OS.No.241 of 2023 1 Dt.08.05.2026
APGU100002722023
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :
MANGALAGIRI
PRESENT: KALIVE SURESH BABU
Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri
Friday, this the 8 th day of May, 2026.
Original Suit No.241 of 2023
Between :
Tadiboina Venkateswara Rao, S/o Appaiah, 44 yeas, R/o Kuragallu village, Mangalagiri Mandal,
Guntur District. ….. Plaintiff
AND
Vangara Jagadeeswara Rao, S/o Mallikharjuna Rao, 53 years, R/o D.No.8-1, Rajiv Centre, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. Working as Superintendent, Teaching Establishment Department section, Acharya Nagarjuna University (ANU), Nagarjuna Nagar, Namburu village, Pedakakani Mandal,
Guntur District.….. Defendant
This suit is coming on 30.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.Sivaram Prasad - Learned counsel for the plaintiff and of
Sri D.Kishore Kumar - Learned counsel for the defendant, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, upon hearing the
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 2 Dt.08.05.2026
arguments canvassed on both sides, and matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-
// J U D G E M E N T //
SUIT for recovery of Rs.7,62,650/- (Rupees Seven lakh Sixty Two
Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only) being the principal and interest due on a foot of promissory note dated 10.05.2020 for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) and for costs.
02.
The essence of the plaint, is as follows:-
Defendant herein having borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 10.05.2020 to meet his family expenses and got executed a promissory note on the even date in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. After persistent demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant had issued a cheque bearing No.811456, dt.01.06.2022 drawn on State Bank of India, Nagarjuna
Nagar Campus Branch, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur in favour of plaintiff at his house in Kuragallu village, but the said cheque was dishonured. The plaintiff had got issued legal notice dated 20.06.2022 and defendant gave a reply notice
dated 06.07.2022 with false and frivolous allegations. The plaintiff also got
issued rejoinder notice dt.15.07.2022. Plaintiff also filed a complaint under NI
Act in S.T.C.No. 89/2022 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 3 Dt.08.05.2026
First class cum - Additional Civil Judge (junior Division), Mangalagiri and same
has been pending. Hence the suit.
03.
The defendant had filed written statement by refuting each and every allegations of the plaintiff in the plaint and contended interalia there are employees union differences in between defendant and one Tadiboina
Neelakanteswara Rao, clerk (daily wage employee) working in Department of
Environmental Science, Acharya Nagarjuna University.The said
Neelakanteswara Rao is running private finance business. One M.Sukanya,
Clerk ( daily wage employee), Department of Engineering College, Acharya
Nagarjuna University having borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakhs only) from Neelakanteswara Rao in the year 2016, at that time, towards security, on the request of said Sukanya, defendant had issued one empty signed promissory note and empty signed cheque drawn on State Bank of India,
Nagarjuna Varsity branch to Neelakanteswara Rao along with Sukanya who gave empty signed promissory note and empty signed cheque as defendant is working as permanent employee in the University.
(ii)The said Sukanya had paid total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest in the year 2000 and asked him to return empty signed promissory note and cheque and also empty signed promissory note and empty signed cheque belonged to defendant but Neelakanteswara Rao gave reply that they were misplaced and would return as and when traced out and same was informed to defendant by Sukanya. Two days thereafter, defendant had also questioned
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 4 Dt.08.05.2026
Neelakanteswara Rao about his empty signed promissory note and empty signed cheque but Neelakanteswara Rao gave same reply. After receipt of notice got issued by plaintiff, defendant became astonished and came to conclusion that taking advantage of empty signed promissory note and empty signed cheque, Neelakanteswara Rao might have colluded with plaintiff, fabricated empty signed promissory note and empty signed cheque. Defendant is no way concerned about debt. Defendant had never borrowed any amount, no consideration amount was passed under alleged promissory note dated 10.05.2020 and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
04.
On the strength of aforesaid pleadings, following issues have been settled for trial :-
1)Whether the suit promissory note, dated 10.05.2020 for Rs.4,00,000/- is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit promissory note amount from the defendant as prayed for ?
3)To what relief?
05.
During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. Gairuboina Anjaneyulu, 1st attestor of Ex.A1 was examined as PW2 and no document was marked through him. On behalf of defendant, himself was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B5. One
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 5 Dt.08.05.2026
Mandapati Sukanya was summoned as DW2 and no document was marked through her.
06. Heard both sides.
07. ISSUE No. 1:-
Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deal with the presumptions as to negotiable instruments. One of such presumptions is "that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration."
This presumption is based upon a principle and is not a mere technical provision. The principle incorporated being, inferring of a presumption of consideration in the case of a negotiable instrument. A Full Bench of the Hon’ble
Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Vasu Vs. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri reported in AIR 1987 Andhra Pradesh, held that, "presumption, therefore, as to consideration is the very ingredient of negotiability and in the case of negotiable instrument, presumption as to consideration has to be made."
08.
The presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 6 Dt.08.05.2026
illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. In such an event the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant failed to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour. When initial burden is discharged by the Plaintiff, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that promissory note is not supported by valid consideration. It is for the Defendant to rebut the presumption by establishing that he did not receive consideration by direct evidence or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities.
09.
Since the defendant has denied the very execution of Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintiff, the initial burden to prove that the defendant on borrowing Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four lakhs only) on 10.05.2020 from the plaintiff had executed Ex.A1, is on the plaintiff. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined as PW1 by filing chief examination affidavit in lieu of chief examination reiterating the averments made in the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 7 Dt.08.05.2026
10.
During the cross examination, PW1 has categorically testified that he possesses Ac.2.00 land, cultivating by taking lease of Ac.15.00 cents land, getting income of Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- per annum on agriculture, he lent Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs only) to defendant under Ex.A1 on 10.05.2020 at his house in Kuragallu village, at the time of transaction, himself,
Pallapothula Bala Saraswathi Nagaraju/PBS Naga Raju, Gairuboina Anjaneyulu,
Gairuboina Venkateswara Rao who are residents of Bethapudi and Kuragallu village respectively were present, Ex.A1 transaction took place in between 6.00 to 6.30 p.m, at that time there was Corona, he gave Rs.100/- denomination for
Rs.1,00,0000/-, Rs.500/- denomination for Rs.3,00,000/- being sale proceeds of crop.
11.
PW1 has further testified that in the month of February 2020, defendant had requested him to lend amount, Ex.A1 promissory note was filled with three pens, defendant used blue ink pen, subscribed two signatures ie., one on the stamp and another underneath the stamp. PW1 has pleaded ignorance about M.Sukanya working in Nagarjuna University and her borrowing of
Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) from Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao.
According to PW1, defendant is working as an employee in Nagarjuna University but he does not know his designation. PW1 has denied the suggestion that one
Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao who is his relative, working in Nagarjuna
University, by fabricating cheque belonged to defendant, filed CC No.568/2023 on the file of Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mangalagiri ie., NI
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 8 Dt.08.05.2026
Act case against him, Gairuboina Venkateswara Rao and scribe of Ex.A1 are his men, filled empty signed promissory notes of defendant and filed this suit.
12.
PW1 has pleaded ignorance, M.Sukanya who is University employee, borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from Neelakanteswara Rao, at that time he took three empty signed promissory notes and three empty signed cheques of defendantfor the amount borrowed by her towards security purpose and also obtained signature of Sukanya. According to PW1, he gave rejoinder notice to reply notice and he pleaded ignorance about Srikanth of Mangalagiri.
13. PW2 ,Gairuboina Anjaneyulu, 1st attestor of Ex.A1 has filed chief examination affidavit in lieu of chief examination and same is in consonance with evidence of PW1. Coming to cross examination, PW2 has categorically testified that he knows the defendant for the last 8 or 9 years, defendant is an employee in Acharya Nagarjuna University as a Superintendent, he was scribe
Ex.A1 promissory note dated 10.05.2020 at Kuragallu village, he was brought by defendant for drafting Ex.A1, defendant came to his village/ Bethapudi at about 5.30 or 6.00 pm, from there, he and defendant went to Kuragallu village and they also called Nagaraju to the house of plaintiff.
14.
PW2 has further testified that he acted as 1st attestor of Ex.A1, one
Gairuboina Venkateswarlu was acted as 2nd attestor, he put his signature in
Telugu whereas, 2nd attestor subscribed his signature in English, scribe had put his signature with initial " P” in English and name in Telugu. According to PW2,
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 9 Dt.08.05.2026
defendant had subscribed his signature in English, plaintiff is an agriculturist, has Ac. 2.00 or 3.00 acres of land, also do cultivation on lease in and around
Parimi village.
15.
On the other hand, defendant got examined as DW1 and he had filed his chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the entire written statement averments and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B5. During cross examination, DW1 has categorically admitted that the signature shown to him on Ex.A1 is that of himself, plaintiff also filed cheque bounce case and he has no documentary proof to show that Sukanya had paid total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and interest thereon in the year 2020. DW1 had pleaded ignorance why produced Ex.B3 into the court, he does not know
Danaboina Naga Maheswara Rao and Tadiboina Venkateswara Rao, Tadiboina
Neelakanteswara Rao and his department are separate and no way concerned and so also Department of Sukanya and his Department are no way concerned.
DW1 has categorically admitted that he did not issue any notice to Tadiboina
Neelakanteswara Rao to return promissory note or lodged any police report.
16.
As can be seen from the record, defendant had filed IA 123/2026
U/o 16 R 5 to summon one Smt Mandapati Sukanya, Clerk, Hindi Department,
Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Namburu and said petition was allowed on 11.02.2026 as counsel for plaintiff had reported no counter.
17.
According to DW2/Mandapati Suknya, defendant was her husband as she got divorce, remarried one Pacha Rama Krishna, resident of Khammam,
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 10 Dt.08.05.2026
Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao is working in Environmental Studies
Department, Nagarjuna University, in the year 2016 she had borrowed
Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) from Neelakanteswara Rao, in the year 2020 she had discharged the entire amount with accrued interest, there are some interest due, at the time of borrowing, Neelakanteswara Rao had obtained three empty signed cheques of State Bank of India, University Branch towards security and also obtained three empty signed cheques belonged to defendant and also obtained one empty signed promissory note from her and also from defendant.
18.
DW2 has further testified that at the time of discharging amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- with interest there on in the year 2002, Neelakanteswra Rao had told her that unless entire interest is paid three empty signed cheques and empty signed promissory of herself and defendant could not be returned, on two or three times, she had requested Neelakanteswara Rao for return of cheques and promissory notes, but he replied that they were misplaced, in the year 2021 or 2022 she was told by Neelakanteswara Rao cheques and promissory notes could not be traced out, in the year 2022 or 2023 two cheques were filled and two cheques belonged to defendant through someone and same were bounced.
19.
Coming to cross examination, DW2 has testified that she does not remember numbers of those three cheques, she had no animosity with
Neelakanteswara Rao prior to 2016, as Neelakanteswara Rao got involved union members for discharge of debt, disputes arose in between them in the
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 11 Dt.08.05.2026
year 2020. According to DW2, defendant had no financial dealings with anyone as he had no necessity, she did not issue any legal notice or lodged any police report against Neelakanteswara Rao for not returning empty signed cheques or misused cheques. According to DW2, Danaboina Naga Maheswara Rao has filed suit in O.S No.391/2023 on the file of this court, she did not aver in the written statement she went to Pedakakani police station and gave report to police.
20.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff while advancing arguments as strenuously contended that once signature on Ex.A1 promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable and defendant can prove the non-existence of consideration by raising a probable defence. No piece of document is filed into the court to show that DW2 had borrowed an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao in the year 2016, she had discharged entire amount with interest in the year 2020, at the time of borrowing amount, defendant gave three empty signed cheques and three empty signed promissory notes belonged to him towards security on behalf of Sukanya as defendant is a permanent employee of University. Had the version of defendant is true and believed, what prevented the defendant to issue any notice to
Neelakanteswara Rao to return promissory note or lodged any police report.
Furthermore, defendant had failed to discharge the burden lies on him and failed
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 12 Dt.08.05.2026
to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the plaintiff under Section 118 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act and prayed to decree the suit accordingly.
21.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant while advancing arguments vehemently contended that defendant by examining himself as DW1, by summoning Mandapati Sukanya as DW2 coupled with Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 could dispel the presumptions drawn in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant had rebutted the presumption drawn in favour of plaintiff by cogent and convincing evidence and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
22.
In this back drop of the rival contention, this court has given anxious consideration to the materials available on record and the arguments canvased by both counsel.
23 .
It is apposite to refer the decision in Bharat Barrel & Drum
Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 35, the Apex Court held thus:
"... ... ... The burden upon the defendant of proving the non- existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well ... ... …".
24.
It is also apposite to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Anss Rajshekar Vs. Augustus Jeba Ananth reported in (2020) 15 SCC 348
and has held that mere denial of transaction or an omnibus denial of the entire
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 13 Dt.08.05.2026
transaction could not be considered as a tenable defence and cannot be said as sufficient rebuttal evidence to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 2.
25.
It is an established fact that mandatory requirements of promissory note includes details of the promisor, the promisee, the amount of loan executed, the date and the place where the promissory note was executed and the signatures of the promisee and these are all the conditions fulfilled by the promissory note at hand, as exhibited as Ex.A1. Moreover, Section 91 of the
Indian Evidence Act 1872 (hereinafter referred to as, IEA) deals with the documents which are reduced into writing. Section 91 IEA is read with Section 92
IEA while appreciating a written document, which has been brought on record in this case.
26.
It is apposite to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roop
Kumar vs Mohan Thedani reported in (2003) 6 SCC 595 quoted with approval in V Anantha Raju vs T.M. Rarasimhan (Civil Appeal no 6469 of 2021 dated 26.10.2021 has held that:
"Section 91 and 92 Evidence Act would apply only when the document on the face of it contains or appears to contain all the terms of the contract. It has been held that after the document has been placed to prove the terms under Section 91, the provisions of
Section 92 comes into operation for the purpose of excluding evidence of any oral agreement or statement for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding or subtracting from its terms."
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 14 Dt.08.05.2026
27.
As can be seen from the material available on record, prior to filing the suit, plaintiff had got issued Ex.A2 legal notice dated 20.06.2022 to the defendant and the same is reproduced hereunder :
“That in order to meet your family expenses, you have borrowed amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) on 10.05.2020 from my client, and in evidence thereof on the same day you have executed demand promissory note in favour of my client agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% р.а. and you are liable to pay the said debts due to my client under the aforesaid promissory notes with interest at the contract rate.
Subsequently on demands by my client for repayment of the debt due under the aforesaid promissory note, you have issued cheque No.811456 dt.01.06.2022 for Rs.4,00,000/-In favour of my client drawn on State Bank of India, Nagarjuna
University Campus Branch, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur by making my client to believe that the said cheque would be
honoured and that the same can be adjusted towards part
payment of the debt due to my client under the said promissory note, Accordingly on 15.06.2022 my client presented the said cheque with his banker State Bank of India, Mangalagiri
Branch for collection and realization of the cheque amount but the same was dishonoured and returned vide Memo dt.
15.06.2022 issued by the Banker of my client for the reason "Funds Insufficient."
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 15 Dt.08.05.2026
Thus, it is evident that knowing fully well that my client will present the cheque for realization of the cheque amount you have falled to arrange the amount in the account for honouring the cheque and thereby got the cheque dishonoured and thus you have committed-the offence under Secs. 138 and 142 of the N.I.Act.
Therefore, you are hereby called upon to make good the loss to my client by making payment of Rs.4,00,000/- being the amount covered by cheque above within FIFTEEN DAYS from the date of the receipt of this notice falling which my client will be constrained to file a complaint against you in a court of law for the offence under Secs 138 and 142 of the N.1.Act, for which you will be held liable for costs and consequences:
28.
In reply to Ex.A2 legal notice, defendant got issued Ex.B1 reply notice dated 06.02.2022 and same is reproduced hereunder:
My client informs me to inform you that there are employees union differences between our client and
Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao who is working as clerk ( daily wage employee in department of
Environmental science in Acharya Nagarjuna University the said Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao is running private finance business. One M.Sukanya who is also clerk (daily wage employee) in department of
Engineering college in Acharya Nagarjuna University was borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2016 from the said Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao.
At the time of lending money on demand for the surety
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 16 Dt.08.05.2026
of Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao and on request of
M.Sukanya our client issued one empty signed
promissory note and empty cheque of State of
Bank of India, Nagarjuna University to the said
Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao as surety along
with M.Sukanya’s empty signed promissory note,
because our client is working permanent employee in
Acharya Nagarjuna University.
Our client informs us to inform you that the said
M. Sukanya paid the total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest in the year 2020 and asked about her empty signed promissory note and also empty signed cheque, but the said Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao replied that those are misplaced whenever he found the same he will return, believing his wards the said M.
Sukanya informed the same to our client. After two
days, out client also questioned about his empty
signed promissory note and empty signed blank
cheque for which the said Tadiboina
Neelakanteswara Rao replied that they are
misplaced and he has been making hectic efforts to
find out them. The said Tadiboina Neelakanteswara
Rao further assured that the said empty signed
promissory note and empty signed cheque will be
hand over to our client, when the said above empty
signed promissory note and empty signed cheque
traced out, but our client him frequently the said
Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao postponed the same one pretext or the other. Finally, after receiving your
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 17 Dt.08.05.2026
notice our client shocked and came to a conclusion that
by taking advantage of above said empty signed
promissory note and empty signed cheque the said
Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao has might colluded
with your client and fabricated the above said empty
signed promissory note and empty signed cheque
due to the differences between our client and
Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao, in that process your client co-operated to the said Tadiboina
Neelakanteswara Rao and might fabricated and created these promissory note and cheque in his favour. Our client has no way concerned about the above said notice. My client has no way responsible to your notice.
My client is never liable to your client.
29.
In reply to Ex.B1 reply notice, plaintiff got issued Ex.A3 rejoinder notice dated 15.07.2022 and same is reproduced hereunder:
“Under the instructions of my client Tadiboyina
Venkateswara Rao S/o. Appalah resident of Kuragallau village,
Mangalagiri Guntur Dist., I give you the following rejoinder notice to your reply notice dt.06.07.2022 issued S/o.
Mallikharjuna Rao of Mangalagiri town for the notice dt.
20.06.2022 to my client under the instructions of your client
Vangara Jagadeswara Rao Issued to your client under the instructions of my client;
The averments in the reply notice that all the allegations and claims in the notice dt. 20.06.2022; are all false, invented and concocted for the purpose of unlawful gain to my client and for unlawful loss to your client; are incorrect.
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 18 Dt.08.05.2026
The averments in the reply notice that your client never borrowed any amount from my client; that your client has no necessity to borrow such a huge amount; that your client never executed promissory notice dt.10.05.2020 in favour my client for Rs.4,00,000/-; that your client do not know the face of my client; that as your client do not know the face of my client borrowing such a huge amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- from my client and also issued a cheque bearing No.811456 dt.01.06202 for
Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of my client does not arise; that your client never issued any cheque of State Bank of India
Nagarjuna University Branch on the date of 01.06.2022 to my client; are all false, invented and concocted for the purpose of your reply notice and your client is put strict proof of the same.
The other averments in the reply notice that there are employee's union differences between your client and one
Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao, who is working as clerk in department of Environmental Science in Acharya Nagarjuna
University that the said Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao is running private finance business that one M.Sukanya who is also clerk in department of Engineering college in Acharya
Nagarjuna University was borrowed an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2016 from the said Tadiboyina
Neelakanteswara Rao; that at the time of lending money on demand for the surety of the Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao and on request of M.Sukanya your client issued empty signed promissory note and empty signed cheque of State Bank of
India, Nagarjuna University Branch to the said Taiboyina
Neelakanteswara Rao as surety along with M.Sukanya's empty signed promissory note, because your client is working
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 19 Dt.08.05.2026
permanent are all false, invented and concocted for the purpose of your reply notice and your client is put strict employee in Acharya Nagarjunamversity: proof of the same.
The other averments in the reply notice that the said
Sukanya paid the total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest in the year 2020 and asked about her empty signed promissory note and also your client's empty Tadiboyina
Neelakanteswara Rao replied that those are misplaced whenever signed promissory note and also empty signed cheque, but the said he found the same he will return, believing his wards the said M.Sukanya informed the same to your client:
that after days your client also questioned about his empty signed promissory note and empty signed blank cheque for which the said Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao replied that they are misplaced and he has been making hectic efforts to find out them; that the said Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao further assured that the said above empty signed promissory note and empty signed cheque will be hand over to your client; that when the said above empty signed promissory note and empty signed cheque traced out; that your client questioned him frequently, the said Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao postponed the same one pretext or other, finally, after receiving the notice your client shocked and came to a conclusion that by taking advantage of above said empty signed promissory note and empty signed cheque the said Tadiboyina
Neelakanteswara Rao has might colluded with my client and fabricated the above said empty signed promissory note and empty signed cheque due to the differences between my client and Tadiboyina Neelakateswara Rao; that in that process my
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 20 Dt.08.05.2026
client cooperated to the said Neelakanteswara Rao and might have fabricated and created this promissory note and cheque in his favour; that your client has no way concerned about the notice and he has no way responsible to the notice and your client is never liable to my client; are all false, invented and concocted for the purpose of your reply notice and your client is put strict proof of the same.
In this connect my client informs us to inform you that except introducing your client at the time of advancing the amount by my client to your client and being present at the time of execution of the promissory note in favour of my client by your client, the notice mentioned Neelakanteswara Rao has no role to play in the transactions transpired between my client and your client. My client is no way concerned with the notice mentioned transactions of notice mentioned M. Sukanya borrowing the amounts and the said Sukanya and your client executing the notice mentioned blank signed promissory notes and cheques and handing over the same to the said
Neelakanteswara Rao. My client is also no way concerned to the employees union differences or differences between your client and the said Neelakanteswara Rao.
It appears that with a view to avoid and deny the payment of the debt due to my client under the promissory note and the cheque amount your client has come up cock and bull stories. By this rejoinder notice my client affirms and confirms that all the contentions and claims made in the legal notice dt. 20.06.2022 as true and correct and that your client is liable to comply for the claims made in the said notice.
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 21 Dt.08.05.2026
Therefore you may advise your client to be fair and transparent in his deals and dealings with my client in so far as the notice mentioned promissory note and cheque amounts are concerned and to pay the amounts as claimed in the notice failing which my client will proceed with initiating legal actions against your client.”
30.
In reply to Ex.A3 rejoinder notice, defendant had got issued Ex.B2 reply notice dated 01.08.2022 and same is reproduced hereunder :
Under the instructions of our client Vangara
Jagadeswara Rao. 5/0. Mallikarjuna Rao, R/o. Mangalagiri
Town and Mandal, Guntur Dist., we give you following reply notice to your reply notice dt.15.07.2022 got issued on behalf of your client Sri. Tadiboyina Venkateswara Rao, Sio. Appaiah,
R/o. Kuragallu Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District that:
All the allegations and claims made in your notice dt.
15.07.2022 are all false. invented and concocted for the purpose of unlawful gain for your client and for unlawful loss to our client and put strict proof of the same.
In reply to para 3 in page 2 of your notice our client informs us to inform you that our client never borrowed any amount from your client. Our client do not know the face of your client, as our client do not know the face of your client borrowing such a huge amount of Rs 4,00,000/- from your client on 10.05.2020 and also issued a cheque bearing no 811456 d1.01- 06-2022 for Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of your client does not arise. Our Client never issued any cheque of State Bank of
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 22 Dt.08.05.2026
India, Nagarjuna University branch on the date 01.06.2022 to your client. Taking advantage of empty signed promissory
note and empty signed cheque of our client has given to
one Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao which was given for
security to M. Sukanya. The said Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara
Rao has might colluded with your client and fabricated the above said empty singed promissory note and empty signed cheque which were given as security due to the differences between our client and Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao In that process your client colluded and cooperated to the said
Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao and, might fabricated and created these promissory note and cheque in his favour. Our client has no way concern about the above said notice. My client has no way responsible to your notice. My client is never liable to your client. There is no need of role of Tadiboyina
Neelakanteswara Rao to play in the transactions transpired between your client and our client, because he is the master and litigant behind all these Originally there is no transaction between our client and your client.
Due to typographical mistake the word "surety" was typed instead of "security" in the notice issued to you on 06.07.2022.
therefore I request you to read where ever the word "surety" as "security"
Hence, once again we request you to kindly advice your client to with draw the notice dt.20.06.2022 issued to our client through you and there by drop all actions that were mentioned in your notice. Even after your best advice, your client proceed with his malafide intentions as per the notice issued through
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 23 Dt.08.05.2026
you, my client will resists the same at any cost and your client is liable for costs and consequences there to”.
31.
Ex.B3 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.391/2023 on the file of this court filed by Danoboina Naga Maheswra Rao against Mandapati @
Vangara Sukanya/DW2. From Ex.B3 would goes to show that one Danoboina
Naga Maheswara Rao had filed suit for recovery of Rs.9,51,795/- on the foot of a promissory note dated 13.09.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by DW2 and also issued a cheque bearing No.372361 dated 05.07.2022 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Nagarjuna Univerisity branch, Nagarjuna Branch, the said cheque was dishonoured and the said Maheswara Rao also filed STC 1150/2023 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.
32.
Ex.B4 is the Certified copy of written statement in O.S
No.391/2023 on the file of this court filed by DW2 wherein DW2 took defence at para-6 of Ex.B4 that “ there were some disputes in between defendant and one
Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao who is running a private business. In the year 2016, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from said Tadiboyina
Neelakanteswar Rao. At that time, on demand of said Tadiboyina
Neelakanteswara Rao,the defendant issued a blank signed promissory note
and a blank signed cheque to him. Besides that at the request of this
defendant, one Vangara Jagdeeswara Rao who is permanent employee of
the Nagarjuna University also issued a blank signed pronote and blank
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 24 Dt.08.05.2026
signed cheques towards security of the amount borrowed by the plaintif f.
Later in the year 2020, the defendant discharged the said debt Tadiboina
Neelakanteswara Rao and asked to return her signed blank pronote and blank signed cheque as well the blank signed pronote and blank signed cheque of
Vangara Jagadeeswara Rao which were handed over to Tadiboyina
Neelakanteswara Rao towards security of loan borrowed by the defendant for which Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao informed that said blank signed pronotes and cheques were misplaced and whenever he found the same he will return to the defendant. Believing his words the defendant informed the same he will return to the defendant. Believing his words the defendant informed the same to
Vangara Jagadeeswara Rao. When said Vangara Jagadeeswara Rao questioned about the same, said Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao replied that blank signed pronotes and blank signed cheques of defendant as well as
Vangara Jagadeeswara Rao were misplaced and he will return the same whenever the same was traced out. Contra to said assurance and as the defendant regularly demanding Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao for blank signed pronotes and blank signed cheques, he has been postponing the same on one pretext or other and got issued legal notice in the name of plaintiff to Vangara
Jagadeeswara Rao by colluding with him in order to gain unlawfully. Thereafter, in the same process, said Tadiboyina Neelakanteswara Rao got sent legal notice dt.16.07.2022 to this defendant. On receiving the said notice, the defendant got
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 25 Dt.08.05.2026
issued a reply notice dt.01.08.2022 to the advocate of the plaintiff with true facts with a request to withdraw said notice”.
33.
Ex.B5 is the certified copy of complaint under NI Act dt.25-08-2022 filed against Mandapati @ Vangara Sukanya / DW2 by Danaboinda Naga
Maheswara Rao. DW1 during cross examination has categorically admitted that he does not know Danaboina Naga Maheswara Rao who filed OS.No.391/2023 on the file of this court against DW2 and he does not know why he produced
Ex.B3 into the court.
34.
It is pleaded by defendant at Para No.5 of written statement that there are differences in between employees union of defendant and one
Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao working as clerk (daily wage employee) in
Department of Environmental Science, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Tadiboina
Neelakanteswara Rao used to run private finance business, one M. Sukanya, clerk (daily wage employee), Department of Engineering College, Acharya
Nagarjuna University, had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) in the year 2016 from the said Neelakanteswara Rao,at that time, on his demand, on the request of Sukanya, defendant had issued one empty signed promissory note, empty signed cheque of State Bank of India, Nararjuna
University Branch, to Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao towards security along with empty signed promissory note and cheque of Sukanya as defendant is permanent employee. Contrary to his own pleadings and also contended in
Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, it was suggested to PW1 during cross examination “M.
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 26 Dt.08.05.2026
Sukanya had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao, towards security purpose Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao took three empty signed promissory notes and three empty signed cheques of defendant for the amount borrowed by Sukanya and also obtained signature of said Sukanya”.
35.
Contrary to the suggestion put to PW1, DW2 Mandapati Sukanya who is none other than divorced wife of defendant, has testified that “at the time of borrowing amount in the year 2016, Tadiboina Neelakanteswara Rao had obtained three empty signed cheques of State Bank of India, University Branch towards security and also obtained three empty signed cheques belonged to defendant. Witness again says, apart from cheques, Neelakanteswara Rao also obtained one empty signed promissory note from me and defendant as well”.
36.
In view of foregoing discussion, evidence of DW1 and DW2 are contrary to each other and also contrary to Ex.B1, Ex.B2 and Ex.B4. The evidence of DW1 and DW2 are riddled with number of contradictions and also contrary to their own pleadings.
37.
Thus, from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 to
Ex.A3, the factum of lending amount under Ex.A1 stands established. Once execution is proved, presumption arises under Section 118 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Burden lies upon the defendant to rebut the presumption. On the other hand, defendant had failed to rebut the presumption U/s.118 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and failed to prove his case.
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 27 Dt.08.05.2026
38.
From the unshaken evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with
Ex.A1, the plaintiff has clinchingly established that Ex.A1 suit Promissory note dt.10-05-2020 was executed by defendant in his favour and supported by consideration. Defendant has failed to discharge the burden lies on him.
Therefore, this court holds that Ex.A1 and Promissory note dated 10.05.2020 for
Rs.4,00,000/- is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
39. ISSUE NO.2 :
In view of my findings in issue No.1 that suit Promissory note under Ex.A1 dt.10-05-2020 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and duly executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff, plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs. 7,62,650/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand Two Hundred and
Eighty One only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only).
This issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
40. ISSUE NO.3 :
IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs, against the defendant, for suit amount of Rs.7,62,650/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Two thousand and Six Fifty only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a.
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 28 Dt.08.05.2026
till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only).
Typed to my dictation by the Bench Typist inpart, typed some part in personal Laptop, corrected, digitally signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 8 th day of May, 2026.
Digitally signed by Kalive Suresh Babu
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),
MANGALAGIRI.
//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiff : PW1 : Tadiboina Venkateswara Rao.
PW2 : Gairuboina Anjaneyulu
For Defendants: DW1 : Vangara Jagadeeswara Rao
DW2 : Mandapati Sukanya
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiff:
Ex.A1 : Promissory note dt.10-05-2020 for Rs.4,00,000/- got executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.
Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dt.20-06-2022 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Ex.A3 : Office copy of the rejoinder notice dt.15-07-2022.
For Defendant: Ex.B1 : Office copy of reply notice dt.06-07-2022 got issued by me to the notice dt.20-06-2022 ie., Ex.A2 (along with postal receipt).
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI
OS.No.241 of 2023 29 Dt.08.05.2026
Ex.B2 : Reply notice dt.01-08-2022 got issued by me to the reply notice dt.15-07-2022 ie., Ex.A3 (along with postal receipt).
Ex.B3 : Certified copy of plaint in OS.No.391/2023 on the file of this court filed by Danaboina Naga Maheswara Rao against Mandapati alias Vangara Sukanya.
Ex.B4 : Certified copy of Written statement in OS.No.391/2023.
Ex.B5 : Certified copy of complaint in CC.101/2024 on the file of Learned
AJFCM-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri filed by
Danaboina Naga Maheswara Rao against Mandapati alias
Vangara Sukanya.
Digitally Signed by Kalive Suresh Babu
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)
MANGALAGIRI.
Digitally Signed by
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Date: 2026.05.08 15:54:44 +0530
KALIVE SURESHBABU
Reason: JUDGEMENT Location: MANGALAGIRI