the plaintiffs. 1St defendant is wife and 2nd defendant is son of

Late Kamali. Due to oral partition among the brothers after the death of their father the suit schedule property fell to the share of 1st plaintiff. Among the brothers Dudekula Bala Hussaini died unmarried before 20 years leaving his two brothers as his legal heirs. Subsequently, the husband of 1st defendant and 2nd defendant also died. Since the oral partition the 1st plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On 11.06.2002 the 1st defendant orally gifted the items 2 and 3 of suit schedule property to his wife who is 2nd plaintiff and she took possession of the same from her husband i.e., 1st plaintiff. So, both the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

3.The defendants 1 and 2 who are the relatives of plaintiff and also dayadis of the plaintiffs and they have no good dealings with these plaintiffs.

The husband of 1st defendant and subsequently the 1st and 2nd defendants sold away their entire share of the properties. While the defendants 1 to 4 who are having any right at all high handedly tried to trespass into the suit schedule properties and they bore grudge against these plaintiffs by way of jealous and they also taking active support of defendants 3 and 4 who are harizans and they are threatening these plaintiffs with dire consequences and tried to cause loss to the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

4.The defendants 1 to 4 filed written statement admitting that the defendants 1 and 2 are the residents of Yerraguntla Village, belongs to

Dudekula Caste by following the muslim rites, customs and usages. It is also admitted that the plaintiffs are wife and husbands belongs to Dudekula Caste 3 and residents of Yerraguntla Village. It is admitted that the defendant No.1 is wife and the defendant No.2 is the son of Late Dudekula Kamali. It is also admitted that the said late Dudekula Kamali and plaintiff No.1, one Late Bala

Hussaini are brothers and sons of Late Dudekula Kamali @ Dudekula Kamala

Sab. It is admitted that the defendant No.1 is the sister-in-law of plaintiff

No.1, the defendant No.2 is the brother's son of plaintiff No.1. It is admitted that the defendant No.3 is the resident of Nandyal and the defendant No.4 is the resident of Yerraguntla Village. The other pleadings of the plaintiff were denied by the defendants with regard to the devolution of the suit schedule property with the plaintiffs. It is further contended that the plaintiffs with a malafide intention never stated that the properties which fallen to the share of husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2. The plaintiff No.1 have no right to gift the item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff No.2 by which the plaintiff No.2 never get any right over the said properties. The title deed issued in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of items 2 and 3 of the suit schedule property reveals that she got the property under enjoyment. The same are contra to the pleadings of plaintiffs.

The pleadings in para No.8 of the plaint are false. All the documents of the plaintiff are created one.

5.In fact one Dudekula Kamali @ Dudekula Kamala Sab and his wife

Dudekula Hussainamma had 3 sons i.e., (1) Dudekula Kamali (the father of defendant No.2 and husband of defendant No.1), (2) Dudekula Nadipi Hussaini (the plaintiff No.1) and (3) Dudekula Bala Hussaini. The parents of them were died about 25 years ago leaving behind the above said 3 sons as legal representatives to succeed their estate. Subsequently the 3rd son Dudekula

Bala Hussaini also died unmarried leaving behind him the plaintiff No.1 and the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2 i.e., Dudekula Kamali as his legal representatives. Both of them entered into a oral partition. The written statement mentioned A schedule properties were fallen to the share of defendants 1 and 2's predecessor i.e., Dudekula Kamali and the B schedule 4 properties in the written statement were fallen to the share of plaintiff. From then onwards they were in possession and enjoyment of the properties fallen to their shares. There is no written document for the said partition and hence their names were not mutated in the revenue records and no pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued them. But the total properties were stands in the name of their father Dudekula Kamali and their grandfather Dudekula

Hussaini. After the partition the said Dudekula Kamali and his younger brother the plaintiff No.1 have sold an extent of 3 acres comprised in Sy.No.448/1A and 462/1 of Tirupadu Village limits. The said Dudekula Kamali also sold an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.395/2 of Yerraguntla Village limits. He also sold an extent of Ac.2.25 cents fallen to his share. The plaintiff No.1 sold

Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.Nos.441/1A and 462/1 and a land for an extent of

Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No.417 of Yerraguntla Village and also a land for an extent of Ac.1.60 cents of Tirupadu Revenue Village. Thus the plaintiff No.1 sold a total extent of Ac.4.20 cents. Dudekula Kamali died and leaving behind him the defendants 1 & 2 as his legal heirs. After his demise the defendants 1 and 2 have been in possession and enjoyment of remaining A schedule properties as absolute owners.

6.Subsequently the defendants 1 and 2 sold an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.257, Ac.075 cents in Sy.No.398/B2, A2 and an extent of

Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.448/A1A of Yerraguntla Village to defendants 3 and 4 under a registered sale deed, dt.09.06.2011, thereby delivered possession on the same day. The plaintiffs created false document to grab the suit schedule property and filed the suit by suppressing the material facts. There is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7.After filing of the written statement on hearing both the parties and on perusal of pleadings the learned predecessor in office framed the following issued for consideration during the trial. The said issues are:

5

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?.

2. To what Relief?.

8.To prove the above said issues on behalf of the plaintiff PW.1 examined, Ex.A1 to A6 were marked. At this stage the defendants 1 to 4 called absent and the counsel for the defendants requested the court to call the parties. Hence as the defendants 1 to 4 were absent they had been set exparte.

9.On closure of trial heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff in summing up of the suit. Perused the material on record.

ISSUE NO.1

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

10.To prove this issue on behalf of the plaintiff he got examined as

PW1. He reiterated the facts in the plaint in his chief examination affidavit and relied upon Exs.A1 to A6.

11.The evidence of PW1 shows in the incidental title of the plaintiffs over schedule property and their possession and enjoyment over the same.

Exs.A1 to A6 are the material documents showing the proof of plaintiffs case as averred in the plaint. The evidence of plaintiff is unchallenged as the defendants 1 to 4 remained exparte.

12.Hence in view of the evidence of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to A6 it is clear that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule items 1 to 3 as averred in the plaint. The evidence of PW1 also shows the apprehension and the danger lies against the plaintiffs in the hands of defendants.

13.Hence in view of the aforesaid reasons this issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

Issue No.2: To what relief:

From the findings on issue No.1 the suit is decreed with costs.

6

13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, by granting a permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants, restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and from trespassing into the suit schedule property.

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

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of December, 2017.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

PW.1: D.Nadipi Hussaini Nil

Exhibits marked for FOR PLAINTIFF:- Ex.A1 : Pattadar pass book bearing Patta No.121 stood in the name of plaintiff No.1 Ex.A2 : Pattadar pass book bearing Patta No.456 stood in the name of plaintiff No.2 Ex.A3 : C/c of Record of rights, dt.26.07.2011 Ex.A4 : C/c of Adangal/pahani Register, dt.26.07.2011 Ex.A5 : Regd. Simple mortgage deed, dt.04.05.2004 Ex.A6 : Regd. Discharged receipt, dt.14.05.2009

FOR DEFENDANTS:- Nil

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDYAL.

Present:- Sri.Shaik Baba Fakroddin,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

TUESDAY, THE 12 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.

O.S.No.283/2011

1. Doodekula Nadipi Hissaini, age 58 years, S/o.Late Doodekula Kamali, Doodekula Caste,

2. Doodekula Rasool Bi, age 50 years,

W/o.Doodekula Nadipi Hussaini, Doodekula Caste. ... Plaintiffs

-Vs-

1. Doodekula Bazaaramma, age 56 years, W/o.Doodekula Kamali Late, S/o.Kamali,

2. Doodekula Pedda Swamy, age 34 years, S/o.Bazaramma and Kamali, Grand son of Late Doodekula Kamali, Both are Doodekula Caste, Agriculturists, Yerraguntla Village, Bandi-Atmakur Mandal,

3. Boggula Janardhan, age 41 years, S/o.Boggula Anjaneyulu, R/o.H.No.24/65-2, Harijanawada, Nandyal,

4. Poola Yesu, age 35 years, S/o.Poola Yohan, R/o.H.No.3-165, Yerraguntla Village,

Bandi-Atmakur Mandal. ... Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking for

Permanent Injunction over the suit schedule property to restrain the defendants, their men, agents, legal heirs, executors etc., either from trespassing into the suit schedule properties or from causing any sort of inconvenience for peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties and costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of

Sri.D.Ahammed Hussain, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri.K.Hussain Basha and 8

S.Obul Reddy, Advocates for Defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

Plaint presented on 02.08.2011 and filed on 02.08.2011. J.V. of

Rs.10,000/- and a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid U/Sec.26(c) of A.P.C.F. and

S.V. Act.

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed, granting a permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants, restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and from trespassing into the suit schedule property; and

2. that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.2,551/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 12th day of December, 2017.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

MEMO OF COSTS

For plaintiffs For defendants

1. Stamp on plaint Rs. 786-00---

2. Stamp on vakalat Rs. 2-00 ---

3. Stamp on process Rs. 183-00 ---

4. Sr. Advocate feeRs. 1,500-00 ---

5. Typing chargesRs. 50-00 ---

6. Writing charges Rs. 30-00 --- –---------------------------------------------------- TOTAL : Rs. 2,551-00 –---------------------------------------------------- 9

SCHEDULE

Lands situated at Yerraguntla Village limits in Bandi Atmakur Mandal and

Sub District in Nandyal Registration District in Kurnool District with following particulars:-

1. S.No.448/A1 S.Punji Extent- Ac 1.50 cents Hec.0.608

Name of the land : Gayalakadi Chenu

Boundaries:

East : Road

West : Mallu Siva Reddy Land

North : Kukka Pullaiah Land

South : Chakali Naganna Land

2. S.No.257 pyki S.Punji Extent- Ac 2.50 cents Hec.1.012

Name of the land : Bheemavaram Dhova Chenu

Boundaries:

East : Dareddy Siva Reddy Land

West : Keshalu and Thimmothi Land

North : Siva Reddy Sunki Reddy and Ramudu Land

South : Pulimaddi Venkatareddy Land

3. S.No.398/B2A S.Punji Extent- Ac 0.75 cents Hec.0.304

Name of the land :

Boundaries:

East : Bobbala Siva Reddy Land

West : Bobbala Siva Reddy Land

North : N.Subb Reddy Land

South : Pala Thimma Reddy Land

PJCJ., NDL.,

FAC/JMFC., NDL.

1

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

Present:- Sri Shaik Baba Fakroddin,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal

Monday, 24 th day of March, 2020

O.S.No.312/2018

Thurpunati Thimmeswarudu, aged 48 years, S/o T. Kondaiah, Hindu, agriculturist, R/o H.No.13-87, Panyam Village and Mandal, Kurnool District …Plaintif

Vs

1. Gorumanukonda Prasada Rao, aged 40 years, S/o G. Naga Thimmaiah, Hindu, working as Asst. Technical Officer, SRBC Circle No.1, SRBC Colony, Nandyal town and mandal, Kurnool District,

2. Marati Nageswara Rao, aged 42 years, S/o Marati Kasinatha Rao, Hindu, Working as Senior Assistant, Previously Working at SRBC, Circle No.1, Nandyal, Now working at SRBC Division No.2, Sub Division No.3, SRBC Colony, Panyam Villlage and Mandal, Kurnool District …Defendants

This suit is coming on 20.3.2020, for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Rama Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the Plaintif, and Sri G. Mahanandi, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.1,83,612/- based upon the suit promissory note, dated 29.7.2015, for a sum of Rs.1,07,000/-.

2. The brief facts averred in the Plaint are that on 29.7.2015, the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- from the plaintif for their family necessities and as security for repayment of the said amount, they have executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintif at Panyam, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintif or his order and delivered the promissory note on the same day. Inspite of several oral demands made by the plaintif, the defendants did not choose to repay the same due under the promissory 2 note. The defendants are not an agriculturists, the plaintif is claiming interest at contract rate i.e., 24% p.a. Hence the suit.

3.The defendants filed written statement and contended, that it is true that on 29.7.2015 they jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.1,07,000/- from the plaintif for their family necessities and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif at Panyam Village, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a.

4. They submits that the alleged demands are false and incorrect. There are no demands made by the plaintif on them to discharge the suit promissory note amount. They have been paying interest every month. Further 1st defendant paid the entire principal amount also on 26.1.2018 to the plaintif in the presence of D.

Kaladhar Reddy. After discharging the entire amount, he requested the plaintif to return the promissory note. The plaintif stated that it was misplaced and when it was traced out, he will handed over the same to them. Having confidence on the plaintif, he did not pressurize the plaintif to return the promissory note.

5. They humbly submits that they got acquaintance with each other and previously there were money transactions between them and plaintif. Due to misunderstandings in between them, they cleared of all the debts due to the plaintif and stopped transactions with him. Keeping the disputes in mind, the plaintif has filed this false suit for getting wrongful gain. Plaintif is put to strict proof of the alleged demands made on them. There is no cause of action for the suit and therefore the Hon’ble Court may be please to dismiss the suit.

6. After filing of the written statement of the defendant this court observed

Section 89 C.P.C to settle the dispute between the parties by way of alternative dispute resolution system, but no settlement arrived, accordingly after hearing both the parties and on perusal of pleadings this court proceeded to frame the following issues for consideration during trial:-

1. Whether the discharge of suit promissory note debt pleaded by the defendants is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

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

3. To what relief?

3

7. To prove the above said issues on behalf of the plaintif, PW.1 examined and

Ex.A1 is marked. On behalf of defendant, Dw.1 examined and no exhibits were marked.

8. On closure of trial, the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintif and the arguments of learned counsel for the defendant in summing up of the suit.

9. Perused the material on record.

10. Issue No.1 -

1. Whether the discharge of suit promissory note debt pleaded by the defendants is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

11. The defendants admitted the suit transaction and execution of suit Ex.A1 and hence as per Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act the said facts needs no further proof. The plea of the defendants is, that they paid the interest to the plaintif regularly on every month, the defendant No.1 paid the entire principal amount also on 26.1.2018 in the presence of one D. Kaladhar Reddy but the plaintif did not return the suit Ex.A1, stating that it was misplaced.

12. Accordingly, the onus to prove the said discharge is on the defendants. In order to prove their case, on their behalf Dw.1 (defendant No.1) examined. His evidence disclosing the facts enumerated in the written statement. During the cross examination he deposed that he is working as Assistant Engineer, SRBC Sub

Division No.3 at Panyam in Division No.1 at Nandyal. He admitted that the plaintif demanded him 2 or 3 times to pay the suit promissory note amount. He deposed that he paid the entire promissory note amount in the presence of D. Kaladhar

Reddy after verifying the suit promissory note. He admitted that he did not file any receipt with regard to discharge of suit Ex.A1 principal amount.

13. On behalf of the plaintif, the plaintif examined as Pw.1. His chief examination is the extraction of plaint averments. During his cross examination he deposed that he is an agriculturist but not a money lender. He know the defendants from the year 2014. They are working in SRBC at Panyam Village.He denied the plea of discharge suggested to him.

4

14. The above material establishes, that both the defendants are the government servants, working as Assistant Engineer and Senior Assistants. Thereby it is clear that the defendants are the literates having knowledge of financial transactions. It is also established that no documentary proof filed on behalf of the defendants to establish that they paid interest to the plaintif on every month, the defendant No.1 discharged the entire principal amount under Ex.A1 on 26.1.2018 in the presence of one D. Kaladhar Reddy. It is also established that the defendants never establishes a fact that the plaintif also having acquaintance with the said D. Kaladhar Reddy. It is also established that said D. Kaladhar Reddy never examined before the court.

15. When the plea of the defendants taken into consideration, “ they pleaded that after discharging the entire amount, the defendant No.1 requested the plaintif to return the promissory note. But the plaintif informed that it was misplaced, will hand over the same whenever it is traced out”. Thereby it is clear that by the time of discharging the suit promissory note debt in the presence of D. Kaladhar Reddy, the suit Ex.A1 was misplaced by the plaintif (as per the plea of the defendants).

Whereas during the cross examination Dw.1 categorically deposed that after verifying Ex.A1 he discharged the principal amount to the plaintif in the presence of

D. Kaladhar Reddy. This is a glaring contradiction made out in the evidence of Dw.1.

Thereby the plea of misplacement of Ex.A1 by the time of discharge of promissory note found to be false.

16. On the other hand the evidence of Pw.1 does not have any contradictory material to the case of plaintif. The evidence of Pw.1 no way corroborating the case of defendants. Thus the above appreciation clichingly establishes that the defendants failed to prove the discharge pleaded by them either by documentary or oral by examining said D. Kaladhar Reddy.

17. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintif.

18. Issue No.2:-

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

5

19. The plaintif made the suit claim as per the terms and agreement enshrined under suit Ex.A1. As per the finding on issue No.1, when the suit Ex.A1 binds the defendants, the terms thereon also binds them. As per Section 79 of Negotiable

Instruments Act the plaintif is entitled to claim the interest @ 24% p.a.,All these shows that the plaintif is entitled for the suit claim.

20. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

21. Issue No.3:-

3. To what relief?

22. From the findings on issues 1 and 2, the suit is decreed with costs.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendants to pay the plaintif a sum of Rs.1,83,612/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,07,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of March, 2020.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS P.W.1: Thurpunati Thimmeswarudu D.W.1: Gorumanukonda Prasada Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintif Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dated 29.7.2015. For Defendants: Nil

PJCJ, NDL.

1

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

Present:- Sri Shaik Baba Fakroddin,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal

Monday, 23 rd day of March, 2020

O.S.No.438/2018

Meda Buddudu, aged 56 years, S/o M. Pullaiah, Hindu, Employee, Working as Conductor, APSRTC, R/o H.No.28-792-A, NGO Colony, Nandyal town, Kurnool District …Plaintif

Vs

Akumalla Manohar, aged 48 years, S/o A. Chinna Thimmaiah, Hindu, RTC Constable (Security Guard), E.No.676046, APSRTC Depot, Koilakuntla Post and Mandal, Kurnool District …Defendant

This suit is coming on 19.3.2020, for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Syed Sardar, Advocate for the Plaintif, and Sri M. Abdul Kalam and Sri A. Siva Lakshmi Reddy, Advocates for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.2,41,100/- based upon the suit promissory note, dated 7.3.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.

2. The brief facts averred in the Plaint are that on 7.3.2016 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintif for his family necessities and as security for repayment of the said amount, he has executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintif at Nandyal, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintif or his order and delivered the promissory note on the same day. Inspite of several oral demands made by the plaintif, the defendant did not choose to repay the same due under the promissory note. The defendant is an employee, the plaintif is claiming interest at contract rate i.e., 24% p.a. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations in the plaint and contended, that he did not borrow Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintif on 7.3.2016 and did not execute promissory note in favour of the plaintif at Nandyal, agreeing 2 to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. There are disputes between plaintif and him. The plaintif fabricated suit promissory note by forgery of the signature of the defendant, the suit promissory note does not contain the signature of him and it is a forgery. The cause of action alleged is false, and therefore the Hon’ble Court may be please to dismiss the suit.

4. After filing of the written statement of the defendant this court observed

Section 89 C.P.C to settle the dispute between the parties by way of alternative dispute resolution system, but no settlement arrived, accordingly after hearing both the parties and on perusal of pleadings this court proceeded to frame the following issues for consideration during trial:-

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 7.3.2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the suit claim as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. To prove the above said issues on behalf of the plaintif, PWs.1 and 2 were ex- amined and Ex.A1 is marked. On behalf of defendant, Dw.1 examined and no ex- hibits were marked.

6. On closure of trial, the arguments of learned counsel forthe plaintif and the ar- guments of learned counsel for the defendant in summing up of the suit.

7. Perused the material on record.

8. Issue No.1 -

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 7.3.2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

The plaintif being Pw.1 deposed in evidence, that he is working as conductor in APSRTC, deriving a salary of Rs.60,000/- per month. He deposed that the defendant being a constable in APSRTC Koilakuntla deriving an income of

Rs.40,000/- per month. The defendant residing near Ramakrishna School, Sanjeeva

Nagar, Nandyal. Prior to the suit transaction the plaintif never lend any amount to the defendant. The plaintif lend an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 7.3.2016 to the defendant.

3

9. Pw.2 who is the attestor of suit Ex.A1 deposed that he worked as driver in

APSRTC and retired from service. He deposed, that Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant on 7.3.2016 to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. Suit Ex.A1 was scribed by one

K.S. Lakshmaiah. At the time of suit transaction, Pws. 1 and 2, the defendant and said Lakshmaiah were present. It was executed at 12.00 pm in the house of plaintif.

10. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 corroborating each other to establish a fact, that on 7.3.2016 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintif and executed suit Ex.A1 in the presence of Pws 1 and 2, scribe by name K.S.

Lakshmaiah. Except the above fact nothing contradictory elicited from the evidence of Pws 1 and 2. Thereby it is clear that the plaintif preliminarily discharged his burden to show that suit Ex.A1 executed by the defendant on passing of consideration.

11. Now the burden shifts on the defendant to establish, that suit Ex.A1 is a forged document and not executed by him. To discharge the burden, the defendant examined himself as Dw.1. His evidence disclosing that he is working as a constable in APSRTC Depot, Koilakuntla. He know the plaintif. He admitted that there are no disputes between himself and the plaintif.

12. The evidence of Dw.1 establishing the acquaintance between plaintif and defendant. His evidence also disclosing that there are no disputes between him and the plaintif. When such is the fact, the defendant has to explain the motive which forced the plaintif to file the suit against the defendant. No such motive attributed against the plaintif. The defendant simply pleaded, that suit Ex.A1 is a forged document. When the plaintif preliminarily discharged his burden by examining himself and attestor of Ex.A1, the defendant has to disprove the case of plaintif with clear and cogent evidence. On behalf of the defendant, only the evidence of

Dw.1 is a material to disprove the case of plaintif. As aforesaid a constable who ordinarily know the law cannot presumed as a person keep silent, though a person filed a suit against him on the basis of a promissory note, that too when the defendant pleads that it is a forged document. Here in this suit except examining himself, the defendant never took any step to determine the forgery of his signature 4 on suit Ex.A1 by any alternative mode or by sending the document to the expert.

Both the parties never taken steps to ascertain expert opinion on Ex.A1, hence to determine the issue as Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act the signatures of defendant on his vakalath, written statement, chief examination affidavit compared with the signatures of defendant on Ex.A1 and found that both are similar and written by one person. Thereby it is clear that the defendant failed to disprove the case of plaintif with a clear and cogent evidence.

13. Hence it is deduced, that on preponderance of possibilities the plaintif proved the execution of suit Ex.A1 by the defendant and the same is a true and valid document.

14. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

15. Issue No.2:-

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

16. The plaintif made the suit claim as per the terms and agreement enshrined under suit Ex.A1. As per the finding on issue No.1, when the suit Ex.A1 binds the defendants, the terms thereon also binds them. As per Section 79 of Negotiable

Instruments Act the plaintif is entitled to claim the interest @ 24% p.a.,All these shows that the plaintif is entitled for the suit claim.

17. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

18. Issue No.3:-

3. To what relief?

19. From the findings on issues 1 and 2, the suit is decreed with costs.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay the plaintif a sum of Rs.2,41,100/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 5 the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rd day of March, 2020.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS P.W.1: Meda Buddudu D.W.1:Akumalla Manohar P.W.2: B. Venkata Subba Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintif

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dated 7.3.2016.

For Defendants:

Nil

PJCJ, NDL.

1

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

Present:- Sri Shaik Baba Fakroddin,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal

Friday, 20 th day of March, 2020

O.S.No.612/2017

Vusirikayala Venkata Ramanaiah, aged 56 years, S/o V. Venkata Swamy, Hindu, Cycle Shop Owner, R/o H.No.28-413, Nunepalli, Nandyal town and mandal, Kurnool District … Plaintif

Vs

1. Yenabarla Prabhu Kumar, aged 51 years, S/o Nageshwar Rao, Sr.Assistant, Presently working at Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanti (G.N.S.S.), Division-4, Pulivendula Post & Town, Kadpaa District

2. Dakshinam Polaiah, aged 42 years, S/o Devasahayam, Sr. Assistant, Office of Executive Engineer, S.R.B.C Division No.IV, Gorukallu Division 4, Nandyal Post & Town, Kurnool District …Defendants

This suit is coming on 16.3.2020, for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.V.N. Hari Prasad Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintif, and Sri K.V. Pavan Kumar, Advocate for defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.1,75,304/- based upon the suit promissory note, dated 21.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.1,02,000/-.

2. The brief facts averred in the Plaint are that on 21.12.2014, the defendantsjointly borrowed an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- from the plaintif and on the same day, they jointly executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintif, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. The plaintif has been orally demanding the defendants, separately and jointly to repay the borrowed amount with agreed rate of interest. The defendants not paid any amount with accrued interest. The defendants are not an agriculturists, the plaintif is claiming interest at contract rate i.e., 24% p.a.

2 3.The defendant No.2 called absent, no representation and hence he was set exparte. The defendant No.1filed written statement denying the allegations in the plaint and contended that he submits that it is true that he borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,02,000/- from the plaintif on 21.12.2014 and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintif. He paid the amount to the plaintif in installments, with interest. After completion of the payment of the principal amount with interest, he requested the plaintif to return the promissory note which was executed by them. But plaintif postponed the same stating that he had misplaced the promissory note and would return after finding it. Because of misunderstandings between the plaintif and him, the plaintif filed the suit for wrongful gain. He paid the promissory note amount with interest but the plaintif filed suit for wrongful gain. There is no cause of action for the suit and therefore the Hon’ble Court may be please to dismiss the suit.

4. After filing of the written statement of the defendant this court observed

Section 89 C.P.C to settle the dispute between the parties by way of alternative dispute resolution system, but no settlement arrived, accordingly after hearing both the parties and on perusal of pleadings this court proceeded to frame the following issues for consideration during trial:-

1. Whether the defendant No.1 is discharged the debt under the suit promissory note, dated 21.12.2014 as pleaded?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the suit claim as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.To prove the above said issues on behalf of the plaintif, PW.1 examined and

Ex.A1 is marked. On behalf of defendant, Dw.1 examined and no exhibits were marked.

6.On closure of trial, the arguments of learned counsel forthe plaintif and the ar- guments of learned counsel for the defendant No.1 in summing up of the suit. The defendant No.2 remained exparte.

7.Perused the material on record.

3

8. Issue No.1 -

1. Whether the defendant No.1 is discharged the debt under the suit promissory note, dated 21.12.2014 as pleaded?

9. The defendant No.1 admitted the execution of suit Ex.A1 by both the defendants 1 and 2, the transaction under Ex.A1 also. The specific plea taken by the defendant No.1 is, that subsequently he paid the amount to the plaintif under installments with interest. After complete discharge of promissory note debt the defendant No.1 requested the plaintif to return the suit promissory note executed by him and defendant No.2 but the plaintif postponed the return of the same on a reason that it was misplaced. Because of misunderstandings suit is filed by the plaintif for wrongful gain.

10. The defendant No.1 admitted the case of the plaintif but pleading discharge and hence burden of proof initially lies upon the defendant No.1 to prove that he discharged the debt under Ex.A1.

11. In order to discharge the burden on defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 examined as Dw.1. In his chief examination affidavit, Dw.1 reiterated the written statement averments. This evidence of defendant No.1 in his chief examination never explaining when and how he discharged the suit debt to the plaintif and in whose presence he discharged the debt. Except the sole statements of the defendant, there is no documentary proof to show such discharge, deposed by

Dw.1. During his cross examination he denied the suggestions of plaintif. The evidence of Dw.1 not at all corroborated with any other witness and no documentary proof filed by the defendant to show the plea of discharge. Apart from the same the evidence of Dw.1 with regard to discharge is nothing but self serving one but not corroborated by any other oral or documentary proof. Thus it is clear that from the material on the side of defendant, the defendant could not establish that he discharged the suit promissory note debt.

12. Let us see whether defendant could gain any material from the evidence of

Pw.1. Ex.A1 was admitted by the defendant and hence evidence with regard to genuiness of Ex.A1 and the suit transaction not necessarily to be proved in view of

Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act. The plaintif who is Pw.1 reiterated the plaint 4 averments in his chief examination affidavit. During cross examination he deposed that the defendant No.1 never discharged the debt as pleaded by him. His cross examination is nothing but suggestions as pleaded by the defendant No.1 and denials of the same. There by it is clear that even from the evidence of Pw.1 also the defendant failed to secure any material to prove, that he discharged the debt under suit Ex.A1. Apart from the same the defendant No.1 pleaded a motive of misunderstandings for filing the suit by the plaintif. The defendant No.1 never explained what are those misunderstandings and when said misunderstandings arose between them. Failure of the defendant No.1 under the above probabilities clichingly establishes that the defendant No.1 failed to prove that he discharged the debt under suit Ex.A1 as pleaded.

13. Thus the issue No.1 is answered against the defendant No.1 and in favour of the plaintif.

14. Issue No.2:-

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

15. The plaintif made the suit claim as per the terms and agreement enshrined under suit Ex.A1. As per the finding on issue No.1, when the suit Ex.A1 binds the defendants, the terms thereon also binds them. As per Section 79 of Negotiable

Instruments Act the plaintif is entitled to claim the interest @ 24% p.a.,All these shows that the plaintif is entitled for the suit claim.

16. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

17. Issue No.3:-

3. To what relief?

18. From the findings on issues 1 and 2, the suit is decreed with costs.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendants to pay the plaintif a sum of Rs.1,75,304/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 5 the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,02,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS P.W.1: Vusirikayala Venkata Ramanaiah D.W.1:Yanabarla Prabhu Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintif

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dated 21.12.2014.

For Defendants:

Nil

PJCJ, NDL.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE NANDYAL

Present:-Sri Shaik Baba Fakroddin, Prl.Junior Civil Judge,Nandyal

FAC.SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: NANDYAL

Dated,this 14 th day of December,2017

Crl.M.P.3967/2016 in M.C.No.26/2015

Bachireddy Lakshmi Devi 2.B.Sreeja,d/o.Linga Reddy Maheswara Reddy

Petitioners -versus

Linga Reddy Maheswara Reddy Respondent.

This is a petition filed u/sec.125(3) Cr.P.C.for recovery of arrears of maintenance amount of Rs.70,000/- from the respondent for the period from 23.6.2015 to 23.08.2016.

This Petition. coming on this day for payment of arrears of amount in the presence of M.Rama Krishnaiah,Counsel for the Petitioner and of Sri

B.Satyanarayana , Counsel for the Respondent, the Counsel for the Petitioner filed

F.S.Memo, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

Petitioner called present. Respondent called absent. Petition filed and allowed. Respondent Counsel paid Rs.2,000/- to the Petitioner. The Petitioner counsel filed F.S.Memo and the same is recorded. Hence, the petition is closed.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,Nandyal FAC.Special Magistrate, Nandyal.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE NANDYAL

Present: Sri M.Seshanjaneyulu, B.A.B.L., Special Magistrate.

Tuesday, the 19 th day of April, 2016

M.C.14/2015

1.I.Nagamani, aged about 28 years, w/o.I.Naga Prasad, D/o.P.Chinna Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Housewife,

2. I.Dharanisree, aged about 3 years, D/o.I.Naga Prasad being minor rep. By her natural guardian mother 1st petitioner

Both are r/o.A.Kodur village Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. … Petitioners -versus-

I.Naga Prasad, S/o.Nagaiah, aged 35 years, Hindu, Employee, Shriram Insight Brokers Ltd., Senior Relationship Manager, Resident of Ramabhadrapalli village, Sanjamala Mandal,

Kurnool District. ... Respondent.

This M.C. coming on 19-04-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Chandra Mouli, Advocate for the Petitioners and Respondent did not appear before the court and having stood over for consideration till this day the

Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This M.C. is filed by the petitioners for grant of maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- per month to 1st petitioner and Rs.5,000/- to the petitioners 1 and 2 against the respondent from the date of petition i.e. 10-04-2015.

Petitioner called absent. No representation. Respondent absent. Batta not paid. Inspite of case bundle called twice in a day i.e. at 10-30 A.M. And 3-00

P.M. The petitioner did not turn up to attend the court and it appears she is nor evincing any interest to prosecute the case against the respondent. The petitioner did not turn up to attend the court from 18-12-2015. Hence the maintenance case petitio is dismissed. No costs.

Pronounced by me in open court this 19th day of April 2016.

Special Magistrate Nandyal.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE NANDYAL

Present: Sri M.Seshanjaneyulu, B.A.B.L., Special Magistrate.

Tuesday, the 9 th day of June, 2016

M.C.35/2015

1.Syed Shahida, wife of Jilani, aged about 33 years, Muslim, D/o.Syed Abdul Ajeem,

2. Syed Ibrahim, son of Jilani, aged about 5 years, Muslim, Student, Minor,

3. Syed Kumbra, D/o.Jilani, aged about 3 years, Muslim, Minor, 2 and 3 being minors, represented by their natural guardian, next friend, mother 1st petitioner.

All are r/o.H.No.28-1060-2-A2, Saibaba Nagar, Nandyal town and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Petitioners -versus-

Syed Jilani S/o.late Bashu, aged 38 years, Muslim, Business, Resident of Nandulapeta, Near Mosque, Tenali-522201

Guntur District. ... Respondent.

This M.C. coming on 09-06-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

M.Srinivasa Murthy, and Sri Y.Venkateswara Reddy, Advocates for the Petitioners and

Respondent did not appear before the court and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This M.C. is filed by the petitioners for grant of maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3(for food, clothing, shelter, medicines and education) against the respondent from the date of petition.

Petitioner called absent. No representation. Respondent absent. Batta not paid. Inspite of case bundle called twice in a day i.e. at 10-30 A.M. And 3-30 P.M. The petitioner did not turn up to attend the court and it appears she is not evincing any interest to prosecute the case against the respondent. The petitioner did not turn up to attend the court from 31-12-2015. Hence the maintenance case petitionis dismissed. No costs.

Pronounced by me in open court this 9th day of June 2016.

Special Magistrate Nandyal.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE NANDYAL

Present: Sri M.Seshanjaneyulu, B.A.B.L., Special Magistrate.

Tuesday, the 14 th day of June, 2016

M.C.25/2015

1.Midde Lakshmi Devi, W/o.Midde Venkata Narayana, D/o.Venkateswarlu aged 30 years, Housewife,

2. Midde Vinay Kumar, s/o.Midde Venkateswarlu, aged 6 years, 2nd Petitioner is minor, rep. By his natural guardian mother 1st petitioner

Both are r/o.Paramatur village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. … Petitioners -versus-

Midde Vankata Narayana, S/o.Venkataiah, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Polish Cutter, r/o.Parnapalli Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal,

Kurnool District. ... Respondent.

This M.C. coming on 25-02-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Pullanna, Advocate for the Petitioner and Respondent did not appear before the court and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This M.C. is filed by the petitioner for grant of maintenance of

Rs.20,000/- per month to 1st petitioner against the respondent from the date of petition.

Petitioner called absent. No representation. Respondent absent.

Inspite of case bundle called twice in a day i.e. at 10-30 A.M. And 3-30 P.M. the petitioner did not turn up to attend the court. It appears she is not evince any interest to prosecute the case against the respondent. The petitioner did not attend the court regularly. Hence the maintenance case petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this 14th day of June 2016.

Special Magistrate Nandyal.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE NANDYAL

Present: Sri M.Seshanjaneyulu, B.A.B.L., Special Magistrate.

Tuesday, the 25 th day of February, 2016

M.C.34/2015

Molakala Subba Lakshamma, aged about 55 years, w/o.Pedda Maddilety, Hindu, Housewife, r/o.D.No.28-1060-7G-B3, Saibaba Nagar, Nandyal Town and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Petitioners -versus-

Molakala Maddilety, S/o.Pedda Maddilety, aged about 62 years, Hindu, retired employee, r/o.Gunthakandala Village of Atmakur Mandal,

Kurnool District. ... Respondent.

This M.C. coming on 25-02-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Chandra Mouli,, Advocate for the Petitioners and Respondent did not appear before the court and having stood over for consideration till this day the

Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This M.C. is filed by the petitioner for grant of maintenance of

Rs.4,000/- per month to 1st the petitioner and Rs.4,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner against the respondent from the date of petition.

Petitioner called absent. Respondent absent. Petitioner counsel endorsed in the petition that he not pressed the Maintenance case petition. The petitioner did not attend the court from 26-10-2015. Hence the maintenance petition is dismissed. No costs.

Pronounced by me in open court this 25th day of February 2016.

Special Magistrate Nandyal.